Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/19/2006 R October 19,2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 19, 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 Collier County Development Service Center, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 610, 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: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Don Scott, Transportation Planning Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 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 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 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 7,2006, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 26, 2006, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: RZ-2005-AR-8427, Polly Ave, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Multi-Family 12 (RMF-12) zoning district with a density of 7 dwelling units per acre that would allow 61 multi-family dwelling units. The petitioner is requesting the higher density based on the residential infill provision of the Growth Management Plan, Future Land Use Element Density Rating System. The subject property consists of 8.68 acres for project known as Manu's Rezone. The subject property is located off of Rattlesnake- Hammock Road on Polly Avenue, Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) CONTINUED FROM 10/5/06 1 B. Petition PUDZ-2003-AR-4988, Waterways Joint Venture V, represented by Dwight H. Nadeau, of RW A, Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) [which was originally approved as the Outdoor Resorts PUD] and Rural Agricultural (A), to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for a project to be known as Summit Lakes RPUD, to allow development of a maximum of 968 dwelling single-family attached or detached units, and associated recreation areas that may include, but not be limited to, a clubhouse tennis courts and swimming pools. Access to the property will be from Immokalee Road (County Road 846). The property is located approximately 1fz mile east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and Immokalee Road (C.R. 846). The property is in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and consists of 138.3::1: acres (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) CONTINUED FROM 10/5/06 C. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8147, 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 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. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) CONTINUED FROM 10/5/06 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS - Proportionate Fair-Share Ordinance and Transportation Concurrency Management System- Coordinator: Phil Tindall, Transportation Planning 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 10-19-06 cepe AgendalRB/sp 2 October 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will everybody come to attention. We're going to please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. This meeting will come to order. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And good morning. Welcome to the October 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Item #2 ROLL CALL We will start by the roll call by the secretary. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, thanks to Mr. Tuff we have a full complement here today. Page 2 October 19,2006 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Addenda to the agenda. Are there any changes to our agenda? Anybody have any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None? Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. I think our next meeting, Ray, is it the November 2nd meeting because everything in between is not happening, or -- MR. BELLOWS: On the calendar that I have, the next meeting would be November 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody -- anybody think they're going to be absent on the 2nd? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Oh, yes, it will be here again. The Value Adjustment Board will be going on November 2nd, so we will be meeting in this room again on that date. Item #5 MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 7,2006 CCPC REGULAR MEETING Approval of the minutes from September 7th. Has everybody reviewed the minutes? Page 3 October 19,2006 Is there a recommendation to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. All those favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) Item #6 BCC-REPORTS-RECAPS OCTOBER 10,2006 REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On October 10th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the Snowy Egret Commercial PUD. That was approved by a 5-0 vote. And the amendment to the Windstar PUD was continued to the December 12th meeting. Item #7 Page 4 October 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Under the Chairman's report, I just have one announcement that I was just told about. As you know, we've all met on the stormwater and wetland and preserves issue repeatedly for the Land Development Code amendment. I don't know how many meetings we had, how many hours we went through and still no compromise. Apparently yesterday or Wednesday of this week there was an attempt to have the parties come together and try to find a compromise that was reasonable. That did not happen. And as a result, I'm understanding this morning, and maybe Mr. Klatzkow can certainly verify for the record, that this particular LDC amendment has been pulled. So that issue will not be discussed on November 2nd. It will not be on the agenda. MR. KLATZKOW: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is correct? Thank you. Will we need to conclude the meeting at that date, or is it by having it pulled it's -- no longer needs to be officially concluded? MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Well, I hope that what has happened provides the opportunity to bring it back in a better format and a more compromising format by the next LDC cycle or whatever one they want to go to. And with the noise that I just heard, I would appreciate it if anybody that has a cell phone would just turn them either to vibrate or off, that would be helpful. With that, we will move into our advertised public hearings. Item #8A Page 5 October 19,2006 PETITION: RZ-2005-AR-8427 RZ-2005-AR-8427. It's the Polly Avenue LLC on Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Polly Avenue. Would all those wishing to testify or to speak and for this petition, please stand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Okay, hearing none -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I attended the neighborhood information meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we missing a mic, by the way? Yeah, we are. Okay, we're missing one mic. So if sometime during a break or somebody has a way to wire one up, it might be helpful for the end of the table. COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, I think we just need to move them down. I think there's an extra one down there, right? Oh, no, that's Bob's -- there's one missing. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There's only eight of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there is an extra one at some point, Kady'd know. Tor, you'll have to scream into the one next to you. Okay, the applicant can proceed. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering. I'm representing the property owner and applicant Polly Avenue, LLC, who's requesting a rezone of8.68 acres of land from agriculture to RMF -12 with a density cap of seven units per acre. As you know, this petition was continued from your October 5th agenda due to incomplete packages being provided to members of the Page 6 October 19,2006 CCPC. Staff has since provided a complete package to this body. We're here to address any concerns the Planning Commission may have. Before doing so, I'd like to quickly summarize the points raised in the prior hearing. We came into that hearing with a package and a conceptual site plan that was responding to a density of seven units per acre. In the time leading up to that hearing, the applicant determined that seven units per acre on a market basis was really not the long-term goal or the best use of the land, plus factoring in the comments of the residents we came in asking this body to consider a less intensive zoning district, instead of the RMF -12 the RMF -6 zoning district, and a lower density cap, instead of seven units an acre to four units an acre. The intent being that if it is the desire of this body that a more compatible project could be developed in an RMF-6 with a density cap of four, and you wish to make that recommendation, we would have no objection to that. In addition, I'd like to point out the petitioner has provided at no cost to Collier County as a part of this rezone up to 70 feet of right-of-way, which is for the future Santa Barbara extension, the four-lane collector road that will extend all the way down to Rattlesnake Hammock and go as far north as Vanderbilt Beach Road and beyond it as some point in the future. While we certainly agree with the staff assessment that establishes compatibility based on proposed zoning district with, obviously, the changes to a lesser zoning district, a lower intensity, we believe those compatibility arguments are further strengthened, and we'd like to make sure that the record reflects that not only do we agree with staffs contention, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to slow it a little down for Cherie' -- the court reporter, I'm sorry. Page 7 October 19, 2006 MR. HANCOCK: Falling off the wagon a bit, huh, Cherie'? THE COURT REPORTER: Just a bit, thanks. MR. HANCOCK: Cherie' and I have had conversations about my speed of speaking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was looking at her face. I'm getting to know her enough that I can tell when she's stressed. MR. HANCOCK: I think she was having horrible flashbacks, so I'll do my best. At the last hearing, neighbors of the project that were registered to speak, some of which did so on that day, and others who deferred until today, this body suggested that we meet with them again and discuss with them any other potential changes, any of their concerns that we had not already pulled into the project as best we could. In the intervening time, one of those residents we provided contact information, Ms. Rhodes, chose to meet with us, and what we shared with her -- and I apologize, because the way the room is set up, in order for you to see this, the audience can't, so I'll maybe discuss it with you and then turn it around while I complete my remarks so that the audience can view it. But the proposed plan of development, instead of a multi-family four-building approach, what we're looking to do is under the RMF-6 zoning district, single-family lots, that right now it looks like we're going to have 27, we'd like to keep the density of four units per acre, which would allow a maximum of 35. In the event that less than 70 feet of right-of-way is required for Santa Barbara, that area could be rolled back into the proj ect and we may be able to add a few more lots on the end. But what the applicant is proposing is basically a two street cul-de-sac configuration, low density, single-family development, which we believe to be extremely compatible with what's around us. The resulting density, which will be less than four units per acre, will be consistent with the Royal Woods development, which will be Page 8 October 19, 2006 across a four-lane collector road. Around the project over here, the majority of the lots are approximately one acre in size. So for all intents and purposes, the pattern of development there is like an RSF -1. There are lots, as you move back further away, that go up to two-and-a-half and five acres, and some that may even be built on more than five acres. To the south here, you also have a couple of one-acre lots and a two-and-a-half-acre lot right here. So at the proposed density of four units per acre or less, this project is in transition between a four-lane collector road being constructed by the county and an RSF -1 pattern of development on this side. Immediately to the north is a residential PUD of a density of approximately three units per acre. If you go further south, and it's just beyond this aerial, you will find RSF-5 and RSF-3. So the pattern of development in the area has been to take what has been historically lower density, agricultural zoning, and in essence increase the density on those lands to a density of up to five units per acre. We believe what's being proposed, the zoning of RMF -6 with a density cap of four, fits into that development very nicely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I need to ask a legal question before you go too far, because you're going in a different pattern than what's been presented to us in the package. I'm not objecting to where you're heading, but procedurally I want to make sure that because of the advertising and the process that you had to go through staff for the review of the RMF -12 to get here today, that by presenting an RMF -6 that it can even be done in this forum. And as long as the County Attorney opines on it, I think we'll be fine. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, for the record Marjorie Page 9 October 19, 2006 Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. Whenever a lesser density or intensity is proposed or was advertised, we've consistently taken the position that that's okay, because it's a lesser intensity. If it were greater, it would have to be renoticed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt you, Tim. MR. HANCOCK: That's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We did meet with the residents immediately following the last commission hearing and discussed their concerns with regard to the project, as well as what seems to be an overflow of frustration with slow progress in the areas of drainage in the overall area and road maintenance with Collier County. As a landowner, as an applicant in this process, there's very little we can do to promote the county addressing large-scale drainage issues or establishing things such as MSTUs for road maintenance. And we've taken a look at what we can and can't do and how our project mayor may not impact those areas. And beyond the obvious impact of the lower density obviously not contributing to any potential transportation issues to a greater degree, let me go over two issues that the project may have some impacts to and how those are being dealt with. One of the neighborhood concerns was the use of Sunset Boulevard, which is along the eastern side of the property. As you go just a couple hundred feet north of our proj ect, that road is no longer paved. It becomes a dirt road. The residents will tell you the county has written that they maintain that road every six to eight weeks and there's a level of disbelief on the part of the residents who live on that road that that actually occurs on that schedule. We don't have a dog in that fight, and we believe them, that it's not happening the way it should happen. However, this project, as proposed, would access off of Sunset Boulevard, a paved portion of Page 10 October 19,2006 roadway. If you look at the timing of this project, it has to be platted and then developed. Weare two to three years out from the first resident. The widening of future Santa Barbara Boulevard is on approximately the same time schedule. As a matter of fact, that schedule will be assisted in the approval of this proj ect by virtue of the donation of land at no cost to the county to help that roadway get built. So our traffic is going to come Sunset to Polly to Santa Barbara. If Santa Barbara is not completed before the first house is CO'd, if you look at your traffic impact statement, even at the higher density, allowing for 61 units on this property, at peak hour there are no more than eight vehicles using Sunset north of the project. Obviously if Santa Barbara Boulevard is constructed -- and not only is it in the county plan, but it is funded and scheduled and past the 60 percent design point -- once Santa Barbara is completed, there's absolutely no reason to use Sunset Boulevard. Coming out of Polly, there will be a median opening out of Santa Barbara that will allow you to make every turning movement except a southbound left. So how are those folks going to get southbound? They have two options. They can turn right on Santa Barbara, and there's an opportunity for a U-turn before you get up to Whitaker. In order to take Sunset up to Whitaker, you'd be going past the U-turn point and over and down. So there's no just reason to believe that once Santa Barbara is done, trips from this proj ect would have any reason to use Santa Barbara Boulevard. Southbound on Santa Barbara they will be able to make a left turn into Polly. Again, to make a turn, come down a dirt road, when you can turn in next to your development? The pattern of traffic will resolve itself such that the project as proposed will not have a negative impact on Sunset Boulevard, particularly north of the project. The second issue that's been raised is drainage in the area. This Page 11 October 19,2006 area is not unlike Naples Park 10-plus years ago. It was built mainly with roadside and front yard swales being the primary conveyance system for the existing pattern of development. The problem with this area appears to be that the larger issue of outfall from East Naples is what needs to be worked on. And nobody is more familiar with that right now I think than Mr. Murray, with all the time that has gone into that. The county is making strides in that area. But let's talk specifically about how this project currently fits into that drainage pattern. Based on site visits to the property, the property is surrounded on all four sides by existing drainage swales. To the north is a swale that cuts from a roadside swale over to a little bit larger conveyance system on this side. Around the balance of the property on these two sides are fairly fresh cut roadside swales. The only place water from the existing development over here crosses Sunset in proximity to the project is a small 18-inch culvert that is underneath Sunset Boulevard, just south of Adkins. That pipe, based on the water flow that I witnessed several months ago, is functioning. Whether it's adequate or not, I don't know. Again, I don't think the main issue here is so much, you know, there could be some work in the culverts and the right-of-way that the county could do to improve the situation, but I think the county recognizes the long-term issue is downstream flow; how do we get water out of this part of the county more efficiently. As everyone here is familiar, this project, in going through its South Florida Water Management -- or through its water management permitting, it will be permitted by the county. There are no wetlands on-site. It does not meet the size criteria to go through the District. However, it would have to meet District permitting criteria, which means the post-development discharge, the water that comes off the Page 12 October 19,2006 site after development, cannot exceed the pre-development discharge. Which means that if "X" number of cubic feet per second was the pre-development discharge, that discharge rate has to be maintained by the use of retention and detention systems on-site. In essence, the concept is not to contribute any more water downstream from this proj ect than what is contributed historically. So to say that this proj ect being approved has an adverse impact on properties to the east would have to be a conclusion that in some way water is currently traveling over and through this property at this time. That simply isn't the case. Water is being intercepted by existing roadside swales on all four sides of this property and is traveling around the property. The difference between the base of the swales and the grade on the property is more than two feet. Water would have to stage two-plus feet in order to travel across the surface of this property. This property, today, nor in the future under development pattern, is an impediment to any natural sheet flow or any discharge of stormwater over the current conditions. To summarize what we have put before you today and when working with the residents is a plan that reduces the number of developable units from an initial request of 61 to 35. A 43 percent reduction. Secondly, it changes the pattern of development from what was going to be or would have to be in order to achieve a density of seven units per acre two and three-story multi-family buildings, we're now talking about single-family lot development. At some point this property will develop. There have been efforts in the past for the property to be purchased by affordable housing consortiums. Those efforts were fought by the neighbors vigilantly. We have agreed to make a contribution to the affordable housing trust fund of $1,000 per unit as a condition of the zoning. So the project as proposed is a single-family development that is Page 13 October 19, 2006 compatible with both the lower density single-family development to the east and the similar densities to the west. It is adjacent to a future four-lane collector roadway. So to say that a one-unit per-acre development would be consistent with that type of impact I think is not sound planning. It is a transitional piece with a four-lane collector roadway on one side, low density residential on the other. What we're proposing is a moderate transition of those two land uses. And lastly, on stormwater and roads, the project, because of its timing, will not have an adverse impact on Sunset Boulevard. However, we will say that if the area adopts at some point in the future an MSTU, and I know the residents are talking to the county about doing this, if those improvements extend down Sunset and Polly adjacent to the project, we will be included in that MSTU. And as such, this property would be a contributor to a future MSTU or MSBU, should the community wish to come together and make those improvements. We have no objection to that. However, this property was purchased adjacent to paved roadway, with good access, and is making a donation of right-of-way to assist the county in providing future collector and arterial roadways. I hope that these efforts and this approach will meet with your approval today . We ask your favorable consideration and we'll answer any questions you have at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes, in the Golden Gate area, there was a community -- they have a whole community, like three per acre, and then there was somebody that came and wanted to put in four. And you could see a significant difference in the lot sizes. And I don't know if there's -- how big are those lots when you get done with that? MR. HANCOCK: The RMF-6 zoning district requires the minimum lot size to be 55 feet wide, 65 feet for corner lots. And so that's the size we would design to. Page 14 October 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, when we speak, try to pull these mics a little closer to us. I notice most of us don't have them that way. MR. HANCOCK: If you notice across the street here for example, in Royal Wood, these lots are about the same size as what we're talking about. They're in the plus or minus 60-foot range. If you go to the south just off of the aerial, you will see a project that is RSF-5. Those lot widths are approximately 60-feet in width also. So it's ballpark with the newer developments that have occurred in the area in the past few years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. With regard to water, you indicated the water that comes from the east and the north goes through an 18- inch culvert and it actually -- the water then goes around the property, I guess because of the swales? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where then does it outlet then? At what point does it outlet? Are there several, is there one? Where does it escape from? MR. HANCOCK: Currently, and this is, I think, part of the larger problem for the area, you have a drainage swale along the eastern side of the property that is actually within a reserve right-of-way for future Santa Barbara. As it gets down here, it is accepted into the Royal Wood community. I believe some of it travels through their lake systems. When Santa Barbara is widened, that conveyance system is going to be incorporated into the Santa Barbara proj ect. And as you know, Santa Barbara roadway, they're not just purchasing the right-of-way, they're also constructing retention lakes in this area to assist with the drainage of Santa Barbara, and I would assume designed adequately to accept what's going on today. So there are residents here that looked at this issue and feel that Page 15 October 19, 2006 the operation of Royal Woods Lakes is a problem. Others feel that it's areas to the south. The truth is, the area overall is a little on the low side. And in order for it to get out of here, there's going to have to be some downstream improvements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm surprised, though, that, like you said, you assume that that would be part of it. I'm surprised that had not been part of the conversation, to be sure that the water that will undoubtedly collect because of the impervious surfaces will be able to get out of there. And especially given that you've made a donation of that some 70 feet by whatever length. MR. HANCOCK: We do have -- through that donation we do have access to discharge, you know, in that right-of-way. But that's still subj ect to permitting by the county. So, you know, it's currently going that way now. It has to be accepted. And there is a -- there's a logical assumption that if the county is building a roadway proj ect that is incorporating existing drainage, that drainage will at a minimum be improved. You know, to fail to do that would not make any sense. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it's a reasonable assumption. Just for -- you indicated in the back toward the east, northeast end that you would have lots perhaps as large as an acre that would be built upon. Did I mishear that? MR. HANCOCK: Not within our project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, not within -- my hearing is incorrect. MR. HANCOCK: The individual lots in this area are approximately one acre in size. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That I know, yes. Okay. So all of it would be smaller lots, 65 on the corner, 55 on the other. Page 16 October 19,2006 MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And how much now -- having reduced the size of your overall project, how much impervious surface do we now have relative to that entire thing, would you estimate? MR. HANCOCK: I think that would be approximately 40 percent of the developable area. Three, five -- it's going to be right around two acres of impervious of the total 8.6 acres. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And will -- is it the intent to leave much of the foliage there, or is that going to be clear cut? MR. HANCOCK: Within the developable area, existing trees will be left in the buffer areas to the greatest degree that we can. We have a 93- foot wide native preserve that will buffer Santa Barbara from our community and the communities to the east. So wherever possible. There are some fairly nice pines on the perimeter of the proj ect. Those that can be left in the buffers will be left, and we'll get credits for those, instead of plantings. We have not gone to the point of determining whether we're going to do a vegetated buffer or a wall at this point. We're a little early for that. But as we discussed with the neighbors, the folks that live over here, the sides of these homes are what's going to be facing, not the back. So I know that they were a little more pleased with that, anyway, that they wouldn't have the back of somebody's house looking down on them. Because of the nature of the property, most of this area in here, because of the fill level that's required, will be cleared of trees. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Adelstein and Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You have, then, now withdrawn the TDRs? MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. At four units per acre, there Page 1 7 October 19, 2006 will be no need for TDRs. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Just wanted to make sure. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: If your intent is to build between 28 and 35 single-family homes, what is the reason you would give this board for granting you a rezone to RMF, residential multi-family, versus residential single-family, since that's your intent to build single- family? MR. HANCOCK: The lot sizes in the RSF -4 zoning district are larger. And in looking at the finances of the project, in order to come off of the multi-family seven units an acre, we need to get at least 27 lots to make this work. And so in looking at those two scenarios, the RMF-6 lot size standards allowed us to achieve a 27 lot number. Ifwe go to RSF-4, that number goes down to 22, 23, and the dynamics no longer work, the financials of the project no longer work. COMMISSIONER CARON: And in the staff report it says right now you're currently allowed to build 35 homes. How -- how is that? MR. HANCOCK: That would be news to me. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to ask staff. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, then I'll wait and ask staff that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If you do have some drainage problems, did you consider making a water retention area somewhere on the property? MR. HANCOCK: As proposed, the project will drain either forward or to the rear to either the street or a conveyance system here, and would have a dry detention area adjacent to the preserve. The water will stage in the dry detention area, allowing it to percolate to the greatest degree possible before being discharged into the native Page 18 October 19,2006 preserve, under county regulations, and then ultimately discharged off the site. So the water, even though there's not a pre-treatment requirement per se of residential like there is for commercial, we still think it's prudent to treat that area, treat that stormwater prior to discharging into the preserve. We also will not be allowed to discharge into the preserve beyond a flood stage. In other words, you can't just rush water in in a flood condition. So the pre-treatment will occur both in the yard side -- the swales in the yards and the area you see here, kind of this T-shape, ultimately discharging into the preserve and into the conveyance system as a part of Santa Barbara. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On the fifth page of your application there is a reference to the peak and average daily demands of water and sewer, and the time is given at 53.36 PM. I don't understand that. MR. HANCOCK: Is that under the statement of utility provisions, sir? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It's item eight. MR. HANCOCK: That should be GPM, gallons per minute. There's a G missing there. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 8(A)? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, under water peak and sewer peak, those should be 53.36 gallons per minute. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's not PM then, that's GPM? MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just to verify, you're going to be donating the land to Santa Barbara at no cost and without impact Page 19 October 19, 2006 fee credits as stated, right? MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. Almost 15 percent of the total parcel size is being donated at no cost to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with Ms. Student then, because I have a series of questions. Ms. Student, this is coming in as an RMF-12 with an allowance to go possibly to RMF -6. The site plan that's presented here is an RSF-type site plan in the sense that it's a single-family. And it's a layout that we've been presented. Is there anything as a result of this meeting -- I've got to ask that the audience -- Ray, could you stop, please, it's a little distracting. Are we limited, or is the applicant limited to that plan based on the fact this is a straight rezone to RMF -6 possibly and not a PUD? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Usually not unless you make it a condition of the rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that plan that was presented to us today could be made a condition at a rezone. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We've done that before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure. And the applicant, even though they're suggesting 35 units as a reduction, or 34, 35, I believe you said, you'd be locked into 27. Is that a situation you're willing to accept if that's the outcome of today's meeting? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know lot 28 isn't shown on here, but where lot 28 would go I assume is now water management? MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That 18-inch culvert that is going underneath the -- underneath the road that goes to your swales, is there any -- there's not going to be any disruption to that culvert, is there? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, actually, the tail end of that culvert occurs outside of our property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the culvert where it goes into swales Page 20 October 19,2006 right now, those swales will be continued. MR. HANCOCK: Correct. They may actually be grassed and maintained, which would be an improvement long term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a note -- well, this is a staff issue, I'll wait till they come up here. The noise mitigation, it says the developer has agreed to be responsible for all noise mitigation, if warranted, along Santa Barbara Avenue -- along Santa Barbara frontage. Now, who decides if it's warranted? Do you know how that process evolves? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. That language was specifically intended to put the developer or the property owner on notice that the county would not be constructing a noise wall. Ifwe want one, we build it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By we, I'm assuming that means if you feel it's needed to sell the units, you'd have to put it up. Because once you sell the units, it would probably be a homeowners association issue at that point. Is that -- MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in the NIM meeting, you told the residents that were there that we will look at more than a Type D buffer as required by code. Have you looked at more than a Type D buffer, and what's the outcome of that remark? MR. HANCOCK: We did look at it. But when the decision was made to proceed with a lower intensity, a more compatible product, we felt that the requirement of looking for a more intensive buffer which is intended to buffer a multi-story, multi-family project was diminished. So we will install code-required buffers. We feel that is appropriate, single-family to single-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bear with me here for a minute here, Tim, I'll check my notes. Page 21 October 19,2006 Last question I have is you had mentioned that the final outfall for this water will be improved when they put in Santa Barbara Avenue and the extension of Santa Barbara and the swales that go to Santa Barbara; is that accurate? I'm going to ask transportation during the time that we talk to staff to tell me when Santa Barbara is going to be completed. I will then afterwards like to ask you in rebuttal to tell us if you can hold the project COs until such time that Santa Barbara is completed to make sure that that water outfall is adequate. MR. HANCOCK: I'll discuss that with the property owner in the meantime. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll hear from staff. Thank you. MS. ZONE: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. Mr. Hancock was very thorough in his explanation of the project, and Ms. Student has concurred that you can always request to go down, even though on the advertisement. The report for the zoning and land development, this is an urban designation, which is in the urban mixed use district of the future land use element. And it is the intent on that zoning that you're allowed four units per acre. And Commissioner Caron, you had questioned about the 35. Because the project is, just based on mathematical, four times 8.68 acres, it rounds up to about 35. It currently is ag., and that's why in the rezoning findings I mentioned ag., but I should have been a little bit more specific and said but under urban designation you can go up to 35. But that is an entitlement. They're not entitled to that, that would be based on the Page 22 October 19, 2006 board's decision, if you wanted to grant them up to that. The surrounding land uses are just under four units per acre, the Royal Woods Golf and Country Club, New Waterford Estates, Huntington Woods. So the consistency and compatibility in that area matches in fact more so the lesser density. But our Growth Management Plan does encourage higher density in this area. The concerns have been through the neighborhood information meeting, and talking to some of the residents, that -- the drainage problem, which everyone is aware of. During site development plan, though, staff reviews this project and will require the developer to contain their water on their site. And so the impacts to the surrounding neighborhood through this -- the site development plan process, review process, excuse me, that will be addressed. And if they don't meet it, you know, we won't permit it. As far as the roadway, a lot of the residents on Adkins Avenue and possibly surrounding, I don't have the exact number, paid for the roadway that is there that is currently paved. And it -- it starts at Sunset Boulevard down -- or Sunset just above Adkins, I believe, and north to Polly Avenue. And across Polly Avenue to where the Santa Barbara extension will start. And a lot of the residents are concerned because of the additional traffic going on, and then if they go and start driving onto that dirt road easement. I've spoken with Mr. Scott in transportation, and he talked to the roadways, and they said that county has been maintaining that road, though the residents did pay to have it paved. So you might, you know, want to discuss that further with Mr. Scott when he comes up. The land use pattern is consistent. All elements of the GMP they met. During review, and once it had been sent off, Mr. Hancock mentioned that they were going to look at a lower density, so I also looked at consistency, which of course they meet. Page 23 October 19, 2006 LDC requirements currently for rezone, the project meets those regulations. And then during the site development plan they will have . . a more ngorous reVIew. Do you have any questions? I'd be happy to help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, I have a couple. In your staff report you had a statement on the fourth page that says, based upon the above criteria, staff concludes the proposed rezone meets the criteria and may therefore be deemed consistent with the FLUE. The documentation addressing the date that the parcel was created still needs to arrive upon a final determination. In my packet I found a letter from their attorney that I thought addressed that. But since your staff report was included with the packet as well as the letter, I'm wondering why you said that, if the letter does not satisfy your concerns. Or does it satisfy your concerns? MS. ZONE: No, it does satisfy it. Because when they sent their application in and when the growth management review was in, that letter did not come in, but it did since. And I felt that it was important to address that -- the documentation to point it out. But again, by putting the letter in there, you would see that they did meet that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. No other questions of you. I think Don Scott probably could have some answers for us as well. MR. SCOTT: Morning. Don Scott, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, Don. MR. SCOTT: Hi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are you? I guess we probably need a little briefing on what the timing of Santa Barbara extension is in the area of this proj ect. And that it would help -- and at the same time kind of blend in the stormwater issues, if you could. MR. SCOTT: Okay. It's about 60 percent design right now. I Page 24 October 19, 2006 don't think we've gone out for the second meeting. We're waiting for season again. It's faster than others in the sense we have most of the right-of-way. We'll be able to start by the end of 2007, and be completed by the end of2009. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You will be -- are you under -- you're not under contract though, yet, for it? MR. SCOTT: No. That will be next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you expect to be done by 2009. Will that take care of some of the drainage issues in the neighborhood? Do you feel it will? MR. SCOTT: It has some. Obviously we're doing -- with each of the projects, we're doing pieces of the L.A.S.I.P. project. County Barn has a lot, that's why it's a $38 million job now. Santa Barbara has some L.A.S.I.P. improvements, too, obviously fixing downstream. You fix downstream before everything else solves. But it will make it better, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The TIS for this project indicated the project was anticipated to be built out by 2008. So right now it's scheduled to be on line a year before your optimum schedule. MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That you don't know if you can meet at this point. MR. SCOTT: Can't guarantee, as usual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. We've learned that on 951 extension. MR. SCOTT: I've done it before and I'm not doing it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of transportation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Couple more details I just thought about. These people are going to be exiting onto Sunset Boulevard. Page 25 October 19,2006 Polly Avenue is going to go out onto Santa Barbara with a right turn only? MR. SCOTT: I think it might have a directional left in, but not a full median opening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a concern from people going north on Sunset Boulevard to possibly Whitaker Road, or the road south of that, if there is one. But Whitaker Road, is that going to be a signalized intersection? MR. SCOTT: I think Whitaker is the location, will be a full median opening. I thought it was -- I don't know if it meets warrants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Santa Barbara does become a well-used road like Livingston has, most likely people may want to get up to Whitaker to use that light for safer turns, left and right? MR. SCOTT: In the future, yeah, probably. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are your plans to deal with Sunset Boulevard up to Whitaker in the future? MR. SCOTT: This is -- I had some conversations with our maintenance department, but I guess -- it's not our roadway, but I guess we have done some work out there. And I believe our maintenance department has had some contact with the County Attorney's office regarding that roadway, whether it's, I don't know, a prescriptive easement now or -- MR. KLATZKOW: I have a file folder about eight inches thick of different roads through the county the county is not sure whether or not it owns. I guess that is part of that package, I don't know. If I start at the top, I haven't got to this one. The reality is if we've been maintaining this on a regular basis over a period of time, then it is by operation of law our roadway. But that doesn't necessarily mean we have an obligation to pave it. I mean, you can have unimproved roads that -- MR. SCOTT: Ultimately it's the board's decision in the end what we do in the future. Page 26 October 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm more concerned about the fact that when Santa Barbara is completed and Whitaker is signalized, people will want to go to that light. And they are naturally going to be coming out on Sunset. They're going to take a left or a right. If they go right, they're most likely going to go out on Polly. If they go left, I mean, they're probably going to want to go to a signalized intersection and get a safer access to Santa Barbara. MR. SCOTT: If they're heading south, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is if the county may not or may just maintain this road, and it's a dirt road, who has the right -- or how does the ability happen to get Sunset Boulevard actually paved so that it's safe for this traffic to drive all the way to Whitaker on it? MR. SCOTT: Well, see, that's why Tim's raised the MSTU side of it but-- , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the county's not intending to do anything in that regard? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's the board's decision, Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's not in any plans from your department, though, at this time to do anything with Sunset? MR. SCOTT: Not at the moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the issue that's being created is not really being created because you're putting in Santa Barbara, it's being created because of the additional density possibly on this project and others in the neighborhood that may want to use Sunset in the future to get to Whitaker. MR. SCOTT: Well, there might be an issue even if they weren't, but yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Will there be any adverse impact from the Royal Woods construction traffic on this project? MR. SCOTT: Um. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And if so, did you assess that? Page 27 . October 19,2006 MR. SCOTT: No, we didn't. That's been raised a lot with these proj ects lately, and I think we're going to be addressing that as part of the TIS guidelines when we bring them forward. With their -- obviously having construction traffic come in from a future road probably would be better than coming through the neighborhoods. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But it was not considered in your analysis? MR. SCOTT: No, it isn't. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions at this point of transportation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Melissa, did you -- thank you, Don, appreciate it. After Melissa, Ray, I see you have some speakers. MS. ZONE: Thank you, Commissioner. Again, Melissa Zone with Department of Zoning and Land Development. During my last review I forgot to mention that per Ordinance 2005-17, there is a payment in lieu of construction for sidewalks. This was a little bit of contention between the developer and staff, because staff wanted payment in lieu because of the construction and the Santa Barbara, which is currently about 60 percent in design. And the developer felt that it was not warranted. And we thought we'd bring it in front of the board to determine, because staff would like to do as part of the condition of this rezoning replace that the petitioner participates in, which is our ordinance, a payment in lieu for sidewalks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Tell me where the sidewalk-- where we're talking about, please. Are we talking about surrounding the entire property? Page 28 October 19,2006 MS. ZONE: What, Commissioner Murray, I would like is Trinity Caudill-Scott to speak on behalf -- since she manages our sidewalks and would be probably more apt to explain it better. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Good morning, Commissioners. First and foremost, I was tardy, and I need to be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: I can't use traffic as my excuse today. I had to walk through a swale, though. The sidewalk in question would be for Santa Barbara extension only would be the payment in lieu. All other sidewalks would be addressed during site development plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So we're not talking about anything surrounding the property, so it's strictly on the Santa Barbara side. And the developers -- I'm not sure I remember -- the developers objected, for what reason? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Quite honestly, I'm not 100 percent for sure either. The Land Development Code 6.06.02, Section C states what provisions payment in lieu would fall under. And one of those is if the project is within our five-year capital program, which this project falls within. It also says that at development order we can require that. And development order as defined in the Land Development Code does include a rezoning application. So we feel that we're justified. One of the things that Mr. Hancock did bring on the record at the last meeting was that he felt that it was included in impact fees. So we went back to our impact fee ordinance and our impact fee calculations and looked at the 1 7 roadways that were utilized for impact fee calculations. Of those 17 roadways, only five have a complete cross-section, as it pertains to bicycle and pedestrian features. So the full amount is not included in an impact fee assessment. As well as we do not have any roadway projects at this time that Page 29 October 19,2006 are 100 percent funded by impact fees. Nor have we in the past. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm glad you answered that question very well. Thank you, that clears a lot up for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Tim, I know you probably want to respond to that, but if you can wait till your rebuttal, that will be simpler. Okay, Ray, how many public speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: We have three registered speakers. If the first two could come up, and the second one wait in line. The first one is Robin Buckley, followed by Karen Nanneman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We ask that the public speakers -- first of all, you have to use the podium over here, and limit your comments to about five minutes, please. It would be helpful if you weren't redundant, thank you. MR. BUCKLEY: Robin Buckley, 6378 Adkins Avenue. Pretty well my concerns were addressed, and it was about the roadway. And the neighborhood is trying to get together to see what we can do to get that paved. And my concern was, and it was addressed, that I feel that people will end up going north up to that Whitaker intersection. And if we can enter some kind of deal to get the road paved -- right now they're paid for privately to have them paved -- that they would become part of the MSTU, you know, because I feel those people would be using it. And I happen to have a -- I don't have enough copies to give everybody, but it was basically what this gentleman said. We did have a ruling from the assistant County Attorney that the road is being maintained by the county for four years. And we had paid to have part of Adkins and Sunset to Polly paved, that they agreed to maintain it. So now it's just an issue of when the construction starts on this and all the trucks and everything, how often will the county, you Page 30 October 19,2006 know, maintain that dirt road. Especially in the rainy season. I know a lot of concerns with the neighbors in the area are that the dump trucks and all the big trucks will get that road tore up pretty quickly. And eight weeks or 12 weeks when the county grades it, it won't be adequate. I mean, that road can get pretty bad. And that's pretty much it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you answer one question for me, sir? Is your neighborhood actively pursuing the formation of an MSTU at this time? MR. BUCKLEY: We've talked to Commissioner Fiala about it. Because we're so spread out, it's difficult to try to get everybody on the same page. So no, there's nothing actively. We have a group of individuals. We have, like I say, been in contact with the commissioner on how to go about it. And like I say, the first thing we did was, you know, the county had mentioned to us about a year ago that we weren't going to be maintained, they were doing it on a courtesy basis. We finally were told that now they are going to maintain it. And now we're just all discussing amongst ourselves how to go about doing that. You know, none of us are experts on that and we're not really quite sure how to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so your concerns about this project are basically satisfied if -- based on the fact they've agreed to participate in the MSTU? MR. BUCKLEY: Yeah, if something like that were to occur and all the neighbors got together, I feel that human nature, these people are going to come out and instead of making a U-turn they want to go to a signalized intersection. And they'll use Sunset, whether it's paved or dirt, that extra traffic. And like I say, while the project's being built, I know the people that live along that section, certain parts of it were just now paved privately with private funds. But the -- what do I want to say here.r Page 3 1 October 19,2006 The construction traffic, you know, is going to tear that road up on a -- you know, quick. And during the rainy season even the schedule the county maintains to grade it isn't adequate. So now it's just going to be exasperated by all these trucks. And if something could be set up where they come out, you know, more often even while this construction is going on and maybe they could have their private grader while they're there, you know, keep the water down, keep the dust down, stuff like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Karen Nanneman. MS. NANNEMAN: Pretty close. Karen Nanneman, 3651 Sunset Boulevard. Our biggest concern of course is the water drainage and the traffic on our roadway. Weare one that actually paid to have our road blacktopped, and already it's getting some pretty good wear, and additional traffic bypassing, coming around, going through our area to eliminate some of the other traffic on County Barn. So they cut out, come around through Sunset Boulevard and get on County Barn. With the new addition of people, that's going to increase traffic on our road. So we are concerned with extra traffic with the new development and also what effect the water is going to cause. The drainage is not good the way it is. And when you build up new property, elevate the land, it's going to increase our water backup on our area. So that's our main concern. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, ma'am. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker is Liz Rhodes. MS. RHODES: Good morning everyone. My name is Liz Rhodes. Again, biggest concern was drainage and the traffic flow. And Page 32 October 19,2006 personally for me, my house faces this project. The way it's set up now like it is, one-story, single-family homes is great. It's not facing my property, I don't have to worry about two stories looking into my property. If I'm out in my pool, I don't need to worry about seeing this huge development. So as the plan is like this, the mass people in our neighborhood would like to see this. It's less density, less traffic. Yes, we realize that it's going to be developed, but if we can have a hand to bring to you, yes, we like this, but our concern again is the roadway and the drainage. And if we need to, you know, come together as a whole to be pointed into a direction of getting everyone involved, you know, that's what we need to do. But like you said earlier, if it's something that you can approve that you need to vote on that we need to get involved with, we'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MS. RHODES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, that's the last speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, did you want to have -- respond to anything? MR. HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. First item that Ms. Scott brought up, the issue of payment in lieu, what I've raised is the basic issue in the question of fairness. Ms. Scott said that only five of 17 roadways have the complete cross-section. Well, all 1 7 have some of that cross-section. All of them have either sidewalks or bike paths or both. My point for requesting the board consider is this, if we assess impact fees and we include in the assessment impact fees the construction of bike paths and sidewalks, to then have property owners that are adjacent to these future roadways pay again for those same improvements is simply wrong. Page 33 October 19,2006 That is a policy decision that I wish the board to make. If they wish to apply a ratio, if our impact fees pay for 70 percent of the sidewalks and bike paths, fine. But don't make one landowner through impact fees and payment in lieu pay for the same improvements twice. That's the request. Not going to be resolved today, but that's the basis for the argument on behalf of my client. With regard once again to drainage, I want to reemphasize, this project is not currently a participant in any way, shape or form in getting water out of this area. Doesn't sheet flow across it. The proposed project will not impede the existing flow or the existing facilities. And in fact, the donation of right-of-way to expedite Santa Barbara will contribute positively to the drainage in the area. So the fact that we can't discharge any more post-development than we discharge now in the existing system means that there is a zero net effect post-development. If this project were sitting in the middle of an area that sheet flowed or drained in a general direction, its development would form some form of impediment. That's not the case here. And by looking at the swales that surround the property, that becomes evident. I also brought a survey that shows you the top of bank around the entire property, that we are in essence currently an island. Ms. Rhodes mentioned one-story homes. There may be -- in RMF-6, there may be two-story homes, but probably not having somebody on the second floor looking down into her house. So I want to clarify that RMF -6 does allow for two-story homes. For the road, again we are willing to participate in any MSTU that extends as far south on Sunset that reaches our property. We don't have a problem with that being established in the future. What I ask, though, is I ask that the sins of the past not be the responsibility of this property owner. This property owner has already agreed to donate up to almost 15 percent of their property as a part of Page 34 October 19,2006 the development process for this property. They have assisted in expediting the construction of Santa Barbara Road at a significant cost to them. That's real property. So to attach further limitations on them and to attach further restrictions, when in fact the construction of Santa Barbara will alleviate a dramatic number of trips off Sunset, I think they have done their fair share. As a matter of fact, I think they've done more than their fair share in reserving -- not just reserving it but donating it to the county . And I'll take that one step further when we start talking about restricting COs until after Santa Barbara is done. We're part of the solution of Santa Barbara. To further encumber this property with that project when we in fact are part of that solution -- if we don't donate this land, Santa Barbara just got set back another year. I don't think that's fair. And I would ask you to consider that this proj ect in an approval of some fashion will assist in getting Santa Barbara done quicker. That's the relationship that we have established and that's what we wish to ask you to consider today. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There might be some questions. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, just a minor housecleaning item, Mr. Hancock. On your petition, you indicated the acreage is 8.68, but on your drawing it's 8.72. Something you might want to clean up through the process. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, sir, I will make that correction. I know where it came from and I will fix it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Just one thing that was said is that their concern was during the construction that that was graded. And you may have said it and I missed it, is there any plan to upkeep that Page 35 October 19, 2006 road while you're working on it and the trucks coming through? MR. HANCOCK: Usually at the time when we come to an SDP, there's a condition of the SDP that if you create any damage or -- in other words, you have to maintain the roads that are impacted due to construction of your proj ect. That is a typical condition of a site development -- I'm sorry, I'm speeding up a little bit -- typical condition of a site development plan approval, which we will be subject to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Tim. I have -- Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Bellows, you nodded about that, the site development plan. Just to be clear for me, how frequent are they required to maintain that road while -- I mean, if you're going to bring a lot of trucks in, it's going to create some issues. Are they required to do that weekly, monthly, quarterly? MR. BELLOWS: I don't think the LDC is specific on the timing of maintenance. I think I might have to defer to transportation on that. MR. HANCOCK: I can tell you from the applicants' standpoint COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be helpful. MR. HANCOCK: What happens is somebody on the road calls the county while we're under construction and says the dump trucks are tearing up the road. The county calls the builder and says you need to fix this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, and you would be responsible is what you're saying? MR. HANCOCK: It is a requirement of the SDP, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to be clear, especially for the people who are going to be impacted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? I have one of Don Scott again. Thank you, Tim. Don, I know you're not the drainage guy for Collier County. The Page 36 October 19,2006 drainage in the outfall in this proj ect is contingent -- I shouldn't say contingent, is currently planning to use the same area that the extension of Santa Barbara would be using. Do you know how much capacity there is there now to take the additional flow that would come from this area? Because right now the entire parcel is used for storage. It's bermed, but the berm surrounding the parcel doesn't outfall to the swales adjoining it until it reaches a couple feet above the interior stage level, which means it has a holding capacity. Now, once that area is all filled, that holding capacity now is going to be pushed somewhere else. And rightfully so, it's going to be pushed into swales, which means it theoretically wouldn't go to neighboring properties. But if those swales back up and that new pulse of water cannot move through those swales, it will simply back up and flood the units further upstream. Do you have any knowledge of that situation down there? MR. SCOTT: Nick, did you have any conversations about that with Michael? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, we haven't. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning. I have reviewed it with the project manager. There are drainage issues that they are working on, and there were concerns about the drainage at the time with the existing swales that were out there. But he expressed -- I don't want to say satisfaction that he could handle it based on his project coming in. He did discuss that he wasn't overly concerned with the additional lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As we all know, there's been some drainage problems in Collier County. And they are a mimic of what's happening here, but on a much, much larger scale. The downstream Page 37 October 19,2006 side's been restricted, pushing the water further upstream. Well, everybody says they have outfalls and they have drainage and it's going to flow. The point is it doesn't flow as fast. And when you hit that with an unnatural pulse of water, it will back up. And that's my concern for wanting to see Santa Barbara end before this project gets to a point where it's creating any problems that were not there today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I want to qualify that statement. We did not get a drainage calculation per se, a detailed one. We did a rough estimate. It was only very rough, which were the only drainage calculations were provided as part of this proj ect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were at this meeting last week when we talked about the Growth Management Plan EAR amendments. And during that exercise, we did hit on the drainage and the watershed management plans. And Mr. Wiley spoke to us at length. I even expressed my comments to him, that it would be nice if he or someone from the drainage department took a close look at the projects coming up for today and he said at that meeting, I believe, they hadn't looked at them yet. So who is looking at them? MR. SCOTT: I think it's later in the process that they're looked at. It's more site development then at the PUD stage. Now, that doesn't mean that can't change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the PUD stage sets the timing of when discharges are basically going to be allowed to occur. And at this stage it would seem important that we looked at that. We're not looking at it now. MR. SCOTT: I don't know if that's a totally fair statement. I mean, obviously, like Sable Bay, where the bottom part ofL.A.S.I.P. is, a lot of that came out of the DCA and the PUD, all the improvements on that end of it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I still see that as a concern Page 38 October 19,2006 with this project moving ahead of the construction of Santa Barbara. And I realize that they are part and parcel to the construction of Santa Barbara, and that's a help. But at what expense? And I guess that's what we have to take a closer look at. As far as another issue I have, and that's the Sunset Boulevard, your -- the cross-section that would have to be maintained by the county, I think I heard the residents say that there's some kind of deal possibly struck that if they go ahead and pave the road, the county will maintain it. Well, to what standard will the county accept the maintenance of it? I mean, do they have to pave the road or do they have to pave the road to a county cross-section standard that -- I mean, I know what your standards are. They're not nickel and dime stuff. It's expensive. And if that's the standard they have to go to, you're involving right-of-ways and possibly curbing and a number of other efforts that may not be -- MR. SCOTT: We say that, but obviously new development's a little different than, say, the Estates where we're paving the roads but you're not building curb and gutter to do that. So there are minimum standards for like a rural cross-section. But yeah, drainage issues are one of the bigger things as improving a roadway, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This particular roadway extension that's now dirt, how do you look at that, a rural cross-section? MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You wouldn't, though -- so the curbing may not be necessary, the sidewalks may not be necessary, but the drainage, the asphalt, the base and the limerock and the rest of the things that have to go with it at construction would be necessary? MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's the cost on that section; do you know? Page 39 October 19,2006 MR. SCOTT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just had a point. I'm somewhat familiar with that area, and not all of the swales are as they may have originally been made to the proper depths. A lot of them have been filled in around that general area. So water collection is very obvious when it rains heavily. That's part of this question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion from the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move of that AR-8427 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Okay, discussion? Is there discussion amongst the panel members? Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, shouldn't we be adding -- you know, because the resolution proposed to us has 12 units, density caps of seven. Should we be amending that in the resolution? Okay, then we'll amend that to residential multi-family six, parentheses RMF -6, with a density cap of four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, I think the County Attorney said we could limit it to the density that's on that site plan and that site plan, so maybe that's what -- wouldn't you want to be heading that Page 40 October 19,2006 direction? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm assuming you wouldn't want the resolution that's written to go to -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: What is the density on the site plan? MS. ZONE: On the one that the applicant presented today? Just under 3.2. The one that staff reviewed, we looked at the site plan of what the original ordinance -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So do you want to-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't think we should have 12 in the resolution. So, I'd rather-- MS. ZONE: There would be a change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Is there a way to reference that site plan? Then let's do so. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: There is a way to reference that, because you've put several conditions, and there are several conditions that meet -- there is a place in the ordinance to list the conditions, either by way of a list underneath section one, or a reference to an exhibit. So that can be handled that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How do we describe that then, a single- family design plan of 28 units presented at the meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, it's a site plan done by Davidson Engineering, it's going to have to have a reference on the site plan and a date on it. So why don't we just use those reference points. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: And attach it as an exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you tell us what those reference points are on the bottom right of that plan, since we don't have it? MS. ZONE: Okay, of the four, the four notes you would like to have, there is the will meet the requirements of the LDC, configurations aligned within the native vegetation -- Page 41 October 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back up. Wait, wait, wait. Can someone bring that plan to me? Is that the plan? Okay. Down on the right-hand corner there should be a drawing reference. MS. ZONE: Oh, the drawing reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's Davidson Engineering, Inc. Conceptual Site Plan 2-B, Project No. 05-0042 with a date of June, 2006. That's what I wanted to get on the record. Is this the plan that you were trying to reference, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. But the title block you just referenced also references the old plan. So that doesn't distinguish it yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have two plans? MS. ZONE: 2-B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said 2-B. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where do you -- are you saying it's 05-0042-B? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the title of the plan is Manus Rezone Conceptual Site Plan 2-B. This is the one here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: What I would suggest is a more general reference perhaps to the plan and then attaching it as an exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just referenced the plan. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And then it's clear -- yeah, it's clear for anybody that wants to look at the ordinance, rather than having to go elsewhere to get the plan, it's attached to the ordinance as an exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I just want to make sure Page 42 October 19,2006 it's not the multi-family plan that the other side of that has. And then the other question is the way the motion was made, does that include charging impact fees for sidewalks on Santa Barbara? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion didn't stipulate anything. I think that's what we're trying -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or staff recommendations. MS. ZONE: That was it. And since staff recommendation also had about the TDR credits be purchased and since they're not going forward with that, you might want to be a little bit clearer and to remove the TDR. But we still do want the payment in lieu for the sidewalks on Santa Barbara. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I want to say I'm not in favor of that. I mean, I think dedicating the land for the road is a noble enough gesture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So before we move further, Brad, let's just try to finish up with yours and get a consensus on it. Your first one was you wanted to limit the property to RMF -6. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject with the plan as presented, attached as an exhibit to this ordinance. Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think you can still say RMF-6 with a density cap of four. So you don't have to put a fractional density in there. And then limit the development to the density expressed on the plan and that plan of development. And then that gets you there. COMMISSIONER CARON: They've committed to 3.2. Why would we increase it if they're willing to commit to 3.2? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We can do it that way. But it's just it's not a round number. And we could reference the plan, that does it. We can do it the other way, too. Page 43 October 19,2006 MS. ZONE: Commissioner Caron -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it's good to be specific. They've been willing to commit to 3.2 units per acre or a plan that gives 27 single-family homes with the 28th lot being used for stormwater management. And those are things we want. We want that stormwater management, we want that lot to be used for stormwater management. And I think we should be specific in our circulations about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but let's go back to where Brad was going so we can finish with him because we have nine members here that are probably going to want to talk about this. So Brad, let's go back to what you're requesting as stipulations so the motion maker and the second can address yours first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually, I kind of agree with Donna. I'd rather see something that does describe it as the single-family lot version, if there's 27 lots in there. Then that's, I think, the way it would peg it to that layout. They could adjust the layout that wouldn't increase the density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: RMF-6 with a stipulation ofa density not to exceed 3.2 with the site plan that was presented today as an exhibit to the ordinance. Is that what you're trying to say? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I just didn't want the -- I'm still not against the four, because ifhe sold it somebody else could come in and do a plan at that density, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make your stipulation clear so this -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only concern I have is that it goes to that, that set of -- which it would do if we described it as single-family lots at the meeting 28,27, lots. Page 44 October 19,2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You could state something like the plan of development shall be limited in accordance with -- and put the title as set forth in exhibit -- I think it would be Exhibit B. And then -- or shall follow. And then you have it. We've done this before. I can create -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, I know we've done it before. I'm just trying to make sure the motion maker and the second on this panel understands what Brad's trying to say. And I think he's trying to say he wants to limit it to an RMF -6 zoning with a cap of 3.2 density, subject to this plan that was presented today that will be made as an Exhibit B to the ordinance; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, let's start with that one first. Does the motion maker accept that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, then you brought up another point about the sidewalk. You have a stipulation there you wanted to make. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When the motion was made, it said staff recommendations. I really don't have any staff recommendations other than the TDR. So is there a sheet that would show all the staff recommendation in here? Other than -- you have number one, which is a timing requirement for the TDRs. MS. ZONE: Right, I would strike that out and add in the payment of in lieu, and then any other stipulations the board chooses or wishes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that is a staff stipulation? I'm just not in favor of that. MS. ZONE: But it's to the board's discretion. Staff is of the opinion of wanting the payment in lieu. Page 45 October 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Brad, is your recommendation of the stipulation to remove the staff recommendation to provide TDRs? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. Well, yes, definitely that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go with that first. Does the motion maker accept that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, did you have a stipulation that you wanted to make concerning the sidewalks, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, is that one of the staff recommendations, that was my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, can you just answer the question yes or no, is the sidewalks a staff recommendation? MS. ZONE: It is a payment in lieu -- it is the recommendation. And I was just discussing this with Joe -- MR. SCHMITT: About the affordable housing piece. We'll get to that. MS. ZONE: Okay. The payment in lieu, correct, of the sidewalks on the Santa Barbara extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is a staff recommendation -- MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that this applicant participate in the payment in lieu of. N ow Brad, what was your position on that, what was your suggestion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would like to see that removed, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Just to testify, the LDC is going to record that they put a sidewalk in or made a payment in lieu. Page 46 October 19, 2006 If what I'm getting from you is that you think the donation of land itself covers that, then I guess what we're saying is that -- it's not a straight donation of land, that it includes the requirement they put in the sidewalks. Follow me? Right now it's a free donation of land. It doesn't get rid of the LDC requirement they put in a sidewalk. What I'm getting from you is that you think the straight donation of land is enough and they shouldn't have to put in a sidewalk. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: So that it's not really a straight donation of land now, it's a straight donation of land less the value of putting in the sidewalks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. I just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Seems to be a difficult day. But is there a way to word that would be to waive impact fees from improvements on Santa Barbara? Do they have any other impact fees? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what you're dealing with is the sidewalk. You want to go into more than the sidewalk issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I just asked, is there anything more than the sidewalk that they're paying for on Santa Barbara? MS. ZONE: Well, for stipulations, Commissioner Schiffer, are you asking about additional stipulations? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MS. ZONE: Oh. Transportation I think is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're asking are they going to be paying for transportation impact fees, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Through their other impact fees, right. So that's not a good way to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's get back to your third Page 47 October 19, 2006 stipulation, if we can. Are you requesting the motion maker to remove the condition that they make a payment in lieu of sidewalks? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For Santa Barbara. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For Santa Barbara. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's Brad's recommendation. Does the motion maker accept that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Caron, you're next. COMMISSIONER CARON: In our stipulations, do we need to put in the 70 feet for the Santa Barbara right-of-way donation, 1,000 per unit for affordable housing trust fund? In addition, at the prior meeting, Mr. Hancock had made a commitment that the buildings would not exceed 35 feet in height. And I would still like to see -- excuse me, and I would also add that the project becomes part of any MSTU that may be established in the neighborhood for road improvements to -- I don't know if we need to stipulate Sunset Boulevard, but I guess -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I had written some notes down. Let me help you with that. There are three roads that this project would impact, I think. Polly, Sunset and Adkins. So if there's an MSTU that affects any of these three roads, then this applicant has agreed to participate in that MSTU, from what I could tell by the presentation made here today. Does that meet with your-- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's certainly fine by me. In addition, I would just like to reiterate again that I think it's important to stipulate that these are single-family homes, 27 Page 48 October 19,2006 single- family homes and that lot number 28 becomes a water management area. Drainage has been the issue of issues besides transportation. And the commitment has been made here today that that lot will become water management. And I think we should stipulate it for the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's take them one at a time with the motion maker and the second. The first recommendation is that the Santa Barbara right-of-way as a donation become part of the stipulations. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, acceptable. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker accepts it, the second accepts it. The second stipulation was that we accept the $1,000 contribution to the affordable housing trust fund. Does the motion maker accept that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Accept it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second accepts it. Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: I just want to make sure that that is a provision on that that says provided if there is any ordinance that creates an additional monies associated with a linkage fee or other type of activity, then they would have to pay that. But the thousand dollars would be credit -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Is a credit toward that. MR. SCHMITT: -- it's not in fact a limit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that agree with the motion maker and the second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 49 October 19, 2006 MS. ZONE: Excuse me, Commissioner. We would also like to have it payable at the building permit issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have a problem with -- motion maker accepts that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the time of building permit issuance, okay. The next comment made by Ms. Caron is not to exceed 35 feet. Does the motion maker -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- accept that stipulation? Does the second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last one -- or no, the second to the last one was that they participate in any MSTU for improvements to either Polly, Sunset or Adkins Avenue. Does the motion maker accept that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I can accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last one -- I'm sorry, Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I just want to say something about the MSTU, that usually that's done when a vote is put to the residents. And I'm not aware of stipulations in the past. I'm concerned that that might not be a valid requirement because there are ordinance requirements for how you become part of an MSTU. COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, I think you're right, Ms. Student, that that does have to go to a vote of the people involved in Page 50 October 19, 2006 the -- 51 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I-- MR. SCHMITT: Or as directed by the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, Mr. Schmitt, let me -- I started, let me finish. Margie, I thought that the -- my stipulation was that they would participate in an MSTU, meaning if one is devised for the neighborhood they're not going to sit back after this meeting and say oh, we don't want to be part of that. I'm just saying they will participate. I think that's what -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's what we said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the intent was. Now you tell me you can't say that in a stipulation? No one is saying they're going to be forming one. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. I'm not quite sure what you mean by participate, I guess. Because the MSTU is created by a vote and then it's for a certain area. And that's -- so I'm not quite sure exactly what that means, because as set forth for a certain area where the people agree to tax themselves for these improvements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would mean that to the extent they own land in the area, they're agreeing to join in with the rest of their neighbors if they form an MSTU. That's what I saw it as because that's what they offered. Mr. Schmitt, I'm sorry. Did you have something you wanted -- MR. SCHMITT: I just was commenting, the board could direct it as well. As the board directed activity, regardless of what the citizens state, it could be a direction of the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa? MS. ZONE: Yes, they also agreed to participate in the MSTU for road improvements on Polly and Sunset. It was not for Adkins. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that. MS. ZONE: Okay. Page 51 October 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back to the legal staff. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm also assuming an MSBU, which is a different entity but similar, would also be required here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I think the intent by what this board is trying to say is whether it's an MSBU, DU, UU, any kind of U, whatever -- MR. KLATZKOW: The difference is that a BU requires assessments be paid by the developer. TU would require annual taxes, which are basically paid by the homeowners. I could see the developer being really not too interested in the BU as opposed to a TU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I was -- think the board is trying to get at, they've agreed to participate in neighborhood improvements to the road system should a collective group of people get together and have this neighborhood improvement become real through some political or governmental process. I believe that was the intent of what the applicant told us. And I believe that's the intent of what this board wants to see in a stipulation. Now, is there a problem -- Melissa. MS. ZONE: With the removal of Adkins. Polly and Sunset, or are you adding Adkins on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is Adkins. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think equally, it should be the entire area. So I would include Adkins. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, as hard as this is to get verbalized, does the motion maker accept this stipulation that they participate in such activities -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's what my motion was going to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That we just discussed? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second? Page 52 October 19, 2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. And I believe we discussed that the applicant brought it up that they would do that. So I don't see a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Okay. And the next stipulation that Ms. Caron brought up was that we specifically stipulate it's for 27 single-family homes with the -- there was as space on the plan that looks like it could have been Lot 28. But that is going to be utilized -- that they will utilize that for water management as well. Is that in agreement with the motion maker? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. The applicant asked for 27 lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other stipulations? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on the last thing. You said single-family homes. Could they do attached homes or -- I think the platting shows ownership, which I think protects us. But theoretically they could run a townhouse across the whole thing and still meet the Attorney General's definition of single- family home. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think with this development plan, I believe it shows platted lots. So typically you would have single- family detached. I don't know if zero lot line might be, because my understanding is zero lot line, you know, they can go up against that lot that is still left at configuration. MS. ZONE: And RMF-6 does not allow for that anyways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now, there is a little twist to that. And we learned that several month ago. Mr. Y ovanovich brought a project before us called Summit Lakes in which they had platted single- family lots and townhouses or fee simple, I forget what it was. Page 53 October 19, 2006 But they're all one building. MS. ZONE: Was that brought up in a PUD, though? This is just a straight rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as a RMF-6, they couldn't build a common wall across any of these lot lines? MS. ZONE: Correct. Because this is just a straight rezone, which gives the county more power to enforce our land uses, as opposed to a PUD, which gives you deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does RMF-6 allow fee simple platting of lots of this size? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MS. ZONE: Oh, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one stipulation that I will suggest, and that is that COs on this proj ect will not be issued until the completion of Santa Barbara Road. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Accepted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the second accept that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we have eight stipulations, hopefully they're clear for the record in some manner or form. Please don't ask me to repeat them all. Is there -- now I'll call for the vote. All in those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. Page 54 October 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you. We'll take a 15-minute break and be back here at 10:15. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, mic's back on. The meeting will come back to order. Item #8B PETITION: PUDZ-2003-AR-4988 Next public hearing today is PUDZ-2003-AR-4988, Summit Lakes PUD. Will all those wishing to testify or speak on behalf of this PUD please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) Well, I had several conversations with Mr. Y ovanovich that centered around the -- mostly traffic and most recently utility issues involving this project. I may have had a conversation with Mr. Mulhere. I think that's the extent of it. Okay. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I had a couple of discussions with Rich Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just a point, last meeting we spent a lot of time on our motion and our stipulations. And I'm going to try and move in a new direction here this next year. The Page 55 October 19, 2006 stipulations that we make are one of the most important parts of the outcome of our meeting. In the past it has been difficult to follow some of those the way we discuss them. So even though it takes longer, I think it's vital that we spell out every single word that is going to be in a stipulation and agree on it before we move forward. And I've just been advised that when we agree on things, it would be better if we acknowledged so by saying yes as far as the motion and the motion second goes, instead of raising hands to acknowledge a stipulation. So we will have to verbalize that more. Okay, with that, I'd like -- the applicant is prepared to make a presentation on this proj ect? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the applicant. With me today are Bob Miller and Richard Davenport with Waterways. Dwight Nadeau, Jamie Anderson with RW A, and Reed Jarvi, Vannesse and Daylor. Oh, yeah, Mike Myers, with Passarella and Associates. Hopefully there aren't any environmental issues. What would be the best place for me to put the exhibit? Keeping in mind that the TV will block some people if I move it over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We all have a copy of that exhibit in our book. For the convince of the public, would it be better if we used our book and let Richard use that for the television? Is that okay with everyone? Okay, that works. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. The project before you is a residential PUD application on approximately 138.3 acres. The project is located on Immokalee Road just east of Collier Boulevard and adjacent to Woodcrest Road. The proposal is for a 968 residential unit project. The -- it's in the urban area. The base density in the urban area is four units per acre. Weare requesting an affordable housing density bonus of three Page 56 October 19,2006 units per acre. And the property -- project would actually be eligible for up to 10 units per acre if we also went with the activity density band, which we would be entitled to request under the existing comprehensive plan. But we're not asking for any of those units, we're asking for a bonus density of three dwelling units per acre. The project will provide 10 percent of the units. Another way of saying it is 23.375 percent of the bonus units to serve the gap income levels, which is the 150 percent to the 81 percent income threshold, and 10 percent, or 23.375 percent of the bonus units for the workforce housing, which is the 81 percent -- I'm sorry, 80 percent to 61 percent. So I believe this is the first project to come through under the new affordable housing matrix that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners recently. The developer has enjoyed a good relationship with Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity owns a project, or some land, about 11 acres, a little south of us on W oodcrest. We would assist in providing access to that project, as well as providing water and sewer utilities for the project. And they would -- their water management would go through our water management system to ultimately outfall into Immokalee Road. The roads that are going to be in place and that are under construction at this point are Immokalee Road is going to be extended to six lanes and is already six lanes in front of the proj ect. 951, Collier Boulevard, is scheduled to commence later on this month. Vanderbilt Beach Road is already under construction. So there will be six-lane roads near the proj ect serving the proj ect. If you were to apply the concurrency management system in place today to our proj ect at zoning, we would meet the concurrency management system. We are also consistent with your Growth Management Plan Page 57 October 19, 2006 policies regarding the analysis of zoning as far as consistency goes. So our project does meet the concurrency threshold for transportation at this point. Weare going through the Water Management District and Corps permitting process concurrently with the rezone. We hope to have that approved sometime in the near future. But as you know, the Corps is not always predictable. But we're winding our way through that process. Part of the project is already -- has some zoning on it. It's the Outdoor Resorts RV zoning. We are adding some acreage to that area. And through the process, we are actually increasing the amount of preservation from 29 percent of the site to 40 percent for the preservation retention as part of the proj ect. We are proposing two large contiguous preserve areas, versus the smaller preserve areas that were in the outdoor resort project. And we have worked with your environmental staff to resolve all the environmental issues. We'll also been working with your transportation staff in an attempt to negotiate a developer contribution agreement that really isn't needed to serve our proj ect, but will actual provide additional benefits to the overall transportation network. You have seen the business points of that the developer contribution agreement in your staff summary, and that hopefully will find its way into a developer contribution agreement before the Board of County Commissioners. But you have all the business points in front of you. That will basically result in the creation and construction of a bypass road to Collier Boulevard. It will be -- W oodcrest will be improved down to Tree Farm. Tree Farm will then go to the east and connect to Collier Boulevard. And some day Massey Street will be improved as well. So there will be a bypass road from -- basically a parallel road to Page 58 October 19, 2006 Collier Boulevard as part of the developer contribution agreement. And we will be taking into our water management system some of the water management for that roadway system. There is a -- I believe you have seen the cleaned up transportation -- Kay will hand out the cleaned up transportation stipulations that are in the PUD document. The County Attorney's office did not want us to include the DCA business points in the PUD document. They preferred that that be in a separate -- in a separate agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go further, Richard, since this is being passed out, I'd like to verify with Kay, when she can get to a mic -- Kay, is this any different than what we received in the most recent version that was sent in our packages in the PUD document? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. Yes, it is. This is including fine tuning language between transportation staff, the County Attorney staff and the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, the applicant just stood there and said this is the recent version that was included in our PUD document. You're saying it's not included in our PUD document. Is that true? MS. DESELEM: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now we have new language thrown at us on a very intense project about a very intense infrastructure issue. And it's multiple pages that we're expected to analyze here while we're sitting here today. That's impossible. At least for me. MS. DESELEM: My understanding of the language changes, it's fine tuning based on County Attorney's input and working together. The points that it raises and makes are essentially the same as the original language that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I for one will not be utilizing that for discussion today. As far as accepting it into evidence as part of the PUD, I guess that's an issue we can debate about whether we want to or not. Mr. Murray. Page 59 October 19, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, there is also a question. It's a document without any signature, a document without any reference to who provided the document, whether it's the staff or the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we can get acknowledged on record that staff created and provided this. MS. DESELEM: It was provided to me by the applicant's agent in cooperation with the County Attorney's office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you reviewed this? MS. DESELEM: I have not had a chance to review it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, this is getting better by the minute. Has transportation staff reviewed it? MS. DESELEM: As far as I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you have not, as the chiefplanner for this county in regards to this proj ect. MS. DESELEM: That's correct. I received it yesterday at a quarter to 5:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, we have a couple of options. Maybe the County Attorney can help me. As far as I'm concerned, if this is part and parcel of this project without having time to review it, it's something we should be reviewing. Should we continue this ourselves or can we continue it to a later time today and go for another proj ect first, or what's your suggestion? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You could continue it to a later time today and go to another project. All it is was some -- there were typos, there needed to be some clean-up in the language. And then what transportation had done was to put the whole DCA in the PUD. And it was my opinion that by doing that, you constrain yourself in case the board wants to change something when the DCA gets to them you just put the DCA in the ordinance. And that can be problematic. And I thought it would be better to have general talking points as to what was in the DCA and you can go to the specifics on Page 60 October 19,2006 the record. So those numbered paragraphs were severely -- were compressed. Like A and B. So that's what happened. I met with Mr. Casalanguida and talked about this, and I also met with Mr. Nadeau. And I met with them a couple of weeks ago. So it's not anything that I did at a quarter till 5:00 yesterday. I met with Mr. Nadeau a couple of weeks ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, last week or two weeks ago, this project was continued for the very purpose, at least stated, I thought, at the meeting to produce this DCA agreement, which we now find out has not been produced. In fact, we're now getting an 11 th hour document as a substitute for that. So now two weeks have gone by and we couldn't have gotten a timely review and response to this issue before the minute of the meeting? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I met with the applicant. I don't prepare the DCAs in the office. Transportation handles that. So while the DCA is not done -- or maybe it is done, perhaps transportation could address. My only point was I didn't feel it was appropriate, we've never done it before, to put in a rezone ordinance the DCA agreement. We could have a collateral agreement. And my suggestion was to take these points out of the ordinance, put them on a separate piece of paper so you all would know, just don't put them in the ordinance. And I met with the applicant a couple of weeks ago to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only problem I have is when I read this document, the strength of the language that existed by putting a lot of effort into the PUD may be what made it work. I'm not sure how much this takes out. Because I know where you're coming from -- Ms. Student, I know where you're coming from legally, and I know what it means for them to have to change something in a DCA that's in a PUD and back and forth like that. Page 61 October 19,2006 Well, in some aspects that may be appealing. Meaning they're locked in, they can't have that flexibility that everyone seems to like in this world. So points on this may be contrary to what we've already reviewed. With that in mind, I'm really going to ask the board what their thoughts on this matter are. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I make a motion we continue this to our next meeting. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion been made, we'll have a second and then we'll go into discussion. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Caron. Now discussion. Mr -- well, let's start -- Mr. Murray, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to make the point I think to the next meeting is perhaps beyond what the number of issues. If we find later that by reading this information it's significant and impacts on our conclusions, then maybe another motion would be in order. But I would recommend that we do delay it for the day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think we should hear it today if we can. There's no major changes in here? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It was just removal of what would be in the DCA. But I also want to point out it's your pleasure. If you want to leave it as it was, that's up to the Planning Commission. I just thought by putting it in an ordinance, it's going to be -- you've got to then -- the DCA's just got to be exactly it. And if there's any changes that need to be made to the DCA, then assuming that the ordinances is already adopted, you'd have to change the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You told us that twice already. And Margie, the problem I have is we have relied for years on your Page 62 October 19, 2006 expertise and your advice to this board. You're making this advice now by telling us something we currently have -- may not be as good as this is. But we should have the right and the timeliness to be able to review what you advised us so we can ask you any further questions we may have. And that's where I think the problem comes in. Mr. Adelstein and Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't see any reason why we can't take -- go to the next one and then after that take a half hour, 45 minutes to read this thing over and then go back. We just skip one space and do it early afternoon and get done it with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Kay, could you provide us with a strikethrough underlined version, that may minimize the impact of what this is. Because we can't really tell what's changed. MS. DESELEM: I do not have that available to me. I would have to get it from the applicant's agent, if there is such an item. MR. NADEAU: Right here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I join Mr. Adelstein is, we should just leapfrog, go to the next one and come back to this one, and provide us with a strikethrough and make sure you read it. MS. DESELEM: It appears that there is one available. I'll make sure that copies are made and you get a copy of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, if we delay the hearing on this one until after lunch -- I don't know how long the next one will take, I think it's the V ornado development, say we get done with that one in an hour or an hour-and-a-half, but regardless, sometime after lunch, will that give you time between now and that point to review these pages adequately enough to advise us where your concurrence is or not on this? MS. DESELEM: I would think so, bearing in mind that I'm also the planner on the V ornado, so I have to be here for that one. Page 63 October 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I said after lunch. We'll take an hour break for lunch. I hate to ask you to impose on your lunchtime, but I'm sure Mr. Schmitt would give you a second lunch hour. MS. DESELEM: Sure he will. Can I get that on the record, please? MR. SCHMITT: She has nothing to do between midnight and 6:00, I mean, other than sleep. We could fill it in there in that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate to ask you to do that, though, but would that be something you could help us with? MS. DESELEM: I would be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there's a motion on the table to continue this till the next meeting. And during the discussion, there was a discussion to possibly continue this until after the next -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'd like to withdraw and amend my motion to continue until this afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the second agree? COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This particular project will be continued to after lunch today. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: My purpose was only to get it off center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I think everybody understands the purpose. That was well taken. Is there approval on the motion to continue? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 64 October 19,2006 COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I almost moved forward without getting the motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Unfortunately we end up with the same person again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'd like to ask those -- everybody to calm down and take your seats. This meeting has not been adjourned. We are in session. We are going forward with the next motion. Item #8C PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-8147 The next petition is PUDZ-2005-AR-8147, the Vornado Development, Inc., represented by Wayne Arnold ofQ. Grady Minor Associates. First of all, all those wishing to speak in this matter, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Mr. Arnold and I had some correspondence, and you sent me some documents. And I think I talked to Richard about those documents as well involving the access to the property. Other than that, is there any other comments? (No response.) Page 65 October 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor and Associates, representing the property owner of the V ornado proj ect. Rich Y ovanovich is the land use attorney on the project. We have Bobbie Caden (phonetic) here representing the property owner. As you know, the Vornado project is an infill project. It's located in the East Naples area behind the Town Center Shopping Center. It is in the urban mixed use district. The project's further within the traffic congestion zone, so we qualify for a base density of three dwelling units per acre, due to the loss of one being within the traffic congestion zone. Our project access is from Palm Drive that serves the Glades. And that's served through an ingress/egress easement over the Naples Sunrise condominium project to ours. If any of you have visited the site or seen the aerials, it's obvious that this was a former wastewater treatment facility for the Glades. And it's been abandoned and the county now operates an adjacent effluent tank and pumping facility on property that's shown as not being included within the project boundaries. Again, we're an infill proj ect. Weare under 10 acres, but we're deemed to be allowed to pursue a PUD zoning on less than 10 acres because we are an infill project and we have developed property adjacent to us on more than two sides. We believe that the PUD is the most appropriate vehicle to deal with this type of project, as opposed to seeking RMF-6 or MF-16 type zoning and then conditioning that, because it allows us to bring forward our master plan and have appropriate conditions that we've been working on with our adjoining property owners. We have made provisions for only residential uses in the project. We've asked for a variety of dwelling unit types. We don't have a specific development footprint yet, but all of those housing types are Page 66 October 19,2006 restricted to 35 feet in height. And the development tracts have been shown on the RPUD master plan. And the one thing that I would describe about the site plan is that it's obvious we have neighbors to our north and we have primarily golf course neighbors to our east, and again a little to the north and then to the south is all commercial development. And what we've proposed on the site plan, is you'll note we're -- the addition of a deviation that dealt with wall heights. And that was a combination of two things: One dealing with our neighbors in the Glades; and two, dealing with our neighbor at the county wastewater facility and their concern for long-term security at that site. So you'll not that we have made provisions for 10- foot high walls within our project, as well as eight-foot high walls adjacent to the Glades Country Club property. We have met with our neighbors. We called our NIM. We had several people in attendance and there were generalized questions. I don't think that anybody -- I should say nobody seemed to be opposed to the idea that we were converting this from golf course to a residential planned unit development at three units per acre. The primary issue early on focused on that a portion of our property extends out into the Glades Country Club golf course and it extends into one of the golf fairways. And we have been discussing for the last several months with the Glades property owners association how we can deal with -- our master plan reflects that it remains golf course and open space, and that's certainly our intent and we've further worked with them in that regard. We've asked for a deviation with respect to walls, as I indicated. We also asked for a deviation with respect to the internal cul-de-sac drive, as reflected on the master plan, to go to 40 feet, which isn't an uncommon deviation for small-scale projects, again, with 24 units in total. We've also asked for the one deviation related to sidewalk to Page 67 October 19,2006 have only on one side of that cul-de-sac road and then we'll do a payment in lieu of as a condition of that deviation approval. Staff obviously is here to address it, if they desire. But with respect to the overall project, we think it makes sense at three units per acre. We're trying to make this work. We've sought the infill density increases for it although there's properties surrounding us. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Arnold, could you please slow down. MR. ARNOLD: Sure. We've sought the density increases for this as an infill project and believe that we can do this at three units per acre. The master plan, again, is in your file. It shows the residential tracts adjacent to golf course and to the utility site. And we have -- and Kay's addendum staff report alluded to the fact we were still trying to work out utility conditions with the utilities division. And I think we reached consensus on a couple of items that they did have. And one was the wall height and security . We sat down with Mr. Yilmaz and I forget the other members of his staff and Kay and our team. And the issue was the requirement to have a six-foot-high wall along our entry road and a ten-foot-high wall surrounding their effluent tank adjacent to our property. And then the idea that we would not have any encroachments into the light drainage easements and the utility easements that are going to be relocated on this parcel. I've got copies of the two conditions that grew out of that. If it would be appropriate to hand them out, I have copies -- I think we would certainly ask that you include them as any condition of approval, because it is something that we believe there is agreement. I can't say that on the exact wording, because I know Marjorie had some comments on the language that we had offered. And I think those were primarily legal sufficiency, changing a must to shall, et Page 68 October 19, 2006 cetera. And I have a copy of that -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Small things like that. MR. ARNOLD: If it's appropriate, I hand that out now for your consideration. It's two short paragraphs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's at your risk. MR. ARNOLD: I don't think I have a choice. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's why he's doing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give us a minute to read this, Wayne. Okay, without actually -- without voting on the substance of it, but just acknowledging that we want to accept it into evidence, is there a motion to do so? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There is something I would like to add into this motion, and that is the easement in perpetuity for the use of the golf course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, all we're trying to do is accept this into evidence, what's right here. It has nothing to do with that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray makes a motion to accept this into evidence. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Tuff. He's soft in his responses. Any other -- any comments? Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, to accept this into evidence, all signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 69 October 19,2006 COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I really don't have a whole lot more to add other than to say that after the various meetings with the Glades property owners association, I believe we've reached consensus and agreement on any issues they've had, and there's no objection that I'm aware of. I know that there were members of the Glades here earlier. I don't see them at the moment. But -- one, sorry. And so I think we've resolved that issue. And I'd be happy to respond to questions, if you have any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, let me ask you to clear one thing up before we go into questions. I think a lot of concern is going to be over an e-mail -- not e-mail but I think it was bye-mail received from staff. There was a letter from Henry Johnson with, I guess, the adjoining condominium, which is Sunrise, has a series of objections to this project, some of which or many of which seem to be based on the existence or the non-existence of a particular easement for access. I would like to get that matter at least cleared up from the perspective of the County Attorney so that gets on the table. Go ahead. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you. I have reviewed the document, and it's my opinion, and I want to offer a couple of caveats, that if this were to go to litigation, we do not know how a court might decide this. And I do not have benefit of putting Mr. Bruns, who's the surveyor who wrote this, under oath, nor do I have benefits of any side or collateral documents that may shed light on the meaning of this. So with that being said, it is my opinion that -- I differ with what Page 70 October 19, 2006 Mr. Johnson said, the Glades, Inc., and I understand that the applicant is the successor to the Glades, Inc., and it states its successors and assignees reserve the right. And there are two prepositional phrases here. The first is to ingress and egress across, and then there is a comma. And there is a second prepositional phrase after the comma which states, to construct and maintain utility and develop drainage works. So because there are two prepositional phrases separated by a comma, it is my belief that the first item is to ingress and egress across, and the second would be to construct and maintain utility and drainage works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that easement width, as noted on there, is 110 feet? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Let's see. On the westerly six feet and the southerly 110 feet of the above described lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If the intent of that easement was for the same purpose, meaning ingress and egress and drainage, why did they mention two different widths? I mean, if the southerly six feet is the same part of the 110, why would they mention the southerly six feet as separate from the 110? Do you have any input on that? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, I don't. Because I have not -- I would have to ask the author. And Mr. Bruns should really be under oath to really understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just wanted to find out if-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And again, court of law, based on evidence and so on presented, may reach a different conclusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for that early input. Mr. Murray, you were next in line. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, the only thing I had at the moment with regard to this paper that was given to us and accepted Page 71 October 19, 2006 into evidence. It's silent with regard to landscaping on the residents' side, and I wondered if that just happened to be left off of there or was it intended that there shall be no landscaping after the wall is constructed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Arnold, you need to respond to that, if you can. MR. ARNOLD: And the essence of that was why no commitment on landscaping on our side of the wall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: We had a discussion with the utilities division, and I think it was, you know, trust us, we want to shield ourselves from the effluent tank and the wall, and we're going to provide landscaping to do that. They've had some standards written for landscaping for us that really, in my opinion it wasn't the utilities division's responsibility to tell us what landscaping we should provide to the inside of our wall. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you accept to the land development code's -- MR. ARNOLD: Certainly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So we'll just keep that in mind. MR. ARNOLD: It was never our intent not to have it. It just wasn't, we didn't feel, appropriate for the utilities to tell us what it should be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, that clarified that Issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have two items I would like to get into the document. First of all is that the golf course property is going to be an easement in perpetuity. And second of all, that both parties have agreed to where the golf course line is on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. You're talking about Page 72 October 19, 2006 something that is in front of us today or not in front of us? Do we have a document referencing the two -- as you just -- you're going to hand out another document today? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I don't do things wrong twice. I try to learn from previous experiences. No, I think what Mr. Adelstein is trying to just get on the record, not necessarily as part of the PUD document, because the PUD document specifically says that the only development that's allowed on the golf course parcel is golf course. I think what he's trying to have us acknowledge, that there has been a separate document that's not part of the PUD document negotiated between the property owner and the owner of the golf course that does in fact create an easement in perpetuity for the benefit of the golf course owner as a belt and suspenders covering of the issue of that golf course tract in the PUD will in fact always be a golf course tract. It's not part of the PUD document. It was a separately negotiated document. We don't intend to make it part of the PUD document. It was never intended to be part of the PUD document to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's the owner of the golf course? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think it's Glades Country Club. And I have been working with Mr. Menzies, their attorney, to finalize that document. And the reason, as you will recall, that we asked you to continue this the last time is we committed to Glades Country Club that we would not go forward with our rezone until that document -- the I's were dotted and T's crossed. That's been accomplished and that's why it's in front of you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Mr. Adelstein, you weren't asking us to then accept anything in evidence, you just were making a statement involving something you're involved with? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Correct. And the other item Page 73 October 19, 2006 is that there's a mutual agreement between both parties as to where the golf course line is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's all part of the easement agreement that you're referring to. Consistent with the boundaries -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does this have any bearing on our efforts here today? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I don't think it necessarily does, because you're constrained by the criteria in the Land Development Code for PUD rezones and rezones generally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wanted to make sure that we accept and restudy everything we need to and things we don't need to we just will acknowledge and go forward. Okay. Mr. Murray, you had asked questions, and Mr. Adelstein. Is there any other -- Mr. Schiffer, this is questions of the applicant, so wherever Wayne went. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm first? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you raised your hand. The others had finished earlier. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, the boundary line shown on the exhibits doesn't cut out the effluent tank and everything. Is that part of the area calculations? MR. ARNOLD: No, it's not. The effluent tank area was excluded. I think what happened is the last document that came in when we added the wall dimension, I think a line got taken out. But there was an excluded tract. I think if you looked at an earlier version, if anybody kept their first version of this, it shows an exclusion for the effluent tank that's operated by the county. And I can certainly correct that. I can show you on the master plan that I have. I'll hold it up so you can see it. As you can see on the color exhibit I have, the white Page 74 October 19, 2006 part's all this, the county-operated effluent tank. And it is -- we wrap around an entire lake and it is excluded from our area of calculations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The eight acres does not include that easement. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or that property line, actually. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the reason you want to put a wall alongside a golf course? I mean, I know you mentioned that -- you know, to stop the balls. I'm not an expert in golf, but if they're eight feet off the ground or bouncing, they're not that dangerous. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The reason there is an eight-foot wall along the golf course is, one, for keeping hopefully security reasons from the golf course and golf balls. And also, most importantly, it was a request of the golf course owner for some privacy that we go ahead and build that wall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Some more questions. The request for the cul-de-sac, we have an ordinance that's actually -- I think it's 2005-32 requires a fire lane that would have in essence an outside diameter of 50 feet. So wouldn't this violate that? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think so. The cul-de-sac, I believe, meets the radius requirement for fire apparatus. I don't think there's any -- I don't think we have a choice that we have to meet that requirement. They do have an exception, I believe, for a hammer-head type turnaround that would be an option. But I believe the cul-de-sac -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the ordinance states dimensions, specific dimensions that this would not meet. So-- MR. ARNOLD: Well, we've asked for a right-of-way exception down to 40 feet. But I think that simply means that we have the ability to go down to 40 feet. We may at the end of the day end up Page 75 October 19, 2006 with a 50-foot right-of-way. But it is such a constrained site that we needed that internal flexibility. But there's no exception from those life, safety code requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you'd have no problem taking out the cul-de-sac in that 40 feet? MR. ARNOLD: Let me look at the specific language of what you'd be asking us to -- well, I think the right-of-way width in terms of -- you're saying it would just be utilized for local streets and strike the word and cul-de-sacs? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we have a problem with that. That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then we have open space on the site. But essentially you're going to wall it off from the residents of this site so that it stays on the golf course? MR. ARNOLD: The largest part of our open space ends up being the canal area that we have, the areas that we have on individual lots and around those, and then a portion of this that is essentially going to be a golf course easement over the balance of the property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the residents won't have access to that? MR. ARNOLD: The residents will not have direct access to it, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know this is in the staff report, but I'm going to reference it anyway. It says in here the developer shall be responsible for the perpetual maintenance of the vegetated buffer, the irrigation system of the wall. And so I assume then there would be an association that we will be made responsible ultimately for that? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. We'll have our developer -- right, we'll Page 76 October 19, 2006 have our own property owners association. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which brings me to the next question. In terms of bang for the buck as we always concern ourselves with, how much it cost to build relative to whatever price points are possible, 24 units, is it? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you want the right to build multiple units as well. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they would still be 24? MR. ARNOLD: Twenty-four is the maximum. That's it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it could be two twelves if there was enough room, et. cetera. MR. ARNOLD: It could be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But who would you be selling to on that base? You would be selling condominiums? You wouldn't be selling platted lots, you wouldn't be selling single homeowner. MR. ARNOLD: In essence, yes, they would be condominium-ized units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And is there -- what are the price points that you believe that would be in that location? Because you must have an idea before you're getting ready to build. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think when we started this project a year so ago, the price points and sale prices throughout this area were significantly higher than they are today. The opportunity that we have here is that the developer's held the land for a long time. And we have that in our favor. But I don't know the specific sale point for -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I recognize you have no swami hat and a crystal ball. But somebody has made a business plan and they have come to a conclusion. I'm just asking -- really, what I'm trying to ascertain -- I don't Page 77 October 19,2006 know that we have to get too deep into it -- what I'm trying to ascertain is that we have a parcel of property that's occupied by a reclamation tank, and it's not terribly pretty, and we have a strange parcel and I'm wondering, who's going to be attracted to that and what kind of price points were you going to sell? I want to protect that neighborhood to the extent that people have invested their lives in that, and I wouldn't want to see properties that come in and will not sustain. MR. ARNOLD: I think given construction costs what they are, I don't think there's -- there should be a fear that we're going to be building something other than market rate housing. I know that some of the other smaller proj ects that we've looked at throughout the area, just to get an idea of what kind of product fits there, and it's everything from an attached villa to some smaller townhome type units. But the price points are high and they're probably going to be in the high 300's to 400's to start. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you're telling me, if I understand you correctly, you intend to sell at market. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you intend to sell a -- if it were -- it's not going to be single-family, apparently. MR. ARNOLD: There is a possibility that it would be. At this point I know that I can lay it out and fit 24 single-family lots in here. I just don't know that we've made a commitment that that's the product we're building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in other words, in my judgment listening to this, I can evaluate it based on single or two twelves? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Page 78 October 19, 2006 Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Back to the development standards, Table 1. Would you have a problem on that separation between building distance between the principal structures making that 20 feet, one inch, or at least greater than 20 feet? That will speed up the building permit process and remove disappointment from how many window areas you can have and fire ratings on a wall, okay? You can make it 20 feet and one millimeter if you want, but just make it greater than 20 feet, because that's the cut-off on fire separation distance. MR. ARNOLD: Do we -- I mean, that is our minimum, as it's expressed. I mean, we would -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But if somebody made it 20, you would have a 10- foot fire separation distance, which would put you in a low category, which means you wouldn't be allowed many windows, stuff like that. MR. ARNOLD: That's maybe a little bit beyond my area of expertise. I guess I would have to defer to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, just the word greater than 20 feet would satisfy . You can -- I mean, you can forget it. It's just, somebody down the road will thank you for that, believe me. MR. ARNOLD: But I think we've got it if we express it as a minimum. I guess it gives us that flexibility if we want to come in at 20 feet, one inch to get out of that other requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, you don't have to do it. But if somebody puts them 20 feet apart, they'll disappoint themselves somewhere down the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You're not planning to construct any affordable housing units. Are you willing to go along with the Page 79 October 19, 2006 $1,000 per unit that other people are agreeing to for now? MR. ARNOLD: I'd have to consult with my client. He's nodding his head in agreement. So we would be willing to make that $1,000 donation per unit. And I guess -- I know that I've seen variations of standardized language, but it's tied to time of CO, et cetera; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the previous one was tied to building permit issuance and credit for any future fee or something that would be reduced for affordable housing. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Arnold, I guess we get started. The 110- foot easement, Wayne. You realize that that 110- foot easement currently runs over the top of three parking spaces assigned to units in the existing condominium which were needed to meet the minimum requirements for their parking? MR. ARNOLD: It -- I guess the answer is yes, I do agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you take out three parking spaces of the existing condominium and put in your roadway because you believe you have an easement there, how is that going to help that condominium? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, first of all -- for the record, Rich Y ovanovich. We don't have any intention of taking those three parking spaces out. They were referenced on the condominium documents when they were created. We know that they're needed. We don't believe that that's an inconsistent use with our ingress, egress easement, and we can design our access around those parking spaces. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you describe to me how you're going to do that? Page 80 October 19, 2006 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the actual travel lanes, when we go ahead and do the site development plan, will avoid those three parking spaces. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how much space you're going to utilize for those travel lanes? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Approximately 24 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then when I ask transportation as to what they're going to be looking for an access to that, they will be able to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will meet the LDC requirements regarding access to our site. We believe the 110 feet is more than adequate for us to do that. And we know that will be a site development plan condition when we get to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know I've driven by that street many, many times but I honestly never looked over at this, or if I did, I don't remember it. I imagine there's some kind of landscaping there. I imagine the condominium may have landscaping there. Do you have any idea what's going to happen to their landscaping and improvements that you would have to -- I don't know if you have to make any. Is there any agreements worked out that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we have a -- I'm glad you brought that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Me too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because we met with the Sunrise condominium representatives probably over a month ago. And what they asked us at that meeting was, they had some concerns about what we planned on doing, and we said we will bring you our planned entranceway, including landscaping and all that. And I have probably called no less than five times trying to get that meeting to show them what we have planned. And at this point they have said to us they have some additional concerns and they're monetary concerns. They would like us to not only share with them Page 81 October 19, 2006 our plans for what our entrance is going to look like, but they believe that they're entitled to some additional monies. I have asked them to please tell me what amount that would be that they think they're entitled to. Two weeks ago they told me they'd let me know within 24 hours. Well, I can stand here today and tell you they still will not let us know. We had a conference call two days ago, at which point they basically said to us make them an offer. But we don't believe that we need to give them any compensation at all based upon the easement language and the condominium documents that clearly shows this is a 110- foot wide easement. That doesn't mean we don't want to talk with them and be good neighbors, show them our plans as far as the entranceway goes. But at this point I'm at a position where I can't have -- I can't get somebody to come to my office or talk on the phone and tell me what they have in mind. I'd love to share with them our plans for the ingress and egress but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I may have a solution for you. Why don't you share with us your plans for ingress and egress. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll be happy to show you our minimum widths for right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to see the landscaping that you're going to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have not had a chance to sit down and talk with them about what they would like to see. We have designed the width we need. We wanted to talk to them about what type of landscaping they would like to see in there. So we haven't been able to have that meeting. So the only thing we have for them is showing them where the pavement would be, where the island would be, and have them assist us in picking the type of landscaping they would like to see bordering that. So I don't have a landscape plan because I can't get the meeting. Page 82 October 19, 2006 But I would be happy to show you our preliminary width of the entranceway. But regarding what type of landscaping is going to be there, we wanted to give them input. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a locational map showing out overlays on the existing site? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe it will give you what you need. It's an aerial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we take a look at it? Just pass it to the Planning Commission, if you don't mind. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm a little skittish to put in any new evidence into the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It isn't new evidence yet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And just so you know, Mr. Strain, we don't anticipate moving their driveway entrance. We plan on working with them. And we wanted to talk to them how they would like to see a j oint entrance, if they wanted some signage, some landscaping, all of that on the road, curb appeal. We'd like to work with them, and we view that as an enhancement to their project. We can't quite get the meeting we need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well let's -- I have some other questions. We'll move on with those while this is waiting to get to that point. Okay, the tank that's there, I've heard some comments that the tank isn't being used, but others -- seen others in your documentation that it is being us used. Is there ample easement provided around that tank so if it had to be refurbished, reconstructed or whatever, that the utility department can do that? Is that basically the result of that -- this document is a result of that kind of actions with the utility department? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. I think when we left our meeting with George Yilmaz and his staff, I think that there was mutual agreement that they were getting, in addition to the security they needed, they Page 83 October 19, 2006 had ample access to maintain their facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the agreement that you provided, I notice there's a one -- second line from the bottom of the first paragraph that says number one that starts, it says line near the aboveground wastewater storage tank. And they're referring to a property line. . Would near be better defined as nearest? MR. ARNOLD: I think that's perfectly fine with me. I think the thing that made it more clear is to note those locations on the actual master plan. Because the property line also gets -- it becomes an easement line for ingress, egress to them as well over a portion of our property. So trying to distinguish that, it made it easier to show those locations on the master plan. But I don't think nearest has any issue at all for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the staff report there was a series of stipulations that you were evaluating, but you had made one that you cannot agree to, provide the additional width buffer. Was that the one that utilities was asking for around that tank? MR. ARNOLD: Well, we, in talking to them, I think their issue came of one of compatibility. And you're putting residences here, how do we know that they're not going to complain about us. And I think it's obvious to almost everybody that there's an effluent tank in your back yard. A 10- foot wall isn't going to obscure it. I think it's going to be our responsibility to landscape it so that we can actually sell a unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The Phase 1 audit. I've done a lot of these myself. And they are generally done by a firm licensed to do that kind of scientific review. They sometimes involve -- well, basically Phase 1 is rather simple, it's an observation of the site, and if anything looks suspicious, they follow it up with a Phase 2. And I've actually done Phase 1 audits on septic treatment plant Page 84 October 19, 2006 sites, former treatment plan sites exactly as the one you have here. I've never yet found an environmental company willing to sign off on a Phase 1 knowing that was a septic treatment plant site without doing some coring and some sampling. Has any such coring and sampling been done in your case? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know about coring and sampling but I do know that we had a letter from DEP back in 2005 that essentially said, you know, the -- I can read it, it's two sentences long. But it was addressed to Gary Butler, who was an engineer who was involved in the dismantling of that facility. And it's addressed to Mr. Butler from Charles Duvall with the wastewater section of the DEP in Fort Myers. And it says it's in reply to his letter July 29th, 2005 concerning the Glades sewer plant. The department does not object to the demolition of this plant, provided there is no need for the plant. The debris should be disinfected before recycling or disposed of in an approved landfill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I wish that relying on the DEP for doing due diligence was that easy. We would save a lot of money. You have one sentence supplied as a Phase 1 audit. And it says, we have inspected the subj ect site and find no evidence of chemicals or other hazardous waste. Do you know how it was inspected? MR. ARNOLD: I do not. I know that was from Gary Butler. I do not know how he performed that inspection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if Gary Butler is certified to do scientific environmental hazardous analysis? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. He's a professional engineer in the State of Florida, but I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've never seen a Phase 1 audit summarized like that. MR. ARNOLD: I guess all I would offer to that is that the county's environmental review staff has accepted this as evidence that Page 85 October 19, 2006 we're okay to proceed through zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The environmental staff or somebody at the pre-ap. said they need a clean site information of a Phase 1 review due to previous site use. Did you ever supply them with a Phase 1 review? MR. ARNOLD: I believe that these two letters were supplied to Mr. Lenberger and he reviewed this and deemed this to be complete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is he in this room? MS. DESELEM: No, but I could get him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you wouldn't mind. I'd like to understand what he thinks a Phase 1 review is. In the PUD on Section 2.7, which is page 2-3, you're talking about minor changes to the plan. Are your intention of those two paragraphs to change any of the processes within the LDC? MR. ARNOLD: No. In fact, if that's of any concern, we could take those out. I think the new direction for staff since this was submitted is probably to take out the redundant conditions through the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my next question. So if you don't mind, that should come out then. Under your general permitted uses, you still have temporary sewage treatment facilities. But I thought this facility wasn't part of this application. MR. ARNOLD: It's not. Those are standard -- that's a standard language. It gives us the right, if we had a sales center, that we could have a temporary facility that would service that, such as a holding tank or a septic system or something like that. That's typically how that's been reviewed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure you weren't trying to tie in the existing plant that I believe is omitted. On number six, it says community neighborhood parks and boat docks. You plan to put boat docks in? Page 86 October 19, 2006 MR. ARNOLD: Probably not. But we do have a canal that's on our property. And it didn't seem unreasonable to think that there might be some sort of boardwalk or something that could be along that waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the -- there was a plan, Exhibit A, attached to your PUD? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It shows an outline of the property. There's a line -- I think I know what it is now as a result of this meeting. It looks like it's a line possibly where the existing golf course goes. It's to the right-hand side of the page. And it's just a line going across in kind of a random pattern. Is that the golf course line? MR. ARNOLD: Essentially it is. It's pulled back a little bit out of the golf rough. But it was approximated from aerials, and again, part of the discussion with the Glades Golf Course. But it is in essence becomes our development tract line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well then that resolves my question. Are there any other questions of -- go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, on that wall that you're going to build around the reclamation tank, will there be just a man door, or will there be facility to bring a truck in and to -- in case they need to do work on that? How will you be building that; do you know? Has anything been considered? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we know that specifically, but the facility at the present time has access around it that -- I don't know exactly how wide that is, but it's a dimension that there are vehicles out there, I drove by this morning and there were vehicles within that dirt and gravel area that surrounds the perimeter of that tank. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Ten feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. Page 87 October 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what I'm trying to think of is the future in case they need to maintain that, in case they need to break it apart, whatever they need to do. And that's something I think ought to be considered. It may not be critical. I also want to bring your attention to the staff report on the drawing, or the picture, actually. That's an aerial. And I want to be clear in my mind, if I can, since we're so limited with your presentation of papers here. I'm looking, the aerial shows what appears to be the golf course. I guess that's their little track. And maybe if you could display that, if that's the -- yeah, that white line that's running there. Is that not the golf course? MR. ARNOLD: Are you referring to this line? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I am. MR. ARNOLD: That is a golf cart path. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Golf cart track, right. Now, that is within your property. And I want to be clear that what -- that's not going to go away, that's going to be an easement right now, that has been settled with -- MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- the people? And there is an agreement with place now -- MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- not pending. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. It's my understanding that that agreement has been signed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And in that context then there'll be no building in that area, so please show me with a line, if you would, with your pen, where you actually would be building then. MR. ARNOLD: Our building line essentially is in this general vicinity. It takes in all of the golf course rough as part of the golf course tract, and everything to the in that instance, west of that line would be part of our development.P Page 88 October 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And a request had been made it to put a wall up, as I understand? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, along our -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then you will provide the landscaping on, what, one side of the wall? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know -- both sides, I believe, is what the agreement specifies. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Say it again, sir? MR. ARNOLD: Both sides of the wall. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Both sides. That's very good. And that would be, what, a D buffer, I presume there, since it would be a wall. MR. ARNOLD: I'm not certain. I think it's probably at least a B buffer, since it's got an opaque screening in it. But that requires a hedge, or shrubbing and trees, I think 30 feet on center. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As long as I never see an A buffer again, that would be the important thing. The area there, I have probably not the most -- all right, I'm going to pass, I'll make my comment later. Thank you, that was the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none we'll-- I'll listen to staff. Thank you. And Kay, I'm assuming Steve's not available? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development review. Yes, I checked, and unfortunately Steve is signed out for a site visit and he's not listed an anticipated time of return. I apologize. Had Page 89 October 19,2006 I anticipated that you would have environmental questions, I would have had him on call. I'm here to present the staff report, which you have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Before we leave that, I just kind of want to find out at least from the Planning Commission perspective what you anticipate or expected from the environmental staff. The letter is signed and sealed from a registered professional engineer. Normally we will not question that. He signed and sealed it. And as Mr. Arnold read in the record, were you looking for something from staff beyond that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the staff asked for, they need a clean site information from a Phase 1 review of the previous site use. I have not seen a Phase 1 review. Do you have something that I don't have? MR. SCHMITT: I don't have a Phase 1 review. I just have what was in the packet that says stamped and sealed from Butler Engineering saying we've inspected the subj ect site and find no evidence of chemicals or other hazardous waste. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I don't know ifhe did a Phase 1 review. That's a formalized scientific approach. Mactec, Law Engineering, places like that do that generally. They're scientific. They go out with a process in mind. I'm not saying this gentleman didn't, but I didn't see the response to staffs request for a Phase I review. That's all I was looking for. MR. SCHMITT: But that would be something we would also evaluate as part of the site review process. It's not necessarily required as part of zoning. But we'll find that answer out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Go ahead. MS. DESELEM: Yes. Also with me today is Ronald Molly, Page 90 October 19,2006 who is the operations management -- manager for the wastewater department for public utilities. So if you have specific questions regarding the public utilities issue, he can address those for you as well. You do have the staff report and you've got the supplemental staff report that references you to the original staff report dated September 21 st for that particular hearing from whence this proj ect was continued. The staff report, as you were told, goes into the information about the applicant and the agent, the proposed action, the location of the property and the purpose and description of the proj ect, and shows you an aerial photograph and a description of the surrounding area. There is a discussion about future land use elements. And it notes that this proj ect is located within the urban mixed use district, urban residential subdistrict, and their eligible density is what they're seeking, and they are deemed consistent with the FLUE and the FLUM map of the Growth Management Plan regarding density. There is a discussion on Page 3 of the staff report about the transportation element and the coastal conservation management element. And then the conclusion for the GMP findings on Page 4, with staff noting that based on the analysis in the staff report we concluded that the proposed uses and density could be deemed consistent with the goals, objectives and policy of the overall GMP. And we provided an analysis from the environmental staff, transportation staff, utility review. And there is the discussion that's been alluded to regarding the proposed conditions for the utility easement issue. And that has been revolved. It's my understanding everybody is in agreement on the wording that we have now. And staff reviewed the discussions and is recommending approval of all the discussions. And I did note that you did want to have the cul-de-sac Page 91 October 19, 2006 information removed from deviation one. There is a neighborhood information discussion, and staff is recommending as noted on Page 7 that this particular proj ect be recommended before you to the board with a recommendation of approval. We have provided the rezone and PUD findings in support of our recommendation. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Kay, just for the record, have you been a participant in all the discussions relative to these outstanding issues? MS. DESELEM: I don't know that I've been a participant in all of them. But I've been pretty well hooked into them. I know I participated in some of the discussions with utilities, but they weren't precluded from talking amongst themselves without me there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of course. Are you satisfied that all of the pending items that had been pending all this time -- and when we went into this one, as far as I understood it, there were still some pending items. Are you now telling us that you're satisfied that all of those pending items have been resolved? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. In terms of water, the new surfaces that's fairly small parcel for -- I'm just wondering do we have where the water is going to go? I cannot see from this aerial where the -- I could see what appears to be water on the -- if you will, the west side or the -- but I'm not sure what -- and I know a site development plan when it becomes matter, but I just wanted to understand where -- since you have participated in these discussions -- where they intend to ship the water? Will it go into a canal or what? MS. DESELEM: I don't recall specifically. I can go back to the PUD document, because there's usually a discussion in there about the Page 92 October 19, 2006 water flow -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can get it, I'm sure, from the developer's representative, if that's the case. MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, again, for the record. Our point of discharge will be to the canal on the south side of our property. We'll be providing a drainage easement and connection to the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And that's all clean and that. All right, that's good. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Murray, if I can interrupt. In your packet is the site plan, or at least the plat from Q. Grady Minor. The squiggly lines indicate the flow of water on your third page there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I could respond to you, I saw MR. SCHMITT: That's just a preliminary drainage plan. That's all we require at zoning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I just want to be sure we have all of the I's dotted on this thing, because it's so small a parcel and recognizing infill, whomever it is that buys in there is going to end up -- because it's small, going to end up having a lot of maintenance expense to retain that in its original condition. So I'm trying to do my due diligence. I thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Kay, today's petition for this project as well as other projects lists various deviations. And generally the resolution as stated in your report on the deviation is the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community. My question, does staff ever consider what the enhancement is by accepting that deviation or if there is an enhancement to the proj ect? MS. DESELEM: We attempt to see if there is an enhancement. Page 93 October 19, 2006 Usually it's something that is obviously to the benefit of the developer and that's the enhancement to the project, and it usually makes the project better for them either economically or just easier to develop for one reason or another. But our main goal in looking at the deviation is just to make sure that it doesn't have a detrimental effect on the public, understanding that the PUD is designed to give them design flexibility. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I think it would be helpful if the report could also stress any enhancement that might accrue to the county, not only for the developer's benefit but to the county if there is a corresponding enhancement rather than just that it doesn't detriment this area. MS. DESELEM: I will take that under advisement and I will look at that in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of Kay? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question of Don Scott, ifhe's here. Hi, Don. MR. SCOTT: Hi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the number of units that they're asking for and the type of product or whatever they're going to put here for the variety that they have, is there adequate ingress and egress based on the design that you could approve and the 60 feet they have remaining to build in that this easement boils down to basically? MR. SCOTT: Yes. And I think if, from looking at the document, they were trying to get a deviation and permit a 40- foot right-of-way to be utilized for a local street. Obviously they talked about having a sidewalk on one side, so it cuts down a little bit. As long as they can take the drainage, other issues like that, you can build it. And obviously it's not something I need to expand longer, it's only going to access these units, so -- Page 94 October 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I needed to know. Thank you. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any rebuttal by the applicant? Any final comments? MR. ARNOLD: No, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion for this proj ect. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion -- probably going to end up for discussion -- but I would make a motion that the -- that PUDZ-2005-AR-8147 Vornado residential planned unit development be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with -- subject to approval -- with a recommendation of approval. But that the dwelling units be restricted to single-family or townhouse type of structures, as opposed to multiple dwelling units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. And we'll go into discussion. Before we do, Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, does your motion include the handout that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to go into discussion. Probably bring all that out. If we miss something, will you let us know? Kay, did you have a comment? MS. DESELEM: Along that same line. For the record, Kayo Page 95 October 19,2006 Deselem. I just wanted to remind you of the $1,000 donation for the housing fund. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a list, I'm assuming we'll hit. Everybody had comments, so I'm going to ask each board member to now form their comments into a stipulation for the motion maker to consider. Okay, Mr. Midney, your comment -- you requested and asked if they would make a $1,000 contribution. I understood that they agreed to that. It would be at the time of building permit and it would be as a credit to any future fee associated with affordable housing that would come up in the future. Is the motion maker comfortable with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the second okay with that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was acknowledged verbally, so we're okay. The second item -- Brad, you had a few items in the PUD. Do you feel you want to clean those up in a stipulation or that they were handled okay in the discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only concern was the cul-de-sac. Kay acknowledged that, so I'm comfortable. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. No idea what he said. What did he say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He didn't have a stipulation. It was handled during the discussion. I had requested during discussion that we omit 2.7 of the PUD. The applicant agreed to that. I would just like to make that as a stipulation as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion maker accepts, does the second accept? Page 96 October 19, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last thing that I would like to see added to it is a response specifically to staffs request in the preap., which says provide clean site information in the form of a Phase 1 audit for review. If that has been done, fine. But I want someone to acknowledge that what was supplied was considered a Phase 1 audit. And so my request for a stipulation would be a reiteration of staffs comments. That is, to provide some clean site information in the form of a Phase 1 audit. Would the motion maker accept? Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Clarification. You want that as part of the prior to site approval of site plan or specifically in regards to what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to site plan. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to SDP approval, absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second agree with that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been three stipulations. Kay, did you get three? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I have five. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then landscaping. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron has more stipulations. What are yours? COMMISSIONER CARON: I've been writing -- trying to follow. And I believe there are five stipulations so far. Number one was that they be single-family or townhouses only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, wait a minute. The reason I didn't stipulate that was because that was part of the motion, so I didn't COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Page 97 October 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I wouldn't stipulate the motion itself. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the utility conditions, did we actually get them in there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We didn't get them, we need to add them. So the other stipulation then would be that we include the additional handout that addresses the utility issue that we received today and accept it into evidence. And before vote on that -- or we ask the motion maker, Ms. Student, you had a comment on that? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Only comment I would have, there's a couple of typos in here we'll fix, but in the second paragraph of paragraph one, last sentence talks about the developer granting a maintenance easement, if necessary, to the county for general maintenance of the walls. Just when would that be accomplished? At the request of the county, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you? Second paragraph? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm on the second paragraph of paragraph one. Because paragraph one's divided into two separate paragraphs. And it's the last phrase in the last sentence of the second paragraph of denominated paragraph one. And there's just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says the developer shall grant a maintenance easement, if necessary, to Collier County . You're saying when. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If it is necessary, when will they grant it, upon request to the county? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think so. MR. ARNOLD: If I might, Wayne Arnold again. I think we're fine with that, when requested by the county, or the Page 98 October 19, 2006 other thing I would say, prior to us doing any site improvements, whichever would be preferable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When requested by the county or prior to doing any site improvements, whichever occurs first. MR. ARNOLD: I should say, there are some site improvements that we may need to do that just are cleanup. But I guess I should -- why don't we say prior to site development plan approval, if we're going to go that route? Otherwise, let's just leave it at the request of the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, what are you comfortable with from a legal viewpoint? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm comfortable with request by the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's if necessary, as requested by the county. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the motion maker accept that change? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept that change? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That brings in-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one other. The landscaping, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The landscaping should be a minimum of a B buffer with regard to that separate page that we saw that -- at least having to do with around the wall of the reclamation tank. But per the LDC. MR. ARNOLD: If I could clarify just one point. That would be on the developer's side and not the county's side. We had a conversation with utilities. Page 99 October 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's correct. I wouldn't ask you to do the county's side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mr. Murray, what you're asking for is a type B buffer -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Minimum, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, minimum ofa type B buffer on the developer's side of the wall as referenced in the utility document that was -- the utility conditions that were added to the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that understood by the applicant? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker, Mr. Murray, you must accept your own stipulation. Does the second accept it? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And did we, for the record, accept the utility conditions with the changes made by Margie as a stipulation? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And also the word nearest as opposed to near. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Does the motion maker accept the utility conditions with the changes suggested? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that all the stipulations? Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: Could I please ask for one clarification? I don't necessarily agree with the motion regarding the condition of single- family and townhome. But we've asked for, in addition to those dwelling types, two-family attached and multi-family. And it seems to me that single-family and two-family and townhome are call fairly compatible and like. And maybe if there's a condition, it's the Page 100 October 19,2006 provision of a multi-family. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I reflect on that and I amend to include what you've just demonstrated. What I'm trying to avoid is large multi-family. And so attached villas, that's what you're referring to? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would amend to include that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And I will second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion now has been amended to include single-family, townhouses and attached villas. We have stipulation involving the contribution of $1 ,000 per unit at the time of building permit to be credited for any future fee. We have a stipulation to amend section 2.7 of the PUD. We have a stipulation to provide a clean site information through a Phase 1 audit. We have a stipulation to accept the utility conditions as discussed and amended with both by the County Attorney and through our discussions with the word near to nearest. And we have a stipulation addressing the type B buffer around the inside developer's side of the wall that's proposed in the utility conditions. With that, I think that's all the stipulations. If I missed any, please say so now. If not, we'll call -- Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to for discussion make a statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay, go ahead. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think this is a very good usage of infillland. And Mr. Murray, you were concerned about the price points. I think a tank might create lower price points than the market place and Page 101 October 19,2006 the market will decide that. And with a shortage of affordable housing, that might help. So I will be voting for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm going to be voting against it, because I think this one has a major fatal flaw. The open space requirements that would benefit the residents of the site to have a situation where you're actually walling access to the open space from the residents to the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other comments? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just that I would love it ifhe would speak into the microphone. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So would I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's sharing a mic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see. All right, he's doing this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can say it again. Is this better? Does this work? Can you hear me now? No, my concern is that the open space requirements as to benefit the residents of the site. In this case where it's walled off, the residents can't even have access to it, totally violates the intent of what open space is. So I'll be voting against it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll call for the vote, and we'll be doing that by saying aye and raising our hands. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed. Page 102 October 19, 2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three oppositions. Motion carries 6-3. Thank you. And with that, we will take a one-hour break and be back here at 12:35. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll resume the meeting. It's now 12:43. Item #8B PETITION: PUDZ-2003-AR-4988 - CONTINUED And the next issue for today's public hearing is PUDZ-2003-AR-4988, the Summit Lakes PUD. And we'll probably go through the same routine we did before. All those wishing to testify on behalf of the -- please stand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll ask again so I don't forget, any disclosures? I announced mine earlier, they stay the same. Anybody else? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, the applicant want to begin? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. If I could just briefly highlight the project again. It's a 138-acre project. It is an affordable housing proj ect. The requested density is seven units per acre for a total density of 968 residential dwelling units. Of those dwelling units, 97 units would be gap units and 97 Page 103 October 19, 2006 would be workforce units. We're also providing water management and utilities for Habitat for Humanities, which is another $365,000 contribution to affordable housing. I believe it's the first project to come through under the new affordable housing matrix. As far as I can tell from the staff report, all county departments have reviewed this and are recommending approval. The proj ect from a transportation standpoint meets concurrency even at zoning, versus waiting until we do site development plans and plats. I think we left off with we were trying to negotiate a developer contribution agreement with your transportation staff to provide additional enhancements to the transportation system that are not required to serve our project but are -- we believe and the -- benefits the community. We had handed out a revised provision regarding the transportation stipulations, which I hope you all had an opportunity to look at over the break. And you will see that what was deleted was the provisions that we had added regarding the terms of the -- the business terms of the developer contribution agreement. Weare willing to include all of those provisions in the PUD. We had suggested that that might be the best place for them to be. We actually believe that gave the county additional safety by putting them in the PUD. Even though we were requested to take them out and put them in a developer contribution agreement. Weare fine either way. Whatever the county wants us to do, we would like to do. I have Reed Jarvi -- or I had Reed Jarvi here to address transportation questions. I will do my best until he arrives. If you have any. And we have Jamie Anderson to answer any civil engineering related questions you may have regarding the project. Dwight Nadeau to answer any planning related questions you may have regarding the Page 104 October 19, 2006 project. And of course Mike Myers, to answer any questions you may have regarding environmental. Your staff report is recommending approval of the proj ect. I know that it sounds like a lot of units, but it's seven units per acre. And that has been approved in the past regarding affordable housing projects. This is an affordable housing project. I don't think there's any question that the county needs affordable housing. And with that, we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the proj ect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Approximately how many units are there going to be for affordable housing? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We are requesting three units per acre as a density bonus, which would result in 414 density bonus units. Now, of those 414 units, 97 of them will be gap which is the 150 percent to 81 percent income threshold. And 97 of those units will be workforce, which is the 81 percent to the 61 percent. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So the total -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: So a total of 194. Almost 50 percent of the bonus units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: This is more like a typo, but on the transportation section that says Marjorie strike and underline, on item N? MR. YOV ANOVICH: N as in Nancy? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. It says, the developer shall accept 5.9 acres of stormwater. Don't you mean acre feet? MR. ANDERSON: It's the runoff -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me ask Jamie to answer that. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. ANDERSON: For the record, Jamie Anderson, RW A. Page 105 October 19,2006 The intent was that we'll take all of the runoff and treat water quality and water quantity from that acreage on W oodcrest. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is there any better way to quantify it? I mean, how do you measure what you're agreeing to do? MR. ANDERSON: I think we can put in a better explanation. I mean, it's in the water management report, and it's in the calculations that are being submitted to the district. We could spell it out better in this document. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where does it -- MR. ANDERSON: It's from Immokalee Road to this out boundary . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys need to talk closer to the mic. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Maybe this would work, Mr. Midney, is we would take the required water management from Immokalee Road to the south boundary of Habitat -- MR. ANDERSON: Correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- of the Habitat project. And that's the portion of W oodcrest that we will accept into our water management system. That's what we were intending to say, and hopefully that clarifies that for you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rick, on Exhibit A, which is the site plan, in Tract P there's a statement that the preserve tract satisfies the buffering requires of the LDC. What does that mean? MR. NADEAU: For the record, Dwight Nadeau, RW A. Because their opacity standards associated with buffering in -- for perimeter buffering where we've got preserves that would satisfy those Page 106 October 19,2006 buffering requirements, that note is merely put into the master plan. And it's been accepted by county staff in that regard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But does it mean you have no other buffering requirements because everything is satisfied by Tract P? MR. NADEAU: No. All perimeter buffers that are not associated with preserve areas will have to have those type A through D buffers. But only where the preserve abuts the project boundary would the preserve satisfy that buffering requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that note only applies to Tract P. MR. NADEAU: That would apply to Tract P, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other question is, you're supposed to have 60 percent open space. You're a little shy. Could you change note number one to be a minimum of 60 percent open space? If you do the math, that's a little -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Instead of the 82.9, you would rather say the minimum of 60 percent? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. MR. NADEAU: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Could you identify the center of the activity center that's referred to? Is that the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. It would be -- this is the -- what I'm pointing to is this is the activity center over there. This would be Collier Boulevard and it's on both sides. And also on both sides north of Immokalee Road. At some point -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. Page 107 October 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, I just have a couple here, if I can. Has anything been done to mitigate the impacts to the urban intersection might have because of sheet flow? MR. YOV ANOVICH: As far as how are we treating -- how is our water management system going to be working? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, this will have some impact on sheet flow. Have you done anything to mitigate its impact, its adverse impact? MR. ANDERSON: The sheet flow in this area has actually been cut off by Immokalee Road and by W oodcrest. So there's not really anything coming from the north or the east onto this proj ect. And actually, the sheet flow from this proj ect has been cut off by the other developments that are already there. So as part of the water management permit and the Immokalee Road drainage improvements that are going on as part of the six-laning, all the water from this project, the 5.3 acres of Wood crest Drive and the 11 acres of Habitat will be routed to the Immokalee Road canal. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So any adverse impacts are in effect now and this proj ect would not add to that or increase in adverse impacts as far as sheet flow? MR. ANDERSON: Correct. It actually decreases it. Ifwe weren't providing an outfall for Habitat, they would be landlocked, because their drainage is supposed to go south and east. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The other question I had was there's a statement in there about a conversion to assisted living facilities that you might want to do of a ratio of four to one. What is the maximum limit of that? Could you convert all of that? Would you have the possibility of converting all of that at a ratio of four to one increase? Page 108 October 19,2006 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We do not have in the PUD document a limitation on how much can be converted to assisted living. So yes, theoretically I guess the whole proj ect could be converted to an assisted levying. If there needs to be some safeguards, we're happy to add some to the document. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Then there's no limitation that you would place on that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right now the document doesn't include a limitation. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right, can you indicate where the location of the athletic or recreational facilities would be on your drawing there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The recreational facilities are the RA tract, a couple of them. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All on the north end? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right here and right over here. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: There are none that are adjacent to any other property owners outside of the property here? MR. YOV ANOVICH: There is this -- if you'll look at this tract on the master plan that's over here, they would be next to the property that would be -- that's in the activity center. I guess it could theoretically become a residential project in the activity center, we don't know. But it's -- activity centers are generally scheduled to be commercial, so it would be over by -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, will those tennis courts or whatever they are be lighted at night? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that we've gotten to that kind of a detail yet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I'm concerned about the impact possibly of the neighbors of lighted -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would obviously shield the lighting to make sure it doesn't spill off our property. That's a standard Page 109 October 19, 2006 requirement. And if we needed to add that to the PUD document, we'd be happy to do that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, under some of the documents we received, it said the proposed rezone is not necessary per se. If it's not necessary per se, why is it being requested? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, I missed the first part of the question. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The proposed rezone states as being not necessary, per se. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where are you reading from, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Let me find that. I think it's in our staff report under one of the findings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a standard staff language in response to the rezoning findings. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It's item five in the findings. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Item five of the findings. Now, there are -- Exhibit B or Exhibit A findings? Because there's PUD specific findings and then there's general rezone findings. COMMISSIONER CARON: A. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It states there-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: A, okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- the proposed change is not necessary, per se. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think what staff is saying there is if we did not get a residential rezone, we could be an agricultural use, because that's basically what the property has right now. And we have a driving range and we can go back to being a driving range if -- I think that's what staff was saying by that finding. Keeping in mind that the future land use element actually encourages this to be residential under the urban -- under the future Page 110 October 19,2006 land use element. And a lot of agricultural zoning -- actually all of the agricultural zoning in the urban area was kind of a holding category when the '89 plan was adopt. And with the understanding that you would come in and rezone that to a residential or a commercial, depending on where the property was located, based upon the future land use map use in the future. So I guess they were saying if we wanted to just stay a driving range, we would need to rezone ourselves to a driving range. Obviously we don't want to stay a driving range. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You indicated five deviations that you're requesting. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And the caveat on all of those deviations when they were closed was that this does not denigrate the public welfare, deteriorate the public welfare. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: As far as the county is concern, can you identify any assets or enhancements that accompany these deviations, if the board was to grant these deviations? What do they get besides no deteriorating effect? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think what they do is they allow us to do a better quality project. It allows us to do the affordable housing aspects of the project, it allows us to provide appropriate amenities for the project. And overall, the community is going to be a nicer community by allowing for these deviations. Which a nice community I believe is to the benefit of the county. Most of these are pretty standard deviations, and I would hope maybe the LDC could be changed to where we wouldn't have to ask for some of these, since they seem to be fairly routinely requested. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, my concern is they are routinely requested and routinely granted. If that's the case, why don't Page 111 October 19, 2006 we change the LDC -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm with you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- rather than have a deviation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm with you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray, you had questions next. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Yovanovich, would you please show me where the bypass road is on that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd be happy to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: OrmaybeMr. Nadeau. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Now, this -- the bypass road -- was there a portable mic? You all have this, right? The bypass road, Mr. Murray, this is W oodcrest. And it would continue all the way down to a road that -- and this doesn't go far enough south, but it would continue all the way down to a road that currently exists, known as Massey. It would go all the way down to Vanderbilt Beach Road. About halfway down is Tree Farm Road that is going to be an east-west connector. And we've talked about that on many other projects. So the bypass road would go all the way south to Vanderbilt Beach Road about halfway down. It would also interconnect into Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. The reason I bring that up is that you indicated earlier that you're hopefully going to have a developer agreement; you're going to have an agreement enable you to put that road in. What would happen if you could not reach that agreement? What would be the implications? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, there's really no implications for us as far as the traffic analysis goes. However, we think it would be Page 112 October 19, 2006 better for the community for the county to work with us to go ahead and get that accomplished. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I agree with you. And in terms of something being better for the community, I'm going to ask you a question that may startle you. Why only 10 percent for gap or 10 percent for the other? There's a very crying need for gap housing in particular. And I thought 10 percent on 984 units is -- 968 units, rather, I thought it was kind of low. I think given that construction -- I mean, price points are coming down and so forth. I'm just wondering, 10 percent, is there any way we can improve that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Keep in mind -- well, first of all, you know, your matrix talks about 10 percent for gap and 10 percent for workforce will get you three bonus units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Doesn't say you can't go-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't mean that we won't provide more. But these are minimums that we have to guarantee. I would venture to say there will probably be more units in those price points that will serve those income categories. But this is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But, you know, for planning purposes for the county, for the businesses that have to bring employees into the community, and for the need that just recently we understand now it's 1,500 units per year that we're going to need to -- maybe there's some way you can in this meeting offer more than that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me -- I'm sure that won't be the first question, and there probably will be an opportunity for me to talk to my client about that. But if it would be okay with you, I'd like to defer -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd be thrilled if you would. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- defer to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's it. Those are my questions for you, sir. Page 113 October 19, 2006 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- you know, as you know, actually, Waterways has been probably -- I'm trying to think of another developer who's actually come through and proposed projects. Bristol Pines is one. Waterways did that one. Waterways has been actively involved in providing affordable, you know, both workforce and gap housing on many of their projects. And so I think they're doing their fair share. Maybe we should be encouraging some others. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I agree with you, but the others are not here at the moment. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But, you know, we can only afford to do so much. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, well -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: But let us talk -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- you said there's a likelihood that you could build more. I would hope that you would find it -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will talk to my clients. I think we'll have more available on those price points. But I don't know that we can guarantee that we can set those aside. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rick, in the development standards, I'm back to the separation between buildings. Would you have a problem making the minimum distance between structures to be greater than 20 feet? There's a lot of fire code and building code reward for that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, and Mr. Schiffer, I listened intently on that during the last petition we had. I think that that is a -- it is an excellent point. The question is, do I want to put that in the PUD document or do I want to deal with that when I do my site development plan and do as you suggest. Right now if I just leave it at 20 feet, it doesn't preclude me from Page 114 October 19, 2006 going to 20 feet one millimeter or whatever to address the concerns in the future. And that's -- I'd like to leave the flexibility to maybe stay at 20 feet if we want to. But you make an excellent -- and I don't think Mr. Nadeau was here at the time we discussed this, and if you'll allow me to talk to him about that while -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's actually 15 feet in this project. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Dwight, he wants greater than 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which means 20 feet one millimeter is greater than 20 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you okay with that? Okay, my client said yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You have 15 feet proposed. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I thought you said we had 20, and that's why I was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Twenty? You got it. Greater than 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we understand that to mean -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason I'm bringing that up is I'm seeing in structural -- these guys call me a lot. There's a lot of problems with type of construction. There's a lot of reward for -- and what happens is when people design sites, they look at this and they put 15 feet between buildings without thinking of the other thing until it's -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I think that's fair. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- at the plan review, then it starts to bite them bad. On Page 4 of 12, number three. And since this is going to be credited towards impact fees, does that mean only the cost, the way it's Page 115 October 19, 2006 written, for anything that is above what would otherwise be required? Is that an upgrade or -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will tell you, I missed the beginning part of the question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, it's on Page 4 of 12. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Of the staff report? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I'm with you, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does that mean that the things that can be attributed towards impact fees are only those costs that are above what would be required? So in other words, essentially is that saying that the total cost or only the cost of what would be considered an un-grade is attributed? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which numbered paragraph are you talking about? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number three. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Number three. The one that starts with Waterways Joint Venture V will design and permit? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Design and permit, right. And let me just read the part. Waterways shall be entitled to road impact fees for all expenses incurred for the design permitting mitigation resulting from this commitment above what would otherwise be required -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- for a local road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would be required to build a local road anyway. Anything design related, construction related, permitting, would take it to -- I believe it's a collector at this point, would become a collector road, that difference is all we would get impact credit for, because we had to look do a local road anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. Done. Page 116 October 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I was just a little bit disappointed when we talked about you're getting 968 units, and of course it was going to be 10 percent, and I didn't think likely as to 10 percent of what. I certainly would like to see at least 200 units for affordable housing. That's only seven more. But I can't understand why with this size of operation we can't get at least that many. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, we're not going to argue over I guess -- we think it's 194, but let's put 200, and we'll split it 100/100. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we rounded it up to 97 and 97. MR. SCHMITT: Just so you have all the facts, and I'm not in any way trying to defend the numbers, but there are, I would call them -- and I would have to have Cormac come up and explain. Once we identify them as affordable housing, there are certain disadvantages to -- if they sell them at market rate, certainly the owner gets to share in a considerably more I guess profit or growth. Cormac, you want to come up and explain? Understand, what you're doing is the more you put on -- they met the minimum requirements, they meet the density, but those then go into our program, and then we have certain funds that we keep. So explain, Cormac, so they're aware. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I could just interrupt a second? I point something out to you, that the minimum was established when we had 500. We recently raised it to 1,000. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And now it's 1,500. So maybe the minimum's too low. MR. SCHMITT: But from the standpoint of 10 percent is part of our chart. If we add more, there are criteria that are placed upon the Page 11 7 October 19,2006 owner of these homes. So just so you understand. MR. GIBLIN: For the record, Cormac Giblin with Housing and Grants. I think what Mr. Schmitt's trying to get to is that as requested, the applicant's voluntarily including 10 percent work force and 10 percent gap. In essence it's a 20 percent commitment. Those units will be subject to the deed restrictions, the shared appreciation, the recapture, the limit on profitability that all affordable workforce housing units created by the county are subject to. Anything above that -- or the more units we classify as that, will -- the restriction -- that restriction will be carried forward to those as well and limit the profitability of those other units. I think that's what Mr. Schmitt's also saying. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand the statement. MR. SCHMITT: Just as long as you -- I want to make sure you have all the facts. Because there are certain provisions once it's identified as affordable housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just get back to the question Mr. Adelstein asked. Mr. Adelstein, did you get an answer to your question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, I didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, would you ask it again and let's try to get an answer. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I did. I said I would give you the 200 units. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, I did, I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have another question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I did say that, right? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the Page 118 October 19,2006 applicant? Richard, let's start with the PUD. And we'll go to the statement of compliance. At the bottom of the statement of compliance is a little number one. I've not seen that PUD before. Why is it needed in this one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The footnote? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Your staff asked us to put that in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we put it in other proj ects, staff? Whoever on staff did that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What page is that, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on the -- well, there's no page. It's statement of compliance, ii, right past the index. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem with Zoning. This was put in at the advice of County Attorney's Office. They CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't just keep passing the buck here. That's fine. MS. DESELEM: No, I'm not passing the buck. That's where it came from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, fine. MS. DESELEM: She can explain her reasoning, rather than me try to put it in words and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to cut to the chase and find out who's responsible. Margie, can you tell me why that's here? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. That's not entirely accurate. The staff wanted to have this language in there. And it was originally up in I think paragraph one or two. And I suggested that it be made a footnote. It's the format that I suggested, but planning staff -- I think the Page 119 October 19, 2006 reason it was given to me is, you know, some kind of means of tracking that that was available to them, but noting that they didn't use it. That was the reason given to me by planning staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I'm sure there's probably hundreds of things available to them they didn't use. So why don't we make this a 600-page book and put everything in it? I don't understand the reasoning for putting something in that a project's not using when they clearly say they're not using a density bonus and we're clearly saying the density bonus is being taken out and it's going to DCA anyway. What is the purpose of all that? If no one has a good purpose, can we strike it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. DESELEM: If you so desire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, on page -- in the same PUD, project description 1.6, Roman numeral I-IV, second paragraph. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hold on, 1.6. Oh, I-IV, that's your page number, I gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1.6, second paragraph. It gets into it. And this is under proj ect description. Why are we talking about Immokalee Road, its improvements, its dates, its capital road proj ect numbers and all that under project description. The road has nothing to do with the proj ect unless you're now going to build Immokalee Road for us. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe we were putting that in for information purposes so people would understand what roads were going to be constructed that would serve the project. If you would like to delete that, that is fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think it's necessary. And I'm not sure that all those dates and everything are consistent. And if they change, I don't want to have to come back and have to deal with it. Page 120 October 19,2006 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I'm fine with that. So we're going to strike that whole paragraph? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. On Section 2.4, Roman numeral II-II is the page number. Maximum project density. Now, I've heard everybody talk about this being an affordable housing project, but then there's some of these terms, these little cute terms that say, in the event the project exceeds a density of four units per acre, the additional density will be constructed according to the companion density bonus agreement. Now, I'm reading that, and there's other references like that in this document. To me that seems to say it may not be an affordable density -- affordable project. And if it isn't an affordable project, that certainly puts a different light on this whole proj ect. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The intent of that limitation was if for some reason this thing did not get approved at a greater density than four, we did not want to be required to provide 20 percent of that base unit of four density as affordable. If we need to clarify that, that was the concern, that's why we put that limiter in there, that is, if we did not get past the four because we didn't get approved past the four, we were not required to provide affordable housing as part of the four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do realize in the way that's written, it isn't up to the board or anybody else to decide that you don't get four. By the way that's written, you could decide to do three, three-and-a-half or four and then you could be getting out of that whole process. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was never the intent. And it was not what we were trying to write. And frankly, Mr. Strain, sometimes we go through the process of staff review and we get -- we may not be able to achieve things because staff puts additional preserve requirements on us and things Page 121 October 19,2006 like that to where we can't get past four. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Wouldn't it have been clearer if you said, in the event that project doesn't exceed four units per acre such and such will happen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, because see, they can voluntarily decide not to build more than four units per acre. And that's where the problem is. This is if this were to succeed, I would bet that part of the reason it does is because of this affordable housing feel good effort they're putting forth. So when that happens, a lot of people will probably think that's going to be an affordable housing complement. And it may not be, based on this language. So we need to have new language put in here. If you can suggest some before we're done today, that would be fine. No. 2.7 and it would be E, and it's really on page Roman numeral II-IV. It's about the size of your permanent sales facility. MR. YOV ANOVICH: While I'm on that, I think, can I -- I think the previous sentence says we've got to get -- you're approving us at seven. If we get approved at seven, then we probably don't need that sentence, the limiting sentence four, now that I think about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if you get approved at 6.4? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, 6.4 we're going to have to adjust the -- the way the affordable housing density bonus agreement says is that's it's -- we provide 23.75 percent of the bonus units as gap, and 23.375 percent of the bonus units as workforce. So you would still get roughly 50 percent of the 2.4 bonus units, so I think it would still work. So if we end up with a density instead of the seven it becomes 6.4, we'll make that change. And then you probably don't need that next sentence about the four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just think you need some language. Well, no, if you want to strike the entire sentence, that works even better. Page 122 October 19, 2006 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And then we'll deal with whatever the -- we may -- that number 7.0 dwelling units may need to change. We hope it won't. We hope it will stay the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ifit does change, then the change in the quantity of affordable units will be negotiated with the change. And that makes sense, so I -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I don't know if there are other -- I believe there probably are other references -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- to that. We'll fix them throughout. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll get to them all. 2.7.E, Roman numeral II-IV. You're talking about a third of the gross floor area of the clubhouse may be used as a permanent sales facility. I understand what you're trying to do, but I think a third of some unlimited size would be -- could open it up to a rather large facility. Can you put a cap on the gross floor area that you're talking about? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll come back to you with a number of not to exceed "X" square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whose is that this time? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's mine, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, all your guys are doing fine, we're the ones that aren't doing too good. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let the record reflect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Section three, it will be number 3.2. It will be Roman numeral III-I. The maximum number of residential dwelling units allowed within the RPUD shall be established at the time of development plan review, but shall not exceed 968. Should assisted living development be proposed, the project dwelling unit count shall be reduced by one dwelling unit for every four ALF units Page 123 October 19,2006 proposed. Now, you've got what is proposed to be a mixed proj ect of affordable housing and regular -- whatever kind of housing. 968 dwelling units. If you take that and you divide it by four, that's how many ALF units you're saying can be built. Well, that eliminates all the affordable housing that this whole premise may be built under. Because you're going to have all the ALF. And you earlier said that that is a possibility, that could happen theoretically. So how we stop that from happening? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I owe you square footage on the clubhouse and I'll owe you an -- well, we'll have to figure that out. I'll ask my client to think about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because there's going to be a lot of these. I'm just wondering -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let us come back to you on that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the item under 3.3.A.4 on the same page, in the middle of the paragraph says, group care facilities shall not be considered residential land uses for the purposes of density. Well, what is it? So you're going to have all this group care facility out there and you don't have -- and it doesn't count as density? Well, where's the limitation, and how do you work that in? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can strike that, because we obviously have tied it to the density earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So number A.4 is struck? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, I don't think so. I think probably the phrase that says shall not be considered residential land uses for purposes of density . We still need what it's going to comply with as far as the development standards, because that ties it to table two. So we should probably just revise it to say it shall comply with the multi-family development standards set forth in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So before the word and and after the Page 124 October 19, 2006 beginning of the word group, strike all that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. And then it would says, group care facilities shall comply with the multi-family development standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I just have a point that in 3.2, the second sentence has a ratio of four ALF units equal one. So then do we want to strike that, since the density's supposed to be the same? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said they'd come back to us with a revision to that. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, your development standards table. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The footnote page. The second footnote, for all residential units, garages shall be located as minimum of 23 feet back from the back of sidewalk located in the street right-of-ways closest to the garage. Now, I understand 23 feet back from the back of sidewalk. What is located in the street rights-of-way closest to -- what is that trying to say? Why -- I mean -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the sidewalk's going to be in the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why do we need to say located in the street rights-of-way closest to the garage? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You want to say sidewalk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Kay, instead of me trying to stipulate all this stuff that we're going to go through, are you making notes of these changes to the PUD and so in the end we can just stipulate that the PUD will be changed to -- pursuant to the discussions we had here? MS. DESELEM: Yes. I just missed one, and I can go back and Page 125 October 19, 2006 pick that one up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, further down, note number four. And this is maybe Brad can help with this. Firewall protrusions into required yards are permitted up to three feet. It seems you just were concerned about a 20- foot separation. How does that affect that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A firewall would actually be between units. And that is -- some people find that to be an acceptable way to do it. Three feet is exactly what the code has. So rather than go to some other measures within the unit, they can protrude past the uni t. And I think they're saying they don't want to count that as set back. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think that's fair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number 5, entrance features, i.e., clock towers and colonnades shall be limited in height to no greater than 50 feet and shall be permitted associated with the proposed privacy sound barrier on the north property boundary. So that means along Immokalee Road you're going to have a wall which is going to be six or eight feet, then you have a 50-foot spire going up in the middle of it? Is that what you're looking for? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, I can tell you, that doesn't sound too attractive. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You guys have your own reasons I guess for wanting certain things in here. On Section 4.3, development standards, Page IV-I, third line from the bottom begins a sentence, development standards for Tract RA are contained in table two. Well, that table two I believe is your development standards Page 126 October 19,2006 table. Which one of those would apply to Tract RA? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe where it says clubhouse recreation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 6, VI-II, top of the page is a continuation of your development commitment, 6.3. It's C-l and 2. Why do you have that elaboration of the introductory paragraph of C when the LDC -- I think you're just trying to do what the LDC says; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. One of those standard things that we're learning to take out through the new -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can strike that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 6.4, schedule of development. The development intent is to complete the subdivision in a single phase. Now, I was trying to read your agreement or what you've tried to put in with pieces of the agreement. The agreement seems to think you're phasing things. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, the agreement deals with a situation that if you decide to phase, you have to do your affordable -- the same percentage of each phase. We're -- it's a standard form agreement. We're doing one phase, it's a one-phase project. So we'll be building our 20 percent of the affordable units throughout the project. It's when you do a phase one of the project and then you come in with a phase two of the project. They don't want you to wait and hold all of your affordable units to phase two. They want you to do 20 percent of phase one as the affordable and 20 percent of phase two. And we're making it clear, we're doing a one-phase project, not a multi-phase project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, in your transportation, and I actually studied the one we had in the package more than the one that Page 127 ,- , --"--"'"--->~--",-,---"<>,~"""",-,-, October 19, 2006 was passed out today. I'll tell you what, I'll save that question for staff. Because they may be able to answer the question for you, Richard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm happy to try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay. 6.6, affordable housing. And it's VI-VI. And it's one of those little references, and it's the second paragraph. If a density of four units per acre is exceeded. We're back to that sentence. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll fix that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 6.6.C, second sentence -- well, first sentence, developer shall contribute 1,000 for each market rate unit, less the 365 for the water and sewer facilities committed to Habitat for Humanity of Collier County. The 365 utility facility contribution to Habitat shall be credited against any affordable housing fee adopted by the county which may be applicable to this project. Ms. Student, how is that contribution to a private entity legal against attacks pairs generated revenue source like an impact fee or a housing fee? I mean, there's no auditing ability for the public on Habitat, is there? So we don't know if they're paying it for-- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- executives or they're paying it for workforce housing, do we? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right. Well, we'll look at it and either reword or or remove it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, today or by the time it goes to the board? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: By the time it goes to the board we'll work with the applicant on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 6.8, utilities. Mr. Y ovanovich, I mentioned this to you and I'm going to read you what I received from the utility department. I asked them -- here'st Page 128 October 19,2006 the question I asked. Summit Lakes will be approaching the Planning Commission -- THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Summit Lakes will be approaching the Planning Commission for development along the south side of Immokalee Road on Thursday, October 19th. I had heard through staff that there's a problem with water and sewer availability along that corridor. Please provide me with the utilities position concerning this Issue. The response from the utility department: Public utility staff recently met with representatives of Summit Lakes and other developers in the area east of 951 along Immokalee Road. At that meeting the developers were informed that the board-approved master plans for water and sewer June 6th, 2006 did not call for additional adequate infrastructure to be built until after the dates that Summit Lakes and others were now requesting service. In the meetings, discussions revolved around developers providing interim internal service or developers potentially building the infrastructure that would provide adequate service. In either case, the building, operating and standards ordinance, Ordinance 01-73, requires that developments will be required to connect to the utility and pay all required fees when service becomes available. Now, how do you have water and sewer available to this project at the rate you're going to build it and the timing you have put in front of us here today? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I could tell you that I've read the staff report. And utilities staff said that they signed off on this. I haven't had the luxury of seeing the e-mail. But it is the standard -- it is a standard utility availability condition whenever you get one of those nice little letters from your utility staff, do you have capacity, they always respond, we have capacity today but that makes no promises for tomorrow. Page 129 October 19,2006 We know that it will be a condition for us to be able to pull any permits that there be water and sewer capacity available. We have been trying to track down the answer to that question. I'll let Mr. Anderson answer that. Our understanding is that there is a utility line stubbed out halfway up Tree Farm Road, and we can tap into that line if we have to. The hope was we'd be able to tap in with the lines on Immokalee Road. If they're not activated, we do in fact have another alternative source for our water and sewer. And I'll let Mr. Anderson get into that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich, the staff says they had meetings with the developers up there, and I'm assuming those meetings were -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: He was there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why wouldn't you just have addressed this, if you have a solution for it, and tell us what it was, instead of relying upon a standard phraseology. MR. ANDERSON: The meeting occurred two weeks ago yesterday, and the direction from Roy Anderson at the end of that meeting was public utilities engineering staff is going to coordinate with Greeley and Hanson who prepared the master plan, the utilities master plan. Request that they run some alternative scenarios in the hydraulic models, which Waterways and also the Calusa Pines developer would split the cost and pay for so there'd be no cost to the county on that. To determine if it was feasible to make the connections directly to Immokalee Road, we don't have an answer to that yet. Luke Chavez, who's the manager for that, was supposed to talk to Greeley and Hanson either today or yesterday, and I haven't gotten an update from him. As Rich pointed out, that would be our preference is to connect Page 130 October 19,2006 directly to Immokalee Road. What Roy had indicated was the intent was for this area to be served by the northeast county plan when it comes online. And that seems to make more sense, to connect directly to Immokalee Road. If it's not feasible, part of the Collier Boulevard six-Ianing project that's going on now, the first milestone is Tree Farm Road, the first half mile of Tree Farm Road. And there are water and force main utilities in that right-of-way corridor that have been sized to serve our project, as well as the other projects that are on the Tree Farm and W oodcrest corridors. So if they tell us no, we can't connect to Immokalee Road, we do have an alternative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if they've been sized to service your project, then why would they tell me -- and I got this last night, Richard, or otherwise I would have gladly given it to you. And I even called you and left a message to tell you I had gotten this, because to me it's a pretty serious issue. Why did they say that they did not call for additional adequate infrastructure to be built until after Summit Lakes and others were requesting service? So why would they send this to me last night if what you're saying was an alternative they had ready to go? MR. ANDERSON: My interpretation of that is Roy's master plan right now calls for the utilities on Immokalee Road to be placed in the service in 2010 or 2011 just in advance of Collier County taking over the Orangetree utility district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's -- I mean, basically what I'm hearing it's an unresolved issue. So I will take it for what it's worth then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't know. I mean, I wish utilities staff would come to these meetings like transportation staff comes. Because frankly, why would they -- this is not -- I would hope Page 131 October 19, 2006 that this isn't an issue that just came up two weeks ago for utilities staff. Why would they sign off on the staff report if there's a utility issue? Why would they raise it two weeks beforehand? And it sounds to me like there is a solution for -- in place. And we -- I don't think we should be held up. I mean, I think we should have that resolved between now and the board. And utility staff should say yes or no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I'm not sure that I -- right now I'm not comfortable with leaving it like it is. So we'll have to go -- I have an awful lot more questions. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's fine. And we're taking notes and we'll hopefully resolve that. But I'll leave it at that. I don't think that it's fair that utilities staff is raising an issue -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We could talk about a lot of things that may not be fair in this county, but let's just move forward. Your Summit Lakes RPUD master plan, Exhibit A. Brad brought up a very good point. He asked about the preserve track language that says it will satisfy the buffers and -- buffering recommendation of the LDC. And the problem is the preserve tract in the area where one of these notes is, is narrowed down to a very, very small distance. And has anybody -- is there any size limitation from staff on the width of a narrow preserve that ends up being adequate for an opaque buffer that would have been required, had the preserve not been there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, is this the issue you're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. DESELEM: That's 100 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, is that -- that's what I mean, I can't tell on mine. MS. DESELEM: I think it is. The scale is one inch equals 200. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have one. MS. DESELEM: I know, I'm just telling you. You know, you're asking. One inch equals 200. And using the old rule of thumb that -- Page 132 October 19,2006 roughly an inch. Looks like it's about 100 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the -- Richard, I've got questions about the affordable housing agreement. And I have questions -- quite a few questions about your environmental impact statement. Which do you want to go into next? Does it matter to you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm happy to go wherever you -- because I'm going to sit down when you get into the environmental impact statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want you sitting down yet, you'll get too comfortable. The affordable housing workforce covenants that you have, and I don't know if this is standard language, but it does say in there, if the density on the property is maximized, and then it goes into the breakout of the affordable workforce housing units constructed. What is it -- how does it apply if it is not maximized? I know what we've said for the PUD, but now I'm concerned about the way this agreement's written. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the way it works is if we get through the process and because of LDC conditions we can't get to the full 968, we get to -- and I'm making up a number. We get to 967. Because I don't want somebody to think that I can get to that other number. We get to 967. The percentage of the bonus units would be 23 point -- I'm sorry -- yeah, 23.375 percent of the bonus units that we actually construct would be the affordable gap and then the affordable workforce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac, would you mind coming up for just a minute? I want to see -- in your understanding of these documents, does the way you've written this document apply if they get less than the maximum in the same ratio than as if they'd gotten the maximum, even though it's a lesser number? Is that how it works? MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. The last sentence on Page 1, that 46 and three-quarters percent of Page 133 October 19,2006 the constructed bonus units will be affordable/workforce housing, of which half will be gap and half will be workforce. That keeps the same ratios in line whether they're approved for 968 units or 900 units or 700 units. The same net effect of affordable workforce will be included. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have your document in front of you or near you? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 20 of that document, we've heard that the applicant is going to do half of the work -- half of the affordable project in gap and half in workforce. Which -- on the matrix table on Page 20, which one does that fall under? Which column? I always had trouble reading this table, so -- MR. GIBLIN: Say that again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's doing half gap and half workforce. And that's it. Which columns on that table does that fall under? Because he said he's doing it pursuant to the new matrix. And I want -- I couldn't figure that out. MR. GIBLIN: What he's actually doing is 10 percent gap, which would be in the upper right -- I'm sorry, upper left-hand corner where the 1 is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. GIBLIN: And he's doing an additional 10 percent workforce, which would be directly under that box with the 2. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's how you calculate the bonus. MR. GIBLIN: That's the overall gross density bonus. Now, not every bonus unit is a affordable workforce housing unit. Only 46.75 percent of the bonus units are affordable workforce units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so he's using the first two columns under the 10 percent column. Page 134 October 19, 2006 MR. GIBLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. That's what I was trying to figure out. Then the last thing I think on the affordable is they've got a $165 per month homeowners association fee and you've got a housing cost based on 30 percent of family income on Page 21. Is the housing cost based on income inclusive of that fee, or is that fee on top of that? And if so, does that the drop the area that you're allowed to rent in for the total out-of-pocket monthly cost? MR. GIBLIN: Homeowners association fees, insurance, any other housing costs need to be all taken into account when the developer prices these units and offers them for sale, so that they can be afforded by people on these income levels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the total monthly package, mortgage and everything, and the homeowner's fees then is what generates the outlay? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the other thing I noticed, in their discussion of the things they were providing for the affordable housing, I just think it's interesting that they're going to do solid concrete block construction. Does that mean if it isn't solid, it's not solid concrete block construction and durable compressed concrete tile roof. Is that compared to undurable or nondurable roof? Or desirable concrete for the driveways, does that mean we have undesirable concrete paver driveways? Is there a -- I mean, when you write these, is there a reason for all that -- you may want to -- I just thought it was kind of interesting the way you described it. Richard, I think we can move into the EIS. One question: Neighborhood informational meeting. Mr. Nadeau stated that the developer has committed five percent of the Page 135 October 19, 2006 platted units to moderate income affordable housing. You're actually going to do more than that, aren't you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We are doing more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you move on, on page -- back to the PUD on VI - V. This is under the -- I'm not even sure we're supposed to be talking about this now, the developer contribution agreement portion. Number nine says 15 days. Is that something you've agreed on with staff? Because the staff report gives you 30. So I just wanted to know if you guys had agreed on 15 days. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that was the -- that was my understanding is that we would get it within 15 days. If it's 30 days, that's fine. That gives the county more time. But that's okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will have -- just read back? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Would be easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. Because we'll get into that in just a minute. Before we leave the PUD documents, does anybody else have any other questions that may have come up? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? I don't have much on the environmental, but I do have some. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. We're trying to locate Steve Linberger. He's out in the field. This is his project. We're trying to find out when he might be able to get back and maybe address any questions you have. Would it be possible to go to the traffic with Reed first? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I mean, I may not have any that he has to answer, but sure, I'll be glad to wait. Page 136 October 19, 2006 MS. DESELEM: You don't think you'll need a staff person? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I'd have to go back and-- if the question doesn't get answered by this gentleman, then maybe the staff could answer. But right now I don't know of any for staff. I was planning to ask -- MS. DESELEM: If I could ask that you could go to Reed Jarvi with transportation. Barbara Burgeson is checking to see if we can get ahold of Steve. And then I can report back what she finds out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll go into transportation next. There's a lot of extraneous talk going on that's being overheard. Mr. Adelstein, Ms. Student? Ms. Student? Mr. Adelstein? If you have to carry on a conversation, would you mind doing it out in the hall so we can continue the meeting? It's getting -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry, I was trying to do something to save time, not lose it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, it's just becoming hard to hear everybody in here. Hi, Reed. MR. JARVI: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Your TIS provided for two scenarios. One that may be more realistic than the other, but the second scenario which is questionable if it can be done or not, you seem to put a lot more faith into being the right one to do. So can you explain the two scenarios? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I need to swear you in. MR. JARVI: Sure. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. JARVI: For the record, Reed Jarvi, professional engineer with Vanasse-Daylor. Yes, when we did this initially, probably well over a year ago Page 137 October 19,2006 now, it was only Summit Lakes and only access to Immokalee Road. Subsequent to the initial submittal and that of several other developments in this general area, staff came to us and we talked about potentially expanding what we call a collector network, which is the Woodcrest Road south of this project on the east border. It is Tree Farm Road from Immokalee -- excuse me, from Collier Boulevard to W oodcrest Road. And improvements to Massey Road, which currently goes from Vanderbilt Beach Road up to Tree Farm Road. At that point we looked at this as a collector network or a bypass network for the area. In that analysis, we assumed two -- excuse me, for this analysis we assumed two scenarios: One is this is a standalone development, and two, it's with the collector network. With the collector network being dependent on various developer contribution agreements, PUD commitments and other commitments, we talked with staff and said we could analyze it for the collector network. And if we do that, we have to analyze it with all the other proj ects on board. So we have added for the collector network Bristol Pines to the south, the Elias Brothers on Tree Farm Road. Warm Springs, Calusa Pines, Schiffman, Mrs. Schiffman's property to the southeast, the Habitat property and Summit Lakes. And I think that's all of them but I could be -- I may have missed one or two. So we added those units in with the collector network and looked at what it would do from a transportation network standpoint. And what it does is even with all those roads -- excuse me, other developments in there, it looks like it provides -- or it's projected to provide between five and 7,000 daily trips that come off the Immokalee Road/Collier Boulevard intersection area and would go on to Woodcrest, Massey and Tree Farm. So we said from a transportation network it is a better situation for everybody if this collector network is in. However, Summit Lakes by itself cannot make -- or ensure that this transportation network was Page 138 October 19,2006 In. So we analyzed it with the two scenarios: One with Summit Lakes by itself, access to Immokalee Road, with the work program as currently is planned; one with the bypass road or the collector road system. What it -- the analysis shows that both scenarios work. And both scenarios work within standards. It also shows that having the bypass network makes sense, and would be better for the network. And that pretty much is logical. You've added three road miles of road in there that aren't there now. So there would be a logical conclusion that it would be a better situation with that than without it. And then scenario two, like I said, also includes all the other projects in there. So it's not an apples and apples analysis, it's an apples and oranges. You can't get to the collector network without all the other developments, because of the contributions that are tied to that network. So we've done an apples -- really it's an apples and oranges analysis showing if you put all the projects in, you put all the collector network in, it's a better situation for the road network out there, it's better for the accesses, but at the same time if you don't put the collector network in, Summit Lakes is -- functions on -- or excuse me, the existing network expanded for plan functions adequately in accordance with our level of service standards. And I know that's a lot to understand, but that was the basic conclusions of the report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the alternative network, that means Massey to Woodfield (sic) up to Immokalee down to Vanderbilt Beach Road was built and opened prior to the completed construction on 951, would that be a diversion for them, the traffic that would normally try to get through the torn up 951 ? Page 139 October 19,2006 MR. JARVI: It would certainly be able to function that way, yes, SIr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I notice that some proposals they're talking about improvements down to Tree Farm and Woodfield (sic) down to Tree Farm and then kind of stop in there and assuming it would then Tree Farm out to 951, which really doesn't help the potential problems created by the construction of 951. But if the developer's agreement or other agreements don't address the improvements to Massey Road -- I don't know if you've been on that road, I have many, many times, and it's a very narrow Estates type road. No side treatments, no nothing, just -- in fact, the asphalt isn't even in good condition. How would that kind of traffic on -- that would be diverted, that would be rather difficult for Massey, so Massey would have to end up having to be improved, wouldn't it? MR. JARVI: Let me answer that two parts. The first part is if you built -- and it's W oodcrest. If you would build W oodcrest down to Tree Farm Road, it would help the situation. It wouldn't help it totally. But you would divert trips away from the Collier Boulevard, Immokalee Road intersection itself. Which is a prime consideration also. It would not help all trips from diverting away from the Collier Boulevard construction, that's a true statement. W oodcrest -- having any connection would be better than no connection. I'm just giving you in relation to Massey. Yes, the road is not to what we would call county standards at this point in time. But having a connection there would be better than not having a connection from the road transportation network. I know there are negotiations going on to improve that road, and that's why it was included as part of this whole network, in concert with discussions with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I was concerned about the people Page 140 October 19, 2006 that live on Massey. There are some that do live out there and that road would have a huge amount of traffic dumped on it rather quickly if this was an alternative around the construction. So you may have gotten to all my questions. I think you have, thank you, Reed. MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And of course if our transportation department could follow up, I'd certainly like to talk to Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon. For the record, Nick Casalanguida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Nick. I want to understand the road system that we've got to deal with out there. You have Vanderbilt Beach Road, which is under construction currently up now to 951. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you have a section of Vanderbilt Beach Road that goes out to Massey. It's functionable now. I don't know what the construction aspects of that are. You have 951 from Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road which has barely started, if it has at all. MR. CASALANGUIDA: End of this month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You've got some people out there doing some staking and stuff, but I think that's all. You've got Immokalee Road, which is being six-Ianed under construction directly in front of this project. Then if I'm not mistaken, you in some process to get Immokalee Road from 951 to 1-75 six -laned; is that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Started beginning of this -- middle of this month. They're setting up the ML T. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a huge bunch of scenarios. What is the time table on those scenarios for completion? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, I can answer that. Page 141 October 19, 2006 Immokalee Road in front of the project is scheduled for spring of '08. Immokalee Road from 951 to 1-75, I would best guess would be spring, '09. Collier Boulevard, from Immokalee Road down to Golden Gate Boulevard, 24 to 30 months from today. So that adds up working out somewhere in early '09, mid '09. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And Vanderbilt Beach Road, first or second quarter of '08, the one that's currently under construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as your knowledge of what could be or might be going on with W oodcrest and Massey, does county have any plans to look at any improvements in that corridor? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're doing this as an alternative roadway proj ect. And if I can bring you up to speed, I'll take a minute of your time and get you up to speed as to where we started. We started with one of the original projects, Bristol Pines, that was a Waterways joint venture. They donated 30 feet of right-of-way in their first phase. In their second phase they donated design money to finish the second phase. We had Warm Springs to the north, which donated right-of-way and water management. We have Calusa Pines, which is currently the golf course on the east side of W oodcrest, donated right-of-way on that whole corridor. And Mr. Schiffman, which is just southeast of this project, donated right-of-way and water management. So we've had all the developers in the area working together to provide that collector network. With the project that we have now, as outlined in the transportation section, we have one of the original developers have started. Waterways donating right-of-way, water management, some additional goodies as well to get this done. Page 142 October 19, 2006 We did have Mr. Jarvi analyze this thing six ways to Sunday and every analysis that we could. There were concerns with construction. We do not control all the right-of-way on Woodcrest, Tree Farm and Massey. So in our attempt to provide this collector network, we're trying to do it outside the normal work program. We're trying to do it in coordination with the developers. But there are certain pieces, puzzle pieces in that connection that aren't there yet. The connection to Immokalee Road via the Wagner property is private and not participating. The Comcast property that's at the corner of Tree Farm and Massey, we'll have to approach Comcast for a piece of right-of-way there. And we're not sure if Massey's completely public or private at this time. Some plans show it as public, some plans show it as private. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the most practical way to look at this is the scenario using the existing county roads that are under construction to be completed theoretically in spring of '09 for the latest couple of scenarios that you've told us about? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That is the most conservative way to look at it, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We certainly need to be conservative. I think that's all I had. Is there anything that -- anything else from anybody? Yes, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry I interrupted you before. I'm not sure of this, and that's why I've been trying to find out. Dwight's statement was the neighborhood meeting was about two and a half years ago. And my understanding is that each year, each new year they have to have one so that the people who live in the area get a chance to discuss what's going to go on with the new project involved. Now, the other end of the coin is we can't find an answer today as to say whether or not it is now one year. And because of that, unless Page 143 October 19, 2006 something has come up, we're going to have to let it go. But basically from now on I understand that it's going to be a one-year time table from which you can have a neighborhood meeting, or have to have a neighborhood meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember you bringing that up in the past. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And we had to go in. I understood in the beginning of the year that it was passed for that and that it was a one-year situation that you had to have one each year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There is a question in the rhetoric that's in there, has there been a meeting within the last 12 months. And that pertains directly to the intent which was to have it within the year. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And they haven't. And this one did not. And the idea is that's what's supposed to happen. What we do with it now, I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, do you know of any code that we got implemented? I know this was talked about. And like Mr. Adelstein said, I thought we discussed it. Do you remember anything like that? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No. And I have the code here through September of last year, and it does not appear in there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I believe it was a policy decision of the BCC. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. That did come up on the Orangetree amendment. That had several events that stretched it out beyond a year, and they had rescheduled about a year ago. And at that time the board sent word out that they should hold a second information meeting. They agreed to do that. Then there were subsequent other delays, and they're still trying to resolve those things. And they still haven't scheduled that NIM. But it came out of a policy direction from the Page 144 October 19, 2006 board. And I'll have to check with Catherine if it's part of her future LDC amendments to make that a requirement. But right now it's not. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Could this be brought to an end finally, please? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Could I clear a few things up for you, Commissioners? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go right ahead, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: In the transportation section, the one that was provided to you in paragraph C, we discussed with the applicant and with the concerns from the Planning Commission that all off-site improvement will be done prior to construction. So it says all required groups shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first C.O. It will be prior to on-site construction. So in other words, they will build their turn lanes on Immokalee Road prior to them beginning site work. And the applicant has agreed to doing that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What letter is that, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, that pertains to the on-site road work. Now, what that means is the turn lanes and decel/acceleration lanes, things like that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that does not pertain to the completion of any roadways outside that immediate contiguous nature to that proj ect like -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 951, Vanderbilt Beach Road, 846 or anything like that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. It's purely their site access on Page 145 October 19,2006 Immokalee Road. We're trying to be consistent with all projects that come forward from recommendations that you have all provided. Also in D below that, we'd like to put, except as may be modified by the developer's contribution agreement. This thing references that a DCA has already been or will be eminently coming forward. So we want to just be cautious that if that doesn't come forward, we want to just clear that up. And keeping Marjorie in line -- we give Marjorie kudos. The changes in here were not her fault or Kay's, they were with ongoing negotiations going back and forth between staff and the developer. We couldn't get realistic construction estimates from our engineer, so we had a little bit of a delay. So we had to make some changes with that DCA. And she did a great job stepping up and taking care of it, so that's not her fault. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick. Any other questions of transportation? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have a question, Nick. In the TIS report, can you look at Page 8? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: It gives the two scenarios, and it gives the -- it lists the various roadways, and it gives the traffic distribution and a percentage. In scenario number one, Immokalee Road west of directional west access is accepting 90 percent of the traffic distribution -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- correct? Okay, now if you go down to scenario number two, we have added to that scenario Tree Farm Boulevard. And we've stuck 15 percent onto Tree Farm. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's CR951, south of Tree Farm. Page 146 October 19, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'm just looking at the difference. Where did all that traffic distribution go? If you look up at scenario one, County Road 951 south of Immokalee has 50 percent on it, and nothing else changes. And now it's only got -- it's got zero. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The difference between the two analyses is the fact that we're showing with the connected network you're tied into VBR extension as well, too. So it's stuff that will drop off. VBR is not shown on this table because it was considered insignificant when you did the distribution of the traffic. But if you run traffic down W oodcrest to Massey, they could go west to VBR and avoid 951 altogether. So you'd get a significant dropoff there. COMMISSIONER CARON: So all of that traffic is going to end up going that way. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not all of it. But what you get is a significant dropoff. In other words, your approach -- your exiting traffic portion of it will not hit 951. Now, where it shows zero -- south of Immokalee Road. It shouldn't show zero there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Suddenly it's going from 50 percent of the traffic distribution down to nothing? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, that's not correct. And if you go through the model pages, we've run through these things. And I can tell you that I've gone -- COMMISSIONER CARON: What page? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me go through the trip generation pages, the distribution pages. If you want to give me a few minutes to go through them and I'll come back up, if that's okay? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'd really-- Page 147 October 19,2006 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because I'm not understanding. This is not making sense. MR. CASALANGUIDA: In the distribution pages it will pick up. And I'll show you where it is. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And if we can do that, if you can give me a few minutes to find it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Walk me through it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I have a few questions of environmental from their environmental impact statement, and then we'll probably take a break to come back and continue. So we'll see if we can finish that much up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is Kay going to give a presentation? Because I have some -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Yes. It's just that at 2:15 we've been going an hour and a half. And I've been trying to talk really slow for Cherie', but I'm sure her fingers are bothering her by that time, so I wanted to give her a break. You're Mr. -- MR. MYERS: Good afternoon. For the record, my name's Mike Myers. I'm with Passarella and Associates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Myers, on Page 27 of your EIS, you're indicating that you're going to be addressing the listed species concerns as part of the U.S. Army permitting process, and that your project went through a 38 public notice on January 23rd of 2006. What's your status currently with the Corps of Engineers and your listed species? MR. MYERS: Currently we have received comments from the Page 148 October 19,2006 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in response to the Corps public notice. We've prepared our responses to both the U.S. Fish & Wildlife's concerns, as well as the Army Corps of Engineers. Those packages have been resubmitted back to the Corps and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife. And currently I'm sure it's sitting on somebody's desk waiting to be reviewed. The question is when. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has anything that's been presented in the PUD been -- changing as a result of your response to the Corps? MR. MYERS: No, I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the Page 28 about the wood stork, it says the combination of onsite wetland preservation and enhancement and the off-site purchase of mitigation credits from an approved regional mitigation bank will be proposed. Are you -- have you proposed that yet, or do you know what that is? MR. MYERS: Well, that -- there's a combination. Part of the old outdoor resorts PUD that had been previously approved, that mitigation plan included the purchase of 14.3 credits from Panther Island Mitigation Bank. Those credits would be applied as a credit to this proj ect. So in addition to what we're -- the on-site improvements we'll be making in the on-site wetland preserves, in combination with those 14.3 credits we'll be purchasing -- or have been purchased off-site, in our estimation will be sufficient for the wood stork. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you -- have you verified that those mitigation banks are actually purchased? Because outdoor resorts didn't get built. MR. MYERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were purchased? MR. MYERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under the Florida Panther, same page, your last sentence of your second paragraph, final details Page 149 October 19,2006 regarding the panther mitigation will be worked out through the COE permitting process. In your responses to the Corps, did you address the panther mitigation? MR. MYERS: Yes, we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what was the result of that? MR. MYERS: We're in the process of -- well, there's a number of ways you can go. Currently we propose to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service an estimate on the amount of PHU's, panther habitat units, that are going to be needed for the project. That's subject to review and approval by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which is part of our informational package. Our options are to either purchase additional credits at a regional mitigation bank like Panther Island Mitigation Bank, or to purchase land off-site within the panther primary zone. Currently we're in search of finding off-site land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that will happen as a requirement of the Corps? MR. MYERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the conditional use approval for the Ferguson driving range, their environmental impact statement, there is a series of jurisdictional wetlands that were required to be recorded as conservation preservation tracts and easements. Did those actually get recorded? And how are you handling those today? MR. MYERS: Yes, that -- as we go through again finalizing the Corps permit, those easements would have to be released. And that's something that would have to occur prior to the Corps issuing their permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those easements are dedicated to whom? MR. MYERS: I couldn't answer that. I haven't reviewed the Page 150 October 19,2006 easements myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if their easements are dedicated to the county or other agencies, you'll need each agency to sign off on those, won't you? MR. MYERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the South Florida Water Management District permit for outdoor resorts, some of the stipulations by the District for that proj ect: No later than October 11 th, 2002, the permittee shall provide to the District the fully executed and recorded conservation easement document depicted on Exhibits 15-A and 15-E. Did that get done? MR. MYERS: I'm not aware of that. Those easements have been recorded. I would have to check with the District. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 18, no later than October 11 th, 2002 and prior to impacting wetlands shown on the project plans the permittee shall submit verification from the Panther Island Mitigation Bank for 14.23. And that's what you previously told me you-- MR. MYERS: The credits have been purchased from the mitigation bank. We're in the process of going through the District permitting currently, too. And those conditions would be modified with the issuance of the new permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're just about to the end. Fish and -- United States Department of Interior, Fish & Wildlife. U.S.F.S. correspondence from the outdoor resort's parcel dated July 1 st, 2003. They're talking about a panther mitigation. It says, to benefit the Florida panther and to compensate for the project's impacts to wetlands, the applicant has acquired property adjacent to the Corkscrew Sanctuary that will be incorporated into the Panther Island Mitigation Bank. The applicant's consultant has developed a habitat assessment Page 151 October 19, 2006 methodology to assess the value of panther habitat. Based on the habitat assessment, the application proposes to purchase a total of 102 acres at the Panther Island Mitigation Bank. Has that been done? MR. MYERS: The 14.3 credits that they're referencing in the letter isn't equated to 102 acres of panther habitat in association with Panther Island Mitigation Bank. That -- the current mitigation proposal we have before the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is going to be reviewing the 14.3 credits, in addition to what we're going to be proposing off-site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the stuff that you propose off-site would be in response to anything that the Corps comes up with with regards to the panther, wood stork or anything else? MR. MYERS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have one finally last question, but it has to do with stormwater. And I know it might be an EIS, but probably is more to the R W A gentleman than you. MR. MYERS: I'll try, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's master drainage plan, which I doubt you want to claim. MR. MYERS: Is that it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, thank you. MR. MYERS: Okay, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning -- or afternoon again. Mr. Kolflat's question about sheet flow earlier, the way you responded to it, it seemed to indicate that the property you were dealing with did not receive any water from adjacent tracts to accommodate. That would more or less be a sheet flow or a holding area for water from adjacent tracts; is that your understanding? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the drainage plan that I have here Page 152 October 19, 2006 shows higher elevations on adj acent tracts and lower elevations on your tract. Since it's all mostly natural now, how are you -- how is the water not flowing onto your property? Which means it is receiving sheet flow, which means I'm wondering how you're going to address the sheet flow that is currently being addressed by the property in its natural form. MR. ANDERSON: I guess one clarification is the Wagner piece that's in the corner would naturally flow on here. But it's adjacent to Immokalee Road. It does have connections to the Immokalee Road drainage facilities already. So they have an outfall there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Immokalee Road's drainage that the county buys up and has these drainage ponds everywhere includes the capacity needed for the Wagner property? I'll ask Nick that question. So that will be -- I'm interested to hear that. How about on the west -- MR. ANDERSON: I don't think it has capacity. I think it has facilities to discharge across to the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that property on the west there, that doesn't -- I don't know what it is. West, right up against Immokalee Road? It looks like it's a bunch -- what is that property? MR. ANDERSON: That's Pelican Nursery. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, is it? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the property-- MR. ANDERSON: And their discharge is directly into the 951 canal, which they applied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then Crystal Lakes, that little protrusion Crystal Lakes has actually seems higher than your property, so it's pushing water off onto yours. But my concern was that first one you spoke about, the property Page 153 October 19, 2006 up in the corner. Maybe if Nick could respond to where the outfall for that's going to be, that will resolve the issue. Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't tell you where the outfall for Mr. Wagner's going to be. I know that when they've done the Immokalee Road design, they would have to accommodate to provide an outfall for it after it's treated on-site for any future construction or anything else that's been done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If other projects push more water onto that Wagner property, Wagner then has to deal with that additional water. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would think they're going to be berming around Summit Lakes. So I don't think Summit Lakes would be putting any more water on there. As far as the way existing Woodcrest is now, it's just a dirt road. That will be curbed and guttered. So we might be taking a little bit of water away from the berm when we curb and gutter that and bring that into Summit Lakes. So whatever water's hitting W oodcrest Road would be collected by the curb and gutter system, brought into actually Summit Lakes and treated in the discharge from Summit Lakes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: In answer to your question, after talking with Reed, I actually had him push all the traffic, worst case scenario in scenario two to the connector network. So the reason you're getting that lower number on those roads is because we -- what we've discussed when we did the analysis was under the second scenario, flood the back end of those roads with some of the trips and tell me what happens to the intersections and the proj ects that go down there. So I think that was the intent when we did scenario two. COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait a minute. Where are you putting this traffic again? Page 154 October 19, 2006 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Scenario two is the collector network. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So the trips, when we've said worst case scenano -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, the only thing that you've added here is Tree Farm Boulevard. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, the connector network is Tree Farm to W oodcrest to Massey, which provides a connection to Vanderbilt Beach Road in the network itself. COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand. But how did 90 percent -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That assumes no network. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- of the traffic distribution get from Immokalee Road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. So scenario one is the worst case without the network. So when we did scenario one -- no matter what I do under scenario two, scenario one is the worst case with Immokalee Road. COMMISSIONER CARON: Understood. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. So scenario two is the worst case going back traffic through the network that's provided. In other words, scenario one covers Immokalee Road/951 worst case scenario without the network. Scenario two says this bypass is going to work so well, let's flood the back end of the network and see what happens. So we're looking at it two different ways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to that question, under scenario one do they muster to concurrency? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They meet consistency under the analysis that was provided, that's right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if that's what happens, that will satisfy that need. Page 155 October 19, 2006 MR. CASALANGUIDA: All those -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The other is a bonus. I take it scenario two is a bonus. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Scenario two is a bonus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It works both ways, either/or is going to work perfectly? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It works a lot better. I wouldn't say perfectly. It works a lot better with scenario two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we're going to take a IS-minute break and be back here at 2:30. Thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Kady, turn us back on. Thank you. And Cherie', I had some coffee. Really strong coffee. COMMISSIONER CARON: Poor Cherie'. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're in trouble now. Okay, we left off with questioning the various representatives of the applicant. And we should go into the county's staff report at this point. And Mr. Y ovanovich, I know you probably have some things to say; let's do that during rebuttal, if that's okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was going to give you the answers to the questions. I'll wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We may have more. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sure you will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll answer them all at once. MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. My name is Kay Deselem. I am a Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. And there are other staff members here as well, as you know, because you've already spoken with them. I'm here to present the staff report which you received for this Page 156 October 19, 2006 meeting dated October 5th. And I won't go into excruciating detail, because you already know quite a bit about the proj ect. I will just note that the information regarding the purpose and description of the proj ect has been addressed by the applicant. And with Cormac's presentation on the affordable housing agreement, you know that information. The surrounding land use and zoning, based on discussions you seem to be aware of what's going on there. And the Growth Management Plan consistency, beginning on Page 3, staff does note that they would -- petitioner would be eligible for a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre if they were to use the activity center bonus. They are not using that. Instead, they are using just the affordable housing bonus density for a maximum amount that they're seeking of seven dwelling units per acre. And it's already been explained as to the workforce and the gap housing elements of those. The transportation element discussion on Page 4, I will defer to Nick. And I know you've already had some questions about that already. And going over to the conservation and coastal management element, the environmental staff has reviewed the project and determined that they are in compliance with the Land Development Code and deemed it consistent with the GMP. And the housing element, Cormac has reviewed the housing element, along with the affordable housing bonus density agreement and the PUD document and has determined that he recommends that it be deemed consistent with that portion of the housing element of the GMP. Staff therefore concludes that the proposed uses and density may be deemed consistent with the overall GMP, all the goals, objective and policies. And the utility review information is on Page 7. What you Page 157 October 19,2006 brought up today is news to me. I was unaware of any issues with utility staff. The last thing I saw was their affirmative recommendation on our system, so I'm not aware of anything. The deviations have been discussed in the staff report, beginning on Page 8. They are asking for five deviations, and staff is recommending approval of those deviations. And I would note so that it's a little bit more understandable, jumping back to the recommendations section of the staff report on Page 11, it talks about staff not recommending approval of deviation number one. That was based on an earlier version of the deviation list wherein they were seeking a deviation from something that actually had been addressed in the LDC with an amendment to make that deviation no longer applicable. You have the report from the Environmental Advisory Council on Page 10. And the information from the neighborhood information meeting is on Page II. And as noted, staff recommends that this petition be found consistent with the GMP, and we are recommending approval of the petition. I have provided the findings, both the rezone findings and the PUD findings, in support of the recommendation. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hi, Kay. Please go to Page 4 of your report where you'll see in housing element, county Policy 2.10 which states, through the adoption of local incentives, ellipses, public and private sponsors will be encouraged to provide adequate housing for rural residents and farm-worker families. Did you choose that only because there's nothing else in there that fits it? I'm sure you had something in your mind that related there. Page 158 October 19,2006 MS. DESELEM: Rural residence, that area of the county at this point is still deemed somewhat rural, as opposed to the highly urbanized area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, all right. I'm not trying to pick on you. MS. DESELEM: And it's still an area where people that have a rural lifestyle prefer to live. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And in that context that's how you used it? MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, fine. Other than -- now, other than the transportation element and the other outstanding items that were still subj ect to qualification prior to coming here today, other than the item that has been discussed which is associated with the road, whether or not they were successful in getting a developer agreement for the building of the road, are there any other items here that run from items one through eight, nine through 11, are there any other items open, to your knowledge? MS. DESELEM: Not that I can recall. I think we've pretty well gotten down to everything. That's -- and why everything was so late coming to you, because we were frantically working trying to get everything resolved before it came to here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted it to be clear in my mind that that was the case. I noted, too, and I mentioned this in a prior meeting, that I had noted this earlier when read. Minor collector. Is there a distinctive difference between a collector and a minor collector? MS. DESELEM: I'll defer that question to transportation planning, as their expertise. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not being critical, but I asked Catherine to look that up too to find out if we need a definition on that, if there is a definitional forum. Perhaps somebody from Page 159 October 19,2006 transportation later on can answer that. I don't think it's a critical factor. Under number 10 on Page 6 of 12, and it says the county will facilitate the developer South Florida Water Management District letter modification. So my question to myself is what do we do now if we're going to facilitate? Is that something different than what we normally do? MS. DESELEM: Again, this is one of Nick's comments. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is transportation? MS. DESELEM: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. And let me just see if I have anything else. Okay, on Page 8 of 12, looks like the fourth line down, the maximum height, zoned height. Do we want that to be zoned height? At the top of the page -- MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- fourth line down. MS. DESELEM: If it isn't in the PUD document already that way, it should be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But we understand it to be zoned height. MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding, but we'll verify that with the petitioner. This petition has been around for a good long time, and in the process of getting things done I'm sure it has some relics from before, before we even had zoned height and building height. So we're still working through those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we're baptizing it today. MS. DESELEM: Yes, indeed. Indeed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, those are the only questions I had. And maybe when somebody from transportation comes up, they can reference what I asked earlier. Thank you. Page 160 October 19, 2006 MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Kolflat, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Deviation one, the cul-de-sac. We do have an ordinance that requires a 50-foot fire department turnaround, which wouldn't work in a 50-foot cul-de-sac. Would you be okay with removing references to cul-de-sacs? MS. DESELEM: Yes, that would be acceptable to me. I assume that we had the same issue in the previous petition. I see no problem with it. And as stated on other items, they're not excluded, even if they get a deviation from some section of the Land Development Code. If there's a fire code that precludes it, they're still required to meet any fire code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But I just think to get rid of the words and not waste anybody's time designing one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Kay, Land Development Code Section 5.04.04.B.5.C limits the total number of model homes in a single development to five, regardless of how large the development is. Do you have any background of what was the criteria or the basis for establishing five as a maximum? MS. DESELEM: I personally do not, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Ray, do you? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. Yeah, that came out of a situation where a number of these older PUDs had -- did not have a limitation on that. And then it became a problem of having so many model homes where they all of a sudden were not meeting proper setbacks because they were being permitted prior to the plats. So this was a way of keeping the number down so when the plats came in that they would fit properly. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But if five was a good policy Page 161 October 19,2006 then, why isn't it a good policy now? MR. BELLOWS: Well, everyone can ask for a deviation or change. I assume that's what's being asked now. MS. DESELEM: If I -- that five limitation isn't tied to any certain number. It's not a percentage of how many units you're getting overall. If you're developing a small project of, you know, 25 units, then five would be way more than you'd probably need. But if you're developing a project of 700 units and you have several different styles of homes available, you would want to have each one of those available for potential purchasers to look at. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But that isn't what the LDC says. The LDC says for all developments and pertains to all developments. There's no distinction between development size. I could understand a ratio proportional to its size, but I don't understand the policy support for just saying five across the board. MS. DESELEM: Yes, that is what the LDC says. And like Ray says, but they can ask for a deviation. And staff believed that in light of the larger number of units and the size of this project, it would be appropriate for them to be allowed to have more models. Because it's most likely not going to have just one or two product types for sale. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I don't have anymore questions on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just to stay with that deviation for a minute, was the purpose of five though for the actual unit itself or for the floor plans? Because they're requesting this deviation just because they want to show different floor plans. That's internal to the actual structures. MS. DESELEM: I'm trying-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Are model homes -- MS. DESELEM: Model homes are limited to model homes, regardless of -- Page 162 October 19,2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But is it the home or is it the floor plan of the home? MS. DESELEM: My understanding is the way it's written now, you can only have five model homes, period. No matter if you've got 15 different floor plans, you can only have five model homes. And that's what this guy, this gentleman -- this petitioner wants to vary from so that he can show each one of his -- COMMISSIONER CARON: What I'm saying to you, Kay, is it's not the homes that he needs to deviate from, it's because he has different floor plans. MS. DESELEM: Yes, correct. Yes. That's the reason why, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But what you were saying to me is that it wasn't meant for that purpose, it was meant for the actual home -- MS. DESELEM: The way it's written -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- or condo. MS. DESELEM: -- right now, it's limited to the number of actual dwelling units, homes or unit types. You can't have more. I hope I explained it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's go back to Page 5 of 12. And I asked Mr. Y ovanovich this question as well. You have 30 days -- a COA is within 30 days. Do you want 30 days, or is -- IS's in the PUD. MS. DESELEM: It needs to be consistent. Again, this language is from Nick, and I would defer to him to see -- I don't know what he based -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So the PUD should be changed to 30. MS. DESELEM: Yes, whichever one is agreed upon is-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, that's all I wanted to know. MS. DESELEM: -- should stay the same. Page 163 October 19, 2006 I believe I heard the applicant say 30 was acceptable or 15, they didn't care. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just confirming that's the case. Deviation number one, if there's the potential for ALF facilities on this property, is that deviation really a wise deviation to narrow? I mean, if essentially you're going to end up with a commercial facility on this property, is that a good deviation to have? MS. DESELEM: I'm not-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know if you heard that. MS. DESELEM: That makes my answer real easy. THE COURT REPORTER: Could you repeat that, please. MS. DESELEM: Rich Yovanovich stated that they were going to drop the ALF when he gets up here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And you corrected yourself on the next deviation where you recommend approval, and then in the back you -- MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- had not recommended it. MS. DESELEM: Because there were originally six deviations. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's good for right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of Kay or other members of the staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, Ray, do we have public speakers? Thank you, Kay. MR. BELLOWS: We have one registered speaker. Dr. Sam Durso. DR. DURSO: Good afternoon. Do I have to be sworn, or not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you haven't been already, yes, sir. DR. DURSO: I haven't been sworn. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 164 October 19, 2006 DR. DURSO: For the record, my name is Dr. Sam Durso. I'm here as president of Habitat for Humanity of Collier County. I also serve as chairman of the Florida Affiliates of Habitat for Humanity, and I'm now on the U.S. Council of Habitat for Humanity. And I guess I'd say I've been recognized as an expert on affordable housing. This proj ect is very important to affordable housing in Collier County. Habitat for Humanity does own 11 acres just south of this project. We're going to bring a PUD before you hopefully in the next couple of months where we hope to build 66 houses. We also have -- are entering into the developer agreement and will agree to pay for some of the widening of W oodcrest Road. But this developer is going to provide Habitat with water, sewer and drainage, and it's also going to provide some right-of-way along W oodcrest Road. Our project will not happen in the near future without this project being approved. This is an additional 66 units. Ours will all be for those below 60 percent of median income. So if you can look at it, you'll get 66 of our units and then the units in the other two classes that they're doing. We desperately need affordable housing. We never really met the 500 units per year and now we're going to 1,500 units a year. The other difference you should note is the 1,500 units says not that you'll approve 1,500 units, but 1,500 units will be built. And I'm not sure how we're going to get to that number. But we certainly need to start somewhere and this is certainly a good start. So we speak strongly in favor of this proj ect, and we'd like to take a stance and get more affordable housing in this county, and this would be a good way to start. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Dr. Durso, do you think that you've gotten enough for what your -- for your support? Do you think Page 165 October 19,2006 that you've gotten enough concessions from the developer on this? DR. DURSO: Yeah, they've given us quite a bit. What they're giving us is quite a bit. I mean, no other developer has ever given us as much as these folks are willing to give us, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you -- Mr. Durso, is your organization part of Collier County in any manner? Affiliated with Collier County? DR. DURSO: We're a nonprofit organization. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Separate from Collier County? DR. DURSO: Absolutely. We're a non-profit-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Collier County has no audit rights over your books or anything like that? DR. DURSO: We don't -- I don't know. As a matter of fact, we welcome audits. I mean, this is a totally different subject, okay? We have submitted all of our books for the audit that you're talking about, okay, and we welcome that, okay. The reason we welcome it is because we do a very, very good job with what we do. We have tremendous fiduciary responsibility. We've had an A -133 audit for the last 10 years. So I -- you know, I would go on the record that I welcome our chapter to be audited at any time. If we get audited, we look very good. And then, you know, it would be nice for people to see how good we look. We'd love to show you -- I'd love you to see our books. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I might have somebody I know might be interested in seeing your books, but it wouldn't be me. DR. DURSO: And just also for the record, I'm a full-time volunteer, so we don't have any executives getting high salaries with Habitat, okay? Certainly not me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, are there any other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: None have registered. Page 166 October 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, did you want time to finish your comments? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I assumed there might be some additional questions. But let me -- first thing was we're going to remove the ALF because it became too confusing to deal with, the conversion factor and how that mayor may not impact the number of affordable housing we're going to build, so we'll take the ALF out of equation. One of the questions was, you know, the clubhouse is going to be about 6,000 square feet. You wanted to know how much of the clubhouse might be used for sales activity . We can agree that it will not exceed 2,500 square feet. And I think those were the open questions that we had when we went on break. You had a question about whether or not we would do more gap units. And let me put it this way: We would like to agree to make sure we have at least another 10 percent priced in the gap range. But one of the problems we run into is the paperwork associated with that and the deed restrictions. And we would prefer -- if we can find away, we'll certainly guarantee, we'll market another 10 percent in that price point, but the county bureaucracy associated with the actual program we'd like to avoid. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Sold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I think I've hit all of the questions that were there before we took the break, and we're here to answer any more questions you might have about the proj ect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There were two things. One is the cul-de-sac. Do you mind removing that from deviation one, the word cul-de-sac, and only use it for the roadways? Page 167 October 19,2006 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, I -- you're talking about the bulb at the end of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly. The turnaround portion. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The turnaround portion. Certainly we -- yes, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other question is, is it wise to remove the ALF? I mean, because we do need ALF's. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was Dr. Doolittle that had the push me-pull me, right? Isn't that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you know what I mean? There's a need for it. And the baby boomers that are coming up, there's going to be a bigger need for it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But maybe -- is that a product you guys are going to build? Because if it isn't, why put it in? If it is one you want to consider and Brad wants it in, then put it in. But if you're not going to build it and if you're a residential home builder, let's make up your mind. Why are you changing your mind so much, Richard? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, sorry. If it's a red herring, forget it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We didn't put it in there just for grins, but, you know, it's easier to take it out. It looks like we're not going to be able to -- we're not going to build that here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I didn't ask you to take it out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just asked for clarification. If you want to take it out, that makes it simple. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're betting the odds here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, there are no more public speakers? Page 168 October 19,2006 MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions that this commission has of anybody before we go into the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Chairman? I'd like to make a motion for approval. I think this is a great proj ect. It's the first step in bringing affordable housing to the county. We talk about it an awful lot. And with the Habitat for Humanity, we're talking over -- about 260 units. We're looking for 1,500 a year, that's better than 15 percent of what we're looking for in affordable housing. So I think we're sending a good start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Vigliotti, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Now, discussion. I'm just going to make a few statements for the record, because I know we're going to go into stipulations. But I would -- I am not in favor of this project unless it's going to be stipulated that they will not receive a building permit or a land clearing permit until after 846 is six-laned from 951 to I-75, and 951 is six-Ianed from Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee, or to 846. Any other actions in that regard to me would -- well, affordable housing is something we need, but to do it at the hindrance of the rest of the traveling public in that area just doesn't seem right. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think the phasing is really critically important on this. Just based on my review with transportation, I just think we've got to have these things in place before we go forward on major projects like this. And I like the Page 169 October 19,2006 proj ect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, as far as stipulations, first of all, maybe the motion maker might want to consider the phasing aspect. I -- there's several issues in that. Let's start with the first one, the roads. The roads are not up to levels of service in that area. They're not even expected to be until spring of '09. But as we've learned, especially from the Target debacle on Immokalee Road and I - 75, things don't happen like we plan. And I could not support the motion unless it included a caveat that there would be no site work or any kind of site-related permits issued until the road system that I had already reiterated was improved, regardless of when that happens. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark, why would you say that instead of saying that there can't be any COs until the roads are at that level? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because when you've got a developer standing there with a pocketful of building permits and all of a sudden transportation staff says, you know, I've got a year delay or two-year delay getting this road done for some unknown reason. He's going to be sitting here with all this inventory and all of a sudden he'll go before the Planning Commission -- not the planning but the Board of County Commissioners and say, you know, I got these -- I got my building permits under good faith, I thought the transportation department would do this and they didn't do it. And how can you hold up any more C.O.'s and affordable housing and other houses for another year or two because the county failed to perform? So rather than put the county in that box, let's just not issue anything until the roads are in shape. And that's where I'm coming from. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, Mark, what's wrong Page 170 October 19, 2006 with concurrency? Wouldn't that cover that? I mean, isn't that a system we have that -- you know, I mean, there's two issues I have with what you're saying. One is I really think they should be able to do some site work and get a head start. And secondly, isn't concurrency what's supposed to protect us from what you're saying? I mean, how do we know that the people who are moving in aren't taking the burden off of the road by moving in closer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish -- and Brad, concurrency is a great buzzword. It hasn't protected us so far. I mean, I don't believe it has, so -- yes, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I do think we have a concurrency program in place. And in addition, we need affordable housing sooner, not later. And I think the longer we delay the project, the longer we delay bringing affordable housing on line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I just wanted to ask you, are you accepting the recommendation or denying the stipulation that I suggested? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Denying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then you want to go into the other stipulations involved? Does anybody have any suggestions for stipulations? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I believe Kay was keeping track of them. MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any -- Ms. Caron, did you -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I had a couple. One is to change on Exhibit A the reference to open space to be 60 percent. Remove the word cul-de-sac from deviation one. And that greater than 20 feet is the separation between buildings, multi-family buildings. And the AC -- oh, it's gone, never mind. Page 171 October 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a stipulation, did you say, or-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I think so. I mean, it's a change to the -- is that the only way to change? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the PUD changes that we acknowledged and that the applicant accepted all have been recorded by Kay. She will incorporate those into the PUD as part of the changes that go forward to the BCC, if this is to go forward. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think all those were that. So never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. So are you rejecting any kind of phasing for this project? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Make a suggestion. I'm suggesting the sooner we can get affordable housing on-line, the better it is. And we do have a concurrency program that whether it's perfect or not, it's what we have before us, and it works to some extent. I don't know why we need to -- you know, what are you suggesting? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, Mr. Midney was suggesting that perhaps we do it -- do COso COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, no, I wasn't suggesting it, I was just throwing it out. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, is that all? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That I'll do. I'll add that to the motion of going to COso CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion maker-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Wait a minute. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion maker is accepting a stipulation. Well, I'm assuming someone's asking for it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Accepting a stipulation that the COs would be held until the road system in the area when -- the roads that obviously we're talking about are 846 to 75, and 951 to Golden Gate Page 172 October 19, 2006 Boulevard are C.O.'d? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, no, I'm sorry. I'd have to change that. I'd like to see the infrastructure start and go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're not accepting the COs as a deadline data as a phasing issue for this -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No phasing at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I thought. Okay, is there any other comments? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I didn't understand Vigliotti, did you accept the stipulation that the chairman presented? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. No phasing. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I think we're turning our back on a potential very serious traffic problem that I wouldn't go into that myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my argument is, and I'm kind of going along with Bob, is that, you know, let's trust the concurrency system. If it's broken, let's tune that. I think the cost of building today is really difficult. I think to get the efficiency of being able to build this whole site at one time may be the only way a builder can bring things in at a better price. So I'm sticking with Bob. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So am 1. I think that the concurrency system that we have we should stay with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The roads are really in terrible shape, we know that. The roads are being worked on to bring them up to shape. A lot of good effort's been put forward on it. I would like this to be dragged out, too. But I also know that the affordable housing issue is so -- at least portrayed as so critical and I Page 173 October 19,2006 believe to be critical for certainly a number of people. That the developer is willing to accept that stipulation, I believe, that they would also put another 10 percent in the gap housing, not constrained by the ordinary documented requirements, is acceptable to me. And it provides well over 200 units then of -- or about 200 units of gap and another 100 units of the other. Biting the bullet, and it's hard for me, because I would -- I made a comment to myself, maybe we should wait till 2020 for this, because I recognize how serious the problem is. But in this case I'm going to have to trust concurrency, as much as I'd like to see us have real good constraints. Only because you folks have been generous enough to offer that extra piece. And of course I hope it will be recorded as a stipulation that you've accepted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just to expand on what you said. I also recognize that the traffic is a really terrible thing. But, you know, we're talking about tradeoffs here. Nothing here is black and white. We're all in shades of gray. And I think that on balance, the need for affordable housing is more important than the temporary traffic inconvenience that's going to occur if the roads are not built on time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other-- COMMISSIONER TUFF: I haven't heard yet that -- and he offered them, that the ALF would be out and the clubhouse not to exceed the 2,500 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are parts of the PUD that have been modified by Kay. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Okay. That concludes mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for my comments, we've acknowledged here today that the road system has failed in four Page 174 October 19,2006 different categories in that area. Probably won't be repaired until '09. They cannot confirm that they have water/sewer availability. And by some estimates that may be 2010 or 2011. The impacts to Massey Road have not been considered, so I can't go along with that. I have a statement that we've attached to the EAR that shows there are 141,437 development units approved in the PUD zoning inventory. Of those, over 76,000 units have still yet to be built on road systems that are practically failed in many areas. So I can't find this consistent to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to transportation Section 5.1 or 5.2; the capital improvement element, Objective 1.5; FLUE 5.4; and the Land Development Code Section 4.07.02.D(A)(B)(C)(D) and (E). And I will be voting no on this motion. With that, I call for the vote. Please signify by raising your hands. All those in favor of the motion to recommend approval, please do so by raising your hand. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five (sic) in favor. All those against? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six in favor. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six in favor, three against. Motion carries. Thank you. Page 175 October 19,2006 Okay, we will take a five-minute break while we switch paperwork to go into the prop. sharing. We have another group of staff that have to be here as well. So at 10 after 3 :00 we'll resume. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kady is ready, Cherie' is ready. We can go back on-line and we're now going into the proposition (sic) sharing ordinance that's being proposed for Collier County. And Nick, Phil, we also are going into the TIS document, or not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You've had it for review. It's not really recommended that we discuss it today until we've had the stakeholders meeting tomorrow. So we'll probably bring it back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. And we'll talk about proposition -- proportionate sharing, I'm sorry, not proposition sharing. We'll get it right. Why don't we say the mess that the state dumped on us. MR. SCHMITT: It is a proposition. Item #10 PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE ORDINANCE AND TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MR. TINDAL: Good morning -- sorry, good afternoon, Commissioners. Starting off already with a mistake. My name is Phil Tindal, for the record, Transportation Planning Department. This item on your agenda is an important milestone for its achievement of the state mandate which is to adopt a proportionate fair share ordinance by December 1 st that addresses basically a cure for concurrency failure -- a means by which one can achieve a cure for concurrency failure, provided there is an improvement in our five-year Page 176 October 19,2006 scheduled capital improvements and it's been determined by the board to be financially feasible, et cetera. That is really a by-right means by which a developer can cure such a concurrency problem. We have provided the draft ordinance to all of you for review. We have gotten some comments and questions from a couple of you. And it gives us the impression you pretty much get the gist of what we're trying to accomplish. What was also provided was the model ordinance prepared by the FDOT and the Center for Urban Transportation Research. And also a draft of our proposed TIS guidelines and procedures that we're beefing up as an accompanying item to the prop. share ordinance. The only thing that has to be adopted before December 1 st is the ordinance itself. Any other items such as the TIS guidelines, and also we're going to have to do a minor update to the impact fee ordinance, that can follow. We're going to try to get it done about the same time. But it can follow, if need be, and be adopted by the board at a later date. I think you all pretty much have a pretty good idea of what prop. share is all about and have had an opportunity to review the ordinance. It's only eight pages in length. So at your -- we can handle this whatever your pleasure is. But it might be better just to address questions you might have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like to do -- first of all, I don't believe we're required to review the ordinance. I think you're doing this as a courtesy? MR. TINDAL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we appreciate that. So I don't know that we're really going to have a recommendation, but we'll provide, I'm assuming, comments to you and you can do with those as you please by the time you take it to the BCC. What I would like to do is process this the way we have all these type of things, page by page and asking for questions from each page. Page 1 77 October 19,2006 MR. TINDAL: That would be great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had some things that I worked out with you all in discussion. Those are red-lined in the copy that I have. And as we get to each page, I will review with the rest of the Planning Commissioners those discussions so they can agree or not agree with what was at that point worked out. So with that, if that works for everybody here -- and I shrunk my eight pages down to 11 pages so I could put it into an eight-and-a-half by 11 instead of an eight-and-a-halfby 14, because none of us have eight-and-a-half by 14 places to put those. So I can't use page citation so I'll go by section citations. The first page of the ordinance starts with Section 75-I. And we'll be looking for questions from the first page. Does anybody have any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions from the second page, which has -- includes the applicability sections and gets into the findings. Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. This is a paragraph you guys wrote? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which paragraph? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number two. I'm sorry. MR. KLATZKOW: Paragraph two is the direct quotation from the statute. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I too had the pleasure of having conversation with the gentlemen and provided some thoughts. And what I would ask is if they've -- if we failed -- when we go by a page, if we fail to fix something, maybe you could add the changes that Mr. Strain or myself or some others have suggested so that we can Page 1 78 October 19,2006 adjust our papers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask about paragraph three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concurrency denial determination, when does that occur? Is that like step one or what -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It happens at the review of the site development or plat. So it doesn't happen at zoning, I just want to be clear on that. So to get to this document -- to apply this document, you have to be turned outside development plat -- development order application before this ordinance could be applied for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have -- on number four there were some changes, and I'll read those into the record. Some of you know what they were. It currently reads, notwithstanding the above requirements, upon -- and then the words that were inserted -- presentation of evidence by the county manager or designee and finding by the board, then it goes back to the existing language that the proposed project if approved would compromise public health, safety and welfare, et cetera. What that did is make sure that the BCC was the deciding board and that the county administration was the presenters of the evidence and the facts to the board. And then there was forwards added to the very end of that paragraph. And I'll read the last line or two. The proportionate fair share eligibility may be denied unless the applicant cures the operational deficiencies and a new language is prior to commencing development. And that gets us through the applicability section. N ow we'll go into the findings section. Does anybody have any questions on the findings section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Phil, I have one under E. It says, is Page 179 October 19, 2006 consistent and references a Florida statute that supports the policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Could we insert the words "and the Collier County Land Development Code?" Because a lot of our implementation of the code, I wouldn't want anybody to think it's the -- MR. TINDAL: Barring any objection from the County Attorney, I'd say no problem. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just looking. Because again, I just copied this off of the model ordinance. I'm not entirely sure that our Board of County Commissioners would necessarily agree with these findings, so I took the findings out of the model ordinance. I don't have an issue with that. I think it's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It just further, I think, tightens it's up. That's findings. Is there any questions under the applicability section, 75.201? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. And it's under general requirements. Isn't the general requirements outlined there essentially the same as 75-104? And the reason I bring that up is isn't it better to reference one place than to try to copy it to another place? MR. KLATZKOW: The idea there is that there are many facets to the prop. share statute. There's mandatory prop. sharing and there are optional prop. shares. You will not find any of the optional provisions in the statute here. I did not put them in there. I intentionally omitted them so that that's what I'm getting at by the generic requirements. The only prop. share that Collier County is going to do at this point in time, and the board may decide otherwise, is the mandatory provisions. I wanted to make that crystal clear for the general requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Section 75-202, the application Page 180 October 19, 2006 process. Are there any comments there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then it goes on for a page or two. And I actually had a suggestion for 6-C. And in this one it said at least two public hearings to present the proposed proportionate fair share agreement, including at least one meeting before the Collier County Planning Commission and the board. I suggested adding the word including at least one meeting before both the Collier County Planning Commission and the board. So that we would each -- each board would then independently have a meeting requirement to hear this. Because joint meetings are rather difficult to work our way through. Moving on, we'd be on Section 75-203, determining proportionate fair share obligation. And that's the one that includes the formula. It goes on for a page or two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First, I wouldn't mind somebody describing the logic of the formula. But before we do that, I think there may be an additional parenthesis in there. And what it would be is the one that's before the SV. Because the intent is you take development trips, divided by the SV increase and multiply that by the cost. And the way it's written, at least if this were to go through computer code, it would multiply the SV by the cost and divide that into the development. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're correct. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then my only question is, just the logic of this is kind of strange. I mean, essentially what you'd do is if you want to do a project and it's going to add phase trips, and those phase trips exceed the level of service on the road, which is a number, it may partially succeed it or totally, you know, be above it. You're going to add the total phase trips, even though let's say Page 181 October 19,2006 that it's a small amount that actually goes above the level of service; is that right? Or where you only add those that go above the level of servIce. MR. CASALANGUIDA: When you're taking that into account when you're doing the proj ect, you're using all of it. But in terms of the formula to modify the additional cost or to calculate the cost, you're using the ones that are above the existing service volume. It's a difficult situation to run through the formula so it's as clear as possible. If your service volume is 1,000 trips, that's your existing service volume. If your new service volume as an improvement is 2,000, that is your denominator. Your enumerator is the amount of trips the project puts on there. So you take the enumerator, divide it by the denominator, multiply it by the project cost gives you the fair share. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But let me go down. So then the increase is essentially the improvement, whatever you come up with, whether it's switching, whether it's road construction, something you come up with by your design, you have the freedom of privately coming up with whatever you want. That's how much you've added to the trips, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the amount of trips you've added to that road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To that segment. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess with the sum symbol, what that means is you go around, you take all the roads around you, and obviously those that you exceed the level of service you have to do this with, the other roads you don't; is that right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. But it's got to be identified in our five-year CIA. That's always that magic qualification for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then you multiply that by Page 182 October 19,2006 the cost of the improvement that you made. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Now, very important to know. The cost includes right-of-way, design, mitigation. In the case where the construction's in the fifth year, an inflation factor. All those things are part of the cost. That cost formula is very broad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The confusion I have is I -- I'm sure it must be me. I can't get the logic of why you're taking those three elements, and coming up with a -- MR. KLA TZKOW: This isn't our logic, this is the statute. I just copied this. I mean, I didn't even pretend to understand this. This is what they're making us do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I have a copy of the actual statute. And this is directly from the statute. I have your same concerns, but MR. KLATZKOW: The only change I made to this was cost. And I've changed that a bit from the recommended language. But as far as that formula goes, you know, it's been a long time since I took calculus and I don't even know what that means there, but it's there and I just took it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because unfortunately, I mean, I deal with formulas all the time. But units tend to want to make sense. These don't. Okay, so the fact that that doesn't make any sense is not the issue here. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a standard practice they use even outside of proportionate care. It's a DOT practice that's being used by the State of Florida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought if you said it's the standard practice not to make any sense. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then my only other question, or maybe not the only one, but under 4-A, we kind of bumped into this a Page 183 October 19,2006 little bit this morning, but normally when you see a sealed engineer's -- because the PE license is so broad, don't you normally state experienced in traffic studies or something? I mean, you don't want a nuclear engineer to be sealing these. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If they are willing to stamp it and they're licensed by the State of Florida to do that in that particular -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But aren't engineers licensed under certain, you know, capabilities? I mean, you wouldn't want a structural engineer. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have the right to review the document for reasonableness as well, too. If it's submitted by somebody that has no experience with it and that engineer's cost is unreasonable, we have the right to dispute that cost. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So any engineer, anybody with a PE license, no matter what that license is for, chemical engineering, can sign this, can propose this. If you find that the thing is a faulty study -- I guess what you're saying is that any engineer, even a chemical engineer, can do a road cost study that would pass your muster. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe if they're willing to submit it and we'll get our road engineers to review it, and if it's unreasonable, we'll comment at that time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on that portion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was two changes suggested. Paragraphs 4-A and B. Same suggestion, same change. About the middle of the paragraph there's a sentence that says, an inflation factor consistent within the average increases is reported within the last three years. The word localized was inserted in front of the word increase. So that reads, inflation factor consistent with the average localized increases. That was done because our area seems to have such a high Page 184 October 19,2006 -- higher inflation rate than other parts of the country. Item number five, where the reference was to appraise fair market value, the following language was inserted just before that. The lower of the assessed value by the county property appraiser or than the appraised fair market value. And with those references, we've gone to Section 75-204, the impact fee credit for proportionate fair share mitigation. Anybody have any questions from that? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number four under that category, there was some language changes that starts after the first sentence with the following insertion: If the number of units set forth in the county certificate of concurrency approval issued pursuant to proportionate fair share agreement for the development is substantially completed. And then it goes into the rest of the sentence. And the reason that was inserted is to try to get rid of the holding of the gross density. Because if there wasn't language like that, then the gross density could be sitting out there. And this way it will force it to come to the table quicker. And then the couple sentences below that, the word sum was replaced with the word difference, as to be consistent with the rest of the paragraph that talked about the difference between the amounts, not the sum of the amounts. The next item is Section 75-205, proportionate fair share agreements. Are there any comments on there? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number two, what you're saying there is that if the developer doesn't sign this or pay this within five days it goes dead? I mean -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's what we're saying. MR. KLATZKOW: I had to pick a number. I'm open to any Page 185 October 19, 2006 number that you'd prefer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I just wonder. Because, I mean, that's a pretty fatal act at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's make it one day. MR. KLATZKOW: The whole point is if you can't pay, you don't go. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They'll have time. This document, as reviewed by the county staff, they'll know what that dollar amount would be. The idea is when we've reached that agreement and we bring it to the board, after the board is executed you've got to pay within five days. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So how soon prior to this five-day county would he really know how much he has to pay exactly? I mean, go to the bank exactly. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thirty to 60 days. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this should be no surprise. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As long as there's no surprise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, number three on that. The word "may" in the last second to the last line replaced with the word shall. Letter of credit, instead of may be held until the actual cost, shall be held until the actual cost. Prior to that, though, a little bit before that there's a talk about sufficient surety. And this one didn't get modified. So I want to ask again to staff, how do we determine what is sufficient surety? MR. KLATZKOW: The idea, Mr. Chairman, is that we're going to do this on an agreement-by-agreement basis. And so this gives staff the flexibility on an agreement-per-agreement basis to figure out exactly which surety they'd be comfortable with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, what I was more concerned about are different bond levels within the county which are sureties, the staff requires percentages, 110 percent or something like that of a probable opinion of cost from an engineer. Page 186 October 19,2006 And I understand that this is looking at sufficient surety, which I think maybe then your intent is not the amount of the surety, whether it's 110 percent, 100 percent or 90 percent, but it's more of the type of the surety. Is that where you're going? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both? Do you believe you have flexibility between one to the other or one applicant to the other to change the amount percentage? MR. CASALANGUIDA: What we talked about, in our internal review of this, we've used multiple examples in our flow chart. An application could be for 50 units that gets denied the concurrency. It applies to proportionate share. So sufficient surety for 50 units might not be that much in terms of once they pay their prop. share. But if the applicant has a 1,000 unit plat, sufficient sharing might be something higher. And I think County Attorney's recommended that we have the flexibility to deal with that. That's why we left it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you say sufficient surety might be something higher, do you mean again percentage of a dollar value or the form of the surety? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Could be both. Could be both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm wondering legally, if one developer comes in with a project and you're looking for surety, you tell him you want him to bond 110 percent of the improvement value. Another guy comes in and says, well, we've known you a long time, we'll go for 90 percent for you. I mean, do you want to be in that kind of position where you have to make those decisions and have that arbitrariness enter into the picture? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think we want to be in a situation where we're using inconsistent guidelines, but I think maybe the quality or the type of the bond might be different, depending on what the size of the project. Page 187 October 19,2006 MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, if we've got one project where we're talking 50 million or $100 million, our requirements going to far -- if we get another project where we're talking a million dollars, and I just -- I just wanted to give the staff flexibility. If you wanted -- if the thought here is to give something more concrete, we can certainly go that direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if your legal guidance is that this flexibility is defensible, then I haven't got a problem with it, I just wanted to point it out. Because it does coincide with some of the bonds that you asked for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about equal to the value of, something in that neighborhood? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, sufficient gives them the flexibility. If they can defend the flexibility, it's probably better for the county then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's context driven, quite frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next paragraph, where it starts, all developer improvements authorized under this ordinance must be completed prior to commencing development. And then the rest of that paragraph was deleted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number six, what you're stating there is that if there's any additional requirements. But shouldn't you also state that if it's reduced, you could reduce it also? I mean, it's all based on the assumption that it's going to be additional. But does this mean that you can't reduce it, or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think in our impact fee section there, I think it talks about the reduction. But this is more to identify that if an additional phase comes in, the developer, if he comes in and does a PUD amendment and then adds some units and those units get turned Page 188 October 19,2006 down and if he has to continue through a DO stage, that those would be subj ect to a new proportionate share agreement or different agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that take care of your question, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, it's only stated if it's additional. MR. KLATZKOW: You run into a financial feasibility issue here. The idea is that we'll get sufficient revenue between impact fees and these prop. share agreements that we can move ahead on a project. If a developer suddenly changes his mind and says you know what, I'm building less, therefore I'm giving you less. All of a sudden that project becomes financially infeasible at that point in time. So I was leery about ratcheting it down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this does say that you can only ratchet -- MR. KLATZKOW: You would ratchet it up, not down, yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Attorney Klatzkow raises a good point. Ifwe have to modify a CIE or we do, based on the prop. share agreement, the last thing you want is having to turn that train around because they've decided they don't want to do that project or cop out. It's tough to do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That helps them plan better, too. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Section -- well, the rest of this is a lot of boilerplate stuff, 75-206 and further on to the end. Is there any other questions on this document? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would request whatever Page 189 October 19,2006 changes you have been made or will make, would you make copies available? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, can we have now 25 words or less, what does this mean? And what does this mean when we're determining CIE? Because essentially what this appears to be is that a developer can take over control of his schedule to develop, if he wants to take over control of building the infrastructure. So essentially it's like road futures that you can buy through this process; is that right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: What this is again, this was brought up to us by the state. And it's Collier County's response to meet that mandate. What it means is if you want to apply for prop. share, you have to meet these guidelines. But it leaves the door totally open in the last section, when it says do you want to do something outside of prop. share, which is typically a developer contribution agreement, as we spoke of in the prior application, you're welcome to do that. That's an open cooperative process. And this document complies with SP-360 and provides a mechanism that we are in compliance with that. But I think in effect it protects us to the extent that we make sure that we're not running afoul of any financial obligation in our five-year CIE that we can't stick by. And I think that was the biggest fear the board mentioned to us is that they were very fearful that by this our concurrency system and our financially feasible system would have been corrupted by that application. So we, with the assistance of the County Attorney, Phil Tindal and even our consultant, we put in sufficient safeguards that financially we would not be burdened with an agreement that we could satisfy -- with County Attorney, Phil Tindal, Tindal-Oliver and Page 190 October 19,2006 myself, we drafted an agreement that protects us financially in the application of proportionate share. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aren't you also going to work towards fiscal neutrality by your fiscal analysis that's being required? MR. SCHMITT: We have a requirement to submit a fiscally feasible CIE in this year's -- as part of this year's AUIR, we will have a fiscally feasible CIE. Or we'll attempt a fiscally feasible CIE. Capital improvement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you will have a root anyway to be able to work from. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And in summation for Mr. Schiffer, this is -- in simple terms, if you are denied through concurrency that a project cannot move forward until there's road capacity, this allows you the mechanism to make up the shortfall and move your project forward. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Essentially, you could financially bully the concurrency plan then. MR. SCHMITT: It basically allows you to pay to move forward, irrespective of the concurrency rule. It says I'm going to pay my share, and now I can go build. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it is what it is. MR. SCHMITT: That's what the state mandated and that's what the law says and that's what we're complying with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And you think that you've made this as tight as you can possibly make it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Like the IRS. There's always a -- MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're in compliance with the statute. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: I would say we're in more compliance with the statute, given -- specifically identifying the costs associated with this, we've identified all the costs, attempted to, plus adding the inflationary Page 191 October 19,2006 schedule or calculation. I think what Nick probably would say is I don't think many people are going to use this. They'll probably go to a DCA or some other type of mechanism rather than this ordinance. MR. CASALANGUIDA: But that's why I throw in that where the little guy talks really fast and he says, I can't guarantee that someone won't find something in this thing that I haven't thought of or County Attorney hasn't thought of that they could apply it a different way. We think that we have a good document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions on this one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on. Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENT Public comment? Anybody want to comment? Reed, you're the only one. That's fine, just sit there, Reed. MR. JARVI: We're going to talk in mass about this tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been some recommendations on the TIS you probably won't like. With that then I guess we'll adjourn the meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:40 p.m. Page 192 October 19,2006 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 193