CCPC Minutes 12/21/2006 R
December 21, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
December 21, 2006
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning
Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Lindy Adelstein
Donna Reed Caron
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney
Robert Murray
Brad Schiffer
Russell Tuff
Robert Vigliotti (Absent)
ALSO PRESENT:
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services
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, DECEMBER 21, 2006, IN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROV AL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 2006, REGULAR MEETING; NOVEMBER 16,2006, REGULAR
MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - NOVEMBER 14, 2006, REGULAR MEETING; NOVEMBER 28,2006, REGULAR
MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: PUDA-2006-AR-I0030, Sembler Family Partnership #42, LTD, represented by Bob Mulhere, of
RW A, Inc., requesting a PUD Amendment to reflect the current LDC sections which was recodified in
2004, in the Hammock Park Commerce Centre PUD Document. The subject property is 20.23 acres, and
is located on the Northeast corner of the intersection of CR 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road in
Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone)
1
B. Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-64 I 7, Ronald Benderson et aI, Trustee, represented by Robert L. Duane, AlCP,
of Hole Montes, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzill & Andress LP A, requesting to rezone 1-
75/Alligator Alley from PUD to Commercial Planned Unit Development CPUD. The proposed PUD
amendment requests the following: to reduce the size of the preserve/water management area from 15 acres
currently required by the PUD to 11.4 acres; to delete residential uses as a permitted use; to provide a new list
of commercial uses comparable to those allowed in the C-l through C-4 Commercial Districts, with SIC
codes; modify the PUD Master Plan to depict the footprints of existing land uses and conceptual footprints
for undeveloped tracts; to modify the circulation system; to establish a maximum number of square feet
allowed to 265,000; to relocate the existing western entrance 50 feet to the east; and to reduce the 50 foot
perimeter setback to 25 feet. The property, consisting of 40.8 acres, is located on the north side of Davis
Boulevard in proximity to the intersection of Collier Boulevard and 1-75. The subject property is located
in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz)
CONTINUED FROM 1217/06
C. Petition: SV-2006-AR-9400, David Torres, of Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC, represented by Robert 1. Mulhere, of
RWA, Inc. requesting an After-The-Fact Sign Variance for the Swamp Buggy Races/Florida Sports Park.
The Sign Variance requested is to allow the existing non-conforming (Location, Size and Height) off premise
sign to exist at its existing location for a period of not more than a maximum of three years. The subject
property is Collier County public Right-of-Way (ROW) Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) Big Cypress Basin easement along Collier Boulevard is located on the
southeast corner of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, in Section 14, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) CONTINUED FROM 1217/06
D. Petition: PUDA-2005-AR-78] 8, Freeland and Schuh, Inc., represented by Tim Hancock, of Davidson
Engineering, are requesting an amendment to the Pine Vie",' PUD to permit automotive sales within the PUD
and increase the allowable building height from 35' to 45'. The project will provide a driveway connection
between the Pine Ridge Center East and West PUD's and Whippoorwill Lane. The property, consisting of
15.58 acres, is located on the southwest corner of Pine Ridge Road and Whippoorwill Lane, in Section
18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz)
CONTINUED FROM 1217106
E. Petition: DOA-2005-AR-8543, Airport Road Limited Partnership, represented by Richard Y ovanovich, of
Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, requesting an amendment to the Pine Air Lakes Development Order
consisting of the conversion of office space to retail floor area; and an increase to the total square footage of
retail space, resulting in a new maximum total of] .075,000 square feet. The subject property, consisting of
148.99 acres, is located west and contiguous to Airport-Pulling Road, parallel to and approximately
1,600 feet north of Pine Ridge Road; approximately 1,300 feet west, the boundary jogs south then west
again approximately 1,300 feet parallel to Pine Ridge Road, in Section 1 I, Township 49 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida (also this amendment will extend the expiration date). Companion to PUDZ-
A-2005-AR-8550 (Coordinator: Kay Deselem)
F. Petition: PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550, Airport Road Limited Partnership, represented by Karen Bishop, of PMS
Inc., of Naples and Richard Y ovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, requesting an amendment of
the Pine Air Lakes Planned Unit Development (PUD) last revised in Ordinance No. 94-25, to allow an
increase in the maximum development area of 957,000 square footage (further limited to 707,000 square feet
of retail and 250,000 square feet of office), to a maximum total of 1,075,000 square feet (further limited to
1,000,000 square feet of retail space and 75,000 square feet of office use); extend the buildout date from
October 15, 2005 to October 15,2010. The subject 148.99 acres, is located along the west side of Airport-
Pulling Road, parallel to and approximately 1,600 feet north of Pine Ridge Road; and along both sides
of Naples Boulevard, in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Companion to DRIIDOA-2005-AR-8543 (Coordinator: Kay Deselem)
2
9. OLD BUSINESS
A. Discussion on proposed schedule for FY07 LDC amendment cycle
B. Discussion on history and background on changes to section 1.08.02 Definitions of the LDC, Lot
measurement, width
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
13. ADJOURN
12/21/06 eepe Agenda/RB/sp
3
AGENDA ITEM 8-A
Colmr County
- '--~ -
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 21,2006
SUBJECT: PETITION: PUDA-2006-AR-10030, HAMMOCK PARK COMMERCE
CENTRE CPUD
OWNER: Sembler Family Partnership # 42, Ltd.
C/O Joseph A. Filippelli
5858 Central Avenue
Saint Petersburg, FL 33707
AGENTS: RWA, Inc.
Robert Mulhere
6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200
Naples, FL 34109
R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire
850 Park Shore Drive
Trianon Center, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is requesting an amendment to reflect the current Land Development Code (LDC)
sections which were re-codified in 2004, as well as, amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Document to adjust project's commercial intensity, as a result become consistent with policy 5.1 and
5.2 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is 20.23 acres, and is located on the Northeast comer of the intersection of CR
951 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
(See attached location map on the following page)
PUDA-2006-AR-10030 Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD
December 21,2006 CCPC
Page I of6
-Cl:
-
z
o
~s
000
o
-'
\:
"
~
C?
u
If? If!
() ()
u
"
o'i
::)~
Q.~
.
u
I
lYN't'J
(1<;6 '~f:J)
Qt:I'f'^31noa ij]I11O:l
~
~ III I 1[J
~L~J~~ il i
~ ~ ~ ;~-
~
:e
~@~
GJ
~~>:
~~.
o
~!
~ .
~~ ~ ~m
~dO ~
g~ ~ ~r
Z~
o
.
o
a
~
~
-Cl:
.LN3~3S'tf3
1 ~'d'.:J ,Oil
"
~
~
u
0 ~
::> . ~
Z .
Q. 0
~
"
g
lVN~J
(l<;6 '~r:J)
Otf"A31nDe ~3111O;)
~r~ . fH~
o ~ ~ " ~S~ I i
~ I~ J~l u
~~ .
. (]I\18 SM00'9'3~ 't'!:l~3fS "
" ~
~
~ u
\ o ~
::> r ~
~~ ~
~ 3J,.OAO:) C. lj ~
]1't:IS D.L.LON /
-
~
c:::::=::J
;;;
~
"~
:~
~
~, ~
~
@
~
~
~
~
~
i
~ ~~'""'
H~
~
0"
~~~ N
'u
ClR'taYClII lBl100
:;;
~
~
r
a..
<C
~
(!)
Z
Z
o
N
o
<')
o
o
,
0::
<(
co
o
o
N
<(
o
~~
l-
I-
W
Q.
a..
<C
~
z
o
.....
<C
U
o
....J
~
~
Ii
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The applicant went before the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on June 7, 2006 for a PUD
Extension. At the hearing the BCC denied the extension request and directed the applicant to come
back before the BCC with an amendment of the PUD Document. The proposed amendment intent is
to remove the inconsistent language in the PUD Document as well as reduce the permitted
commercial square footage from two hundred thousand (200,000) to one hundred and sixty thousand
(160,000).
This project is a 20.23::l:: acre project that was re-zoned from Agricultural (A) to PUD on November
28, 2000, by means of Ordinance Number 2000-79. The PUD is intended to accommodate different
ranges of retail and office land uses as well as essential services and customary accessory uses. The
proposed amendment will not change the commercial land use and therefore will remain consistent
with the GMP and LDC.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Subject Parcel: Hammock Park Commerce Centre, zoned PUD
Surrounding- North: Vacant, zoned Agriculture (A)
South: Vacant, zoned Agriculture (A) and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road (CR-864)
Right-of-Way
East: Vacant, zoned Agriculture (A)
West: Naples Lakes Country Club, zoned PUD and Collier Boulevard (CR-951) Right-of-
Way
I
r
I
LEI.. Y RESORT I PUD
..-
PUDA-2006-AR-10030 Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD
December 21, 2006 CCPC
Page30f6
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center
Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the GMP. Relevant to this petition, the
Activity Center designation allows the full array of commercial uses. The existing PUD was approved
in 2000 and amended to correct a scrivener's error in 2004. There have been no amendments to the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) since that time so as to affect the uses or intensities approved in
this PUD.
Based on the above analysis, the proposed amendment may be deemed consistent with the FLU E of
the GMP.
Transportation Element: Transportation Staff has reviewed the amendment application and has found
it consistent with the Transportation Element of the GMP.
ANALYSIS:
Staff completed a thorough evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a favorable
determination is based. The criteria are specifically noted in Section 10.02.13 and Section 10.03.05 of
the LDC and required staff evaluation and comment. The Planning Commission to the BCC will also
use the criteria as the basis for their recommendation. Each of the potential impacts or considerations
identified during the staff review are listed under each of the criterion noted and are summarized by
staff, culminating in a determination of compliance, non-compliance, or compliance with mitigation.
These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff report as Exhibit
"A" and Exhibit "B".
Environmental Analysis: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and notes that the
applicant has complied with staffs recommendations and safeguards and has been incorporated
within the CPUD Document and for this reason the rezone is consistent with the LDC and GMP.
Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC): The EAC reviewed this petition on November I, 2006
and recommend approval with staff recommendations. The motion carried unanimously 8-0.
1. The applicant will conduct additional ground water testing on the site in order to determine the
presence or lack thereof petroleum related pollutants and will provide the results of such testing to
County Environmental staff prior to Site Development Plan approval.
2. In designing the site, the applicant shall, where feasible, minimize the overall amount of paved
impervious surfaces.
Utility Issues: The Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition and has no objection to this
petition. The CPUD Amendment does not impact the utilities provision; no additional utilities are
required or proposed.
PUDA-2006-AR-I0030 Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD
December 21, 2006 CCPC
Page 4 of6
Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis: The proposed amendment to CPUD is consistent
with the GMP and LDC and since the surrounding property is zoned for residential and commercial
land uses the Hammock Park CPUD is also in harmony with the land uses. Based on staff s review of
the adjacent existing and anticipated land uses, the proposed CPUD is compatible.
During the review of the first development order staff will evaluate the appropriateness of the
requested uses and densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of
both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allow use intensities and
densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass,
building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location
and traffic generation.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING:
The applicant's team held the required NIM on Monday, August 28, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. at the East
Naples Library. Fourteen people attended, including county staff and consultants for the petitioner.
No one expressed an objection to the proposed rezone or development. When neighborhood residents
questioned the types of land uses for the planned commercial project, Sembler Company
representatives stated the land uses will be market driven and that if the market demanded medical
offices then it would be part of the second phase of the project as long as the land use was based upon
the Level of Service (LOS) for Collier Blvd. One suggestion from a representative ofthe East Naples
Civic Association was that the medical office land use should be considered in the first phase of
construction. Agents for the applicant also informed the residents that the required jurisdictional
permi ts are still pending.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forwards a recommendation of approval for
petition PUDA-2006-AR-I0030 Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD to the Board of County
Commissioners.
LIST OF STAFF REPORT EXHIBITS:
Exhibit "A" - Rezone Findings
Exhibit "B" - PUD Findings
PUDA-2006-AR-I0030 Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD
December 21, 2006 CCPC
Page 5 of6
PREPARED BY:
/./~~ ~~
Dfu E 7v~
A'
i __ (-) .
AI~
M LISSA ZONE, PR'IN PAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
IhCl~" J) ,7fh ~~~-1fi
~~OIY ATTORNEY
RAY LO S, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
12/8/6(,
DATE
1"G/,/ex;.
~
~vn.~
/SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEP ARTMENT OF ZONING AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
)~ - ,C- cTb
DATE
~/t't
Joj H K. SCHMITT ADM STRA TOR
Cr~ MUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
E IRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the February 13, 2007 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARKP. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
PUDA-2006-AR-l 0030 Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD
December 21, 2006 CCPC
Page 6 of6
Exhibit A
REZONE FINDINGS
PETITION PUDA-2006-AR-I0030
Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD
Chapter 10.03.05.G of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and
recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall
show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation
to the following, where applicable:
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies
of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Pro: The Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) land use designation
ofthe Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Con: None
Findings: Based on the staffs review the amendment would be in compliance with the
FLUE of the GMP and the Land Development Code (LDC). Since the current CPUD is
amending the intensity of the permitted retail and commercial units the goals and
objective of the GMP will remain.
2. The existing land use pattern;
Pro: This project is adjacent to Heavy Commercial District (C-5); the permitted lower
commercial land use in the CPUD will be consistent with the existing and proposed land
use patterns as explained in the staff report.
Con: The adjacent properties to the south and east are zoned Agriculture (A) and the
property adjacent to the west is zoned Naples Lakes Country Club PUD a residential land
use.
Findings: The decrease of intensity of retail and commercial units is deemed acceptable
for this site because the amendment complies with the GMP and LDC requirements and
is consistent with the existing and future land use pattern in the area.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts;
Pro: The parcel will not result in an isolated district umelated to adjacent and nearby
districts because it is located within an Activity Center and is located within a close
proximity of other approved commercial zoned properties.
Con: None
Findings: The proposed amendment is of sufficient size and is adjacent to commercially
zoned properties; therefore, this CPUD will not create an isolated district. By virtue of its
location within the Urban, Urban Commercial District, Mixed-Use Activity Center
PUDA-2006-AR-I0030 Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD Page 1 of 5
Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) this CPUD is deemed consistent with
the GMP and LDC.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
Pro: The requested action will not change the subject site in relation to the nearby
property boundaries.
Con: None
Findings: The CPUD boundaries are logically drawn and they are consistent with the
Mixed-Use Activity Center Subdistrict, as identified on the FLUM of the GMP.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
Pro: The request reasonable because is does not change the land use which continue to be
in harmony with the surrounding area.
Con: The proposed rezone amendment is not obligatory at this location.
Findings: The rezone amendment is necessary because the project is decreasing its retail
and commercial units to comply with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Transportation Element
which will make the CPUD consistent with the GMP.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
Pro: The proposed rezone amendment should not adversely influence living conditions in
the neighborhood as the petition is consistent with existing uses and compatible with
surrounding land use.
Con: Once the retail and commercial units are built it could cause an increase in noise
and traffic impacts on the nearby residences. However, due to the relative small size of
the site and the proposed preserve and buffer areas and the decrease of commercial
intensity, the proposed amendment should not adversely impact the adjacent properties.
Findings: The proposed amendment has not changed its permitted land use and has been
properly publicize to ensure the surrounding neighbors will be assured that the least
amount of adverse impact on the adjacent developments have been addressed. In
addition, the development standards and landscaping requirements contained in the LDC
are intended to alleviate any adverse impact to the living conditions in this neighborhood
if the proposed amendment is approved.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion
or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because
of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during
construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
PUDA-2006-AR-] 0030 Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD
Page 2 of5
Pro: The rezoning should not create excessive traffic congestion or otherwise affect
public safety as the GMP requires adequate access to and from the project and the effect
on pedestrian and vehicular circulation and safety. Since the property fronts on a public
road it provides an immediate access to the arterial road network.
Con: Urban intensification results in greater volumes of traffic on the local, arterial and
collector road system serving the CPUD. Other projects dependent on the same street
system may perceive this CPUD as one which will reduce their perceived comfort levels.
Findings: The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the proposed CPUD to the
concurrency management system and had the developer incorporate improvements to the
county roads to retain consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Traffic Element of the GMP.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
Pro: The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because
the LDC and GMP have regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new
developments.
Con: Staff will not determine if the new development will have drainage problems until
the review of the development order.
Findings: Every project approved in Collier County involving the utilization of property
for some land use activity is scrutinized and required to mitigate all sub-surface drainage
generated by developmental activities as a conditions of approval. This project was
reviewed for drainage relationships and design and construction plans are required to
meet County standards and regulations.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
Pro: The CPUD conforms to the similar commercial development standards of the LDC
which are designed to protect the circulation of light and air to adjacent areas.
Con: None
Findings: All projects in Collier County are subject to the development standards that
apply generally and equally to all zoning districts and this project will be subject to those
same standards.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent
area;
Pro: Typically urban intensification increases the value of underutilized land and the
proposed amendment should not alter the property values nor should it decrease or
overtax the load on public facilities.
Con: None
Findings: Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however
zoning by itself mayor may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven
by market value. The mere fact that a property is given a commercial zoning designation
PUDA-2006-AR-I0030 Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD Page 3 of 5
should not affect value because similar commercial zomng IS permitted In the
surrounding area.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or
development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
Pro: The LDC's criteria for review of each land use application to allow Planning
Commission and Board of Commissioners to follow standardized review process which
requires consistency of the GMP.
Con: None
Findings: The development of adjacent properties, in accordance with existing
regulations, will not be affected if this rezone amendment is approved.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
Pro: Land Use applications are subject to the public hearing process to assure that the
rezone thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity in which the property is situated.
Con: None
Findings: The proposed amendment does not alter the permitted land uses which meet
the terms of the land use designation of the Urban Commercial District, Mixed-Use
Activity Center Subdistrict on the FLUM, which is a public policy statement supporting
zoning actions when they are consistent with the entire GMP.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in
accordance with existing zoning;
Pro: The proposed amendment conforms to the FLUE of the GMP because it will be
used in accordance with the existing commercial zoning.
Con: None
Findings: The property can not be developed in accordance with the existing zoning
because the CPUD has sunsetted, however to deny the petitioner of the opportunity to
develop would result in a legal land use taking which is unconstitutional as well not
consistent with the goals and objectives of the GMP.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the County;
Pro: The proposed amendment meets all objective criteria set forth for commercial
zoning and conforms to the purpose and intent of the GMP and all its elements.
Con: None
PUDA-2006-AR-I0030 Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD
Page 4 of 5
Findings: The proposed amendment is designed in a manner that is compatible with
surrounding property in size and scale.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use.
Pro: The proposed CPUD is consistent with the FLUM because it is in the Urban
Commercial District, Mixed-Use Activity Center Subdistrict.
Con: None
Findings: There are many sites which are zoned to accommodate the proposed
commercial development. This is not the determining factor when evaluating the
appropriateness of a development. Each zoning petition is reviewed on its own merit for
compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in
conjunction with a specific petition.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses
under the proposed, zoning classification.
Pro: The land use pattern should accommodate carefully planned levels of development,
protect existing uses, safeguard the environment, reduce sprawl, promote efficient use of
land, encourage alternative modes of transportation and help to maintain a sense of
community.
Con: None
Findings: While site conditions may restrict the location and square-footage of the
homes it would not render the property unusable. Physical alteration is a product of
developing vacant land which cannot be avoided.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and
services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
Pro: The proposed amendment meets all objective criteria set forth for commercial
zoning and conforms to the purpose and intent of the GMP and all its elements.
Con: The GMP encourages but does not require the synchronizing of development with
the availability of public facilities needed to support that development.
Findings: Staff reviews for adequacy of public services and levels of service determined
that required infrastructure meets the GMP established relationships. Staff has reviewed
this petition and found it consistent with all Elements of the GMP.
PUDA-2006-AR-10030 Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT "B"
FINDINGS FOR PUD
PUDZ-A-2006-AR-I0030 Hammock Park CPUD
Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission
to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the following criteria:
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access,
drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
Pro: The proposed rezone amendment is required to comply with all county regulations
regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities. The Rattlesnake-Hammock Road
(CR-864) and Collier Boulevard (CR-951) area is ideal for commercial environments
within the urban district.
Con: As with all land use actions that intensify urban development patterns, there is
some loss of travel time for users of the same arterial road system.
Findings: The proposed change keeps the land use of commercial while decreasing the
intensity from 200,000 square feet to 160,000 square feet of allowable retail and
commercial area. The petition will be compliance with all county regulations; therefore
the project is suitable for the area.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing
operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or
maintained at public expense.
Pro: The application has indicated that the project has evidence of unified control and
will maintain common areas.
Con: None
Findings: Documents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified control.
The CPUD Document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and
maintenance of common areas.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives
and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Pro: The propose amendment for the subject property is entirely consistent with the
goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Con: None
PUDA-2006-AR-I0030 Hammock Park CPUD
December 21,2006 CCPC Hearing
Page] of3
Findings: The subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and
policies of the GMP. The staff report expounds in detail of how the project is deemed
consistent with the GMP by virtue that the property is designated Urban Commercial
District, Mixed-Use Activity Center Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM).
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and
buffering and screening requirements.
Pro: The CPUD has been designed to optimize internal land use relationship through the
use of various forms of open space separation. Majority of the buffering requirements are
regulated by the Land Development Code (LDC) to assure harmonious relationships
between projects.
Con: None.
Findings: Staff analysis indicated that the petition is compatible, both internally and
externally with the proposed uses and with the surrounding uses.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
Pro: The amount of open space was re-evaluated to assure that the project will be in
harmony with the surrounding area.
Con: None
Findings: The amount of open space set aside is consistent with the provisions of the
LDC and the GMP.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Pro: The proposed CPUD will not adversely impact the timing or sequence of
development that is currently allowed in the area.
Con: None
Findings: The adopted concurrency requirements ensure that further Level of Service
(LOS) degradation is not allowed or the LOS deficiency is corrected.
PUDA-2006-AR-10030 Hammock Park CPUD
December 21, 2006 CCPC Hearing
Page 2 of3
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
Pro: The petition does not add intensity to the CPUD as a result the subject property
will not increase traffic or add adverse impacts to other public facilities.
Con: Not applicable because the area is being reduced in size.
Findings: The developer was required to assist in roadway improvements and relative to
the improvements; development of the subject property is timely, because supporting
infrastructure is available.
8. Conformity with pun regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such
regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications
are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
Pro: Staff has reviewed this petition for adequate public services and levels of service
and found it is consistent with the Future Land Use Element land use designation and
meets the regulations of the GMP.
Con: None
Findings: The criteria requires an evaluation of the extent to which development
standards proposed for the CPUD depart from development standards that would be
required for the most similar zoning district. The CPUD development standards are
similar to those commercial standards.
PUDA-2006-AR-I0030 Hammock Park CPUD
December 21,2006 cepe Hearing
Page 3 of3
AGENDA ITEM 8-E
Co~r County
- '--~ ---
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 12,2006
SUBJECT:
PETITION NO: DOA-2005-AR-8543 FOR PINE AIR LAKES DEVELOP-MENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT (DR!) [COMPANION TO PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550]
APPLICANT:
Mr. Jason Wagner, Vice President
Airport Road Limited Partnership
800 Seagate Drive, Suite 302
Naples, F134103
AGENTS:
Ms. Karen Bishop
PMS of Naples, Inc.
2335 Tamiami Trail N, # 408
Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
Mr. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire
Goodlette, Coleman, & Johnson, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
The petitioner seeks an amendment to the Pine Air Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DR!)
Development Order to allow an increase in the maximum development area of 957,000 square footage
(further limited to 707,000 square feet of retail and 250,000 square feet of office), to a maximum total of
1,075,000 square feet (further limited to 1,000,000 square feet of retail space and 75,000 square feet of
office use); and extend the buildout date from October 15,2005 to October 15,2010.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject 148.99 acres, is located along the west side of Airport-Pulling Road, parallel to and
approximately 1,600 feet north of Pine Ridge Road; and along both sides of Naples Boulevard, in
Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (see location map on the
following page).
Pine Air Lakes DRI, DOA-2005-AR-8543
December 12, 2006 CCPC
Page 1 of 3
1 ~. '- T T I I I I I LI !I I IT11 II I. 1/ . --"'< I
<t lLt T c a - ~..aJll'\JSl"Wl
lL ::q 0
~~ T 1111/0 I I~I i[ II (1@iTi I r Q.~ ~-~ ~I
! ....""'~~ ~ I
II """" """"
I I ,....
II H I -I (1["1I"J) ",,0_ !)Nrnncl-!~
Z 11 IT If I I ~\ i
0 if; III
w- ill U
I I::!< n
mO I
i 0
...J ; ii
~J III ~ ~
I~J ,-- u
-
- ~
- 0 '- I ~
- a~ ~l =I!~~ l
- -~ c~ l,:~ I. "---- f
- . . ~t \ f
f-- i u [2
- - ~
r-- < ~
r-- - '--
~ !
- l I---
. III
~e-- '-- - ~ 0 I---
~ f--- ie-- ~ - "'".."""" ,"".
~ u - U
~ . -
i -
- '-- - a -
- -
- - - -
-
=1 I I I I I I I I I - if - I \ III
- T 0
')Nyl "'''''' ]]1 l;l
I I I I H I1I1 II i~
I I + TITIIIII II i -,
- 11 I I Il \ I I I I. I
lM"SlN'rl" - -
]lVJSCllJ.ON / ~
-
tvtA3'1nOll WWBWB V.1lNl
I:
~
~:;;
~ ~ ~
~
~
51
~~~
~
s
~.
~e ~
i-
>! ~
J-
~
~:::t
!ic ,... ~
~~ - ~;
a
~~
l'ii~:
~;
a
Il- 'UYlMB.lN
SW:"3.!.VJ.llW'iWrl
I
~ !
""""""""""^"
;:;
~-
>!
~-
!! t...
.. o!
i-
I
~K ~! i
~- \l.
~
ht.. '"MU IWIWJ..
a..
<(
~
C)
Z
-
Z
o
N
o
C')II)
""11)
11)110
110.
.0::
0::<C
<C,
.It)
It) 0
00
ON
"I,
IN
<CO
O::::l
Oil..
=11:=11:
Z
o
l-
I-
W
ll..
a..
<(
~
z
o
r-
<(
u
o
-.J
E
o
~
NAPLES DODGE
I
r.o
o
o
""
....:
('oj
l:
:::J
..,
E
.~
'ii:'
(.)
:::i
X
If)
~
01
.
"0
~
a.
t
w
(.)
z
o
(.)
ffi
~
/'
If)
o
o
('oj
I
o
:::>
a.
J
..
~
:::i
/'
....
""
o
o
o
('oj
/'
'i
T
'e-
o.
/'
o
..
E
ir
-:;;
>
-8'
o
:4
'""0
:~
, 5'
""
~
~
BOB TAYLOR
CHEVROLET
Land Use Summary
~
Mixed-Use Office/Retail
ROW
Lake/Open Space
Preserve Area (Including Buffers)
Total
103.00 Acres
10.69 Acres
33.49 Acres
1.81 Acres
148.99 Acres
400
,
o 200
,
SCALE IN FEET
HOME
DEPOT
JOHNS$N
2158 JOHNSON STREET
P.O. BOX 1550
FORT MYERS. FLORIDA 33902-1550
PHONE (239) 334-00~
FAX (239) 334-3661
E.B. 1642 & LB. 1642
Master Concept Plan
ENGINEERING
DAlE
Sept. 2005
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved Development Order 85-5, which approved the
DR! known as Pine Air Lakes on November 12, 1985 for 1,280,600 square feet of commercial floor area
which included 707,000 square feet of retail regional mall, 368,600 square feet of office, 350 hotel
rooms and 322 rooms of institutional use. The Southwest Regional Planning Council (RPC) appealed
that Development Order and the appeal was settled by the BCC adopting Resolution 86-63 on April 15,
1986. A revision to the DR! was approved in May of 1994 pursuant to Ordinance 94-25 changing the
square footage from 1,280,600 to 957,000 square feet of floor area comprising 707,000 square feet of
retail uses and 250,000 square feet of office uses. The 1994 Notice of a Proposed Change (NOPC) also
extended the build-out date from October 15,2000 to October 14, 2005.
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (RPC):
The proposed change was determined to be a substantial change to the DR! DO based upon the criteria
found in Florida Statutes (FS) 380.06(19) because the addition of 293,000 square feet was determined to
trigger the thresholds found in the FS to require additional review. The analysis required focused on
regional issues of transportation and affordable housing. These two issues are addressed in the Draft
DR! DO document prepared for this petition.
The RPC addressed NOPC this to a previously approved Development of Regional Impact pursuant to
Subsection 380.06(19) Florida Statutes on November 16, 2006. The NOPC and the staff assessment for
the NOPC were adopted by the RPC without changes. The RPC adopted the recommendations prepared
by its staff. The RPC assessment is attached to the application.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA):
DCA has not offered any objection to the proposed amendment.
STAFF REVIEW:
Development authorizations contained in DR! Development Orders are prerequisite to zoning actions
that implement DR! land use authorizations. DRI Development Orders are structured first and foremost
to contain regulations that respond to relationships dictated by State Administrative rules. Specifically,
those relationships and questions that an applicant is required to analyze and report on as part of their
Application for Development Approval (ADA). Amendments as described by the Notice of Proposed
Change (NOPC) deal with those same questions as applicable. Those responses are reviewed by County,
the RPC and DCA staff, who make a determination that the proposed changes adequately address
additional regional impacts or regional impacts not previously reviewed.
Staff believes this amendment will not adversely impact adjacent property owners or create an undue
public safety concern if the DR! DO language proposed by the RPC and County staff is adopted.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward a recommendation of approval of
Petition DOA-2005-AR-8543 to the Board of County Commissioners as described by the amending DR!
Development Order resolution.
Pine Air Lakes DRI, DOA-2005-AR-8543
December 12, 2006 CCPC
Page 2 of 3
PREPARED BY:
~ 8~m\)
KA D SELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
~CA",,'Ih. ,*,A~.h.,J:-/)Lv~f
MARJO M. STUDEN -STIRLING' 0
ASSIST ANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
RAYMOND . BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~yY;.~
SUSAM'M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEP ARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
jl--- ~r-o G
DATE
/ / ~ :3 () ---0 L
DATE
(J.... - i - 0 I;
DATE
Ja,.600
DATE
/..2- J.s- ~?
SCHMITT ADMINISTRATOR /DATE
ITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the January 23,2007 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK. P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
Pine Air Lakes DRI, DOA-2005-AR-8543
December 12, 2006 CCPC
DATE
Page 3 of 3
AGENDA ITEM &-F
Co~T County
- '--~ ~
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEP ARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 12,2006
SUBJECT:
PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550: AIRPORT ROAD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FOR
PINE AIR LAKES PUD (COMPANION TO DOA-2005-AR-8543)
APPLICANT:
Mr. Jason Wagner, Vice President
Airport Road Limited Partnership
800 Seagate Drive, Suite 302
Naples, Fl34103
AGENTS:
Ms. Karen Bishop
PMS of Naples, Inc.
2335 Tamiami Trail N, # 408
Naples, FL 34103
Mr. Richard D. Yovanovich, esquire
Goodlette, Coleman, & Johnson, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commissioner (CCPC) consider an
amendment to the PUD zoning that was granted on November 12, 1985, and amended several
times in Ordinances 85-67a, 85-67b, 92-1a, 92-1b, 94-25 and 01-44. The subject property is also
a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and is subject to the requirements contained in the DR!
Development Order which is being amended in a companion request.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject 148.99 acres, is located along the west side of Airport-Pulling Road, parallel to and
approximately 1,600 feet north of Pine Ridge Road; and along both sides of Naples Boulevard,
in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (see location map on
the following page).
Pine Air Lakes PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
December 21, 2006 CCPC
Page 1 of 8
... ~ 111111 I 1..,1 !I I ! 1111 T I. 1./ . ~
c( '7 . I Q ~ - -"""'"
!i~ I.L. "'''':nL~ T ::q ~~ ~I
II: /' T IIIII@ I I~I II IIII@III I T" "'e
I f-... -oilI> i
II ,.,..., t\,:mw"';1i
I I "..""
\ I - I (1("..':)) ovo. ~Nf'T'V'Id-l.~
Z ~ ~ wr I I ~I i
0 II)
f- w- U
I !::!:.;: i
f- ooU ~
fi- 0
-' I ii
, -=lb
- ~ 8 .
- !!-
I u
---j ~\
--l ~
I
- ~.... g
- ~~ Ll .g!'O~ l
- -~ : .:... . '--- f
Q~
- - . .. ~! \\ I [2
- - - I u ~
. ~
- - L- ! ~
/'/ i ~ -
- f II)
~- - - ~ U -
i- ~- --l - 0""""'" """
m u - i U
e . -
~ - >-- - 8 -
- ~
- -, I---- -
- ~
>.
~ ..
I I I I I I II I t - {- \ \ II)
- U
IN'tl '''fY ]]"1 IT
r I 1+ II H lilT I T ~
....A
r I T I I I \ I I I I I I i ~ \1 1 I IlJI I \ I ,. I f--
]"",,'5:Jof1tl'
3"1'nSO.l.iON / ~
-
(RNA3YK)B YW8WII YlNWI
I:
~
~,
Q."
N~~
~
~
~I
~ a ~
~
i~
ie. ~
.
~-
,~ m
i-
"
3
::1
~ =::~....
~~ ; ~
g
~
-..
r.:~;
is
g
1Il-31Y.LIftB.I.N
QL' ;u,y.LaGJJI
m~ i~
~ ie
~~ .
I~
~ ~i
i
~
ei ~
~ " ~"
llI:~d 0101 ...
.... '
~ ~
~
~
lMlII """"""'"
L
OK
i-
!! g....
.. oK
i-
~
.J
~~ ill I ~
>-...... I:( 0
~ I> I
l:I
C'I'CItI~ ~
(~t TO) 1MU 1WI'I'II'.1.
a..
<(
~
(!)
Z
Z
o
N
o
<"')Il)
....Il)
Il)CO
co,
.a:::
a::: <
<.
,Il)
1l)0
00
ON
N,
,N
<c
0:;)
co..
=l:I:=l:I:
Z
o
~
~
W
0..
a..
<(
~
z
o
r-
<(
t)
o
-l
E
"
\0
'1:
NAPLES DODGE
~
co
o
o
'"
,..:
'"
C
::J
...,
E
.~
---
a..
t>
::i
x
If)
e
Ol
.
"
~
a..
Ii!
w
t>
Z
o
t>
ffi
~
./
\0
o
o
'"
01
::>
a..
J
oS
'"
"
:::E
./
;:::
'"
o
o
o
'"
./
'ij
T
"2'
a..
./
o
'"
E
~
-::;
~
BOB TAYLOR
CHEVROLET
Land Use Summary
~
Mixed-Use Office/Retail
ROW
Lake/Open Space
Preserve Area (Including Buffers)
Total
103.00 Acres
10.69 Acres
33.49 Acres
1. 81 Acres
148.99 Acres
o 200
I
400
I
SCALE IN FEET
HOME
DEPOT
JOHNS 1- N
2158 JOHNSON S1REET
P.O. BOX 1550
FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902-1550
PHONE (239) 334-004Q
FAX (239) 334-3661
E.B. #642 Be LB. #642
Master Concept Plan
ENGINEERING
DATE
Sept. 2005
SHEET
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner is seeking to amend an amendment of the Pine Air Lakes Planned Unit
Development (PUD) last revised in Ordinance No. 94-25, to allow an increase in the maximum
development area of 957,000 square footage (further limited to 707,000 square feet of retail and
250,000 square feet of office), to a maximum total of 1,075,000 square feet (further limited to
1,000,000 square feet of retail space and 75,000 square feet of office use); extend the buildout
date from October 15,2005 to October 15,2010.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North:
a car dealership, zone C-4 and various industrial uses on platted lots with an Industrial
zoning classification
East:
Airport-Pulling Road, then a canal, then residential uses within Tall Pines subdivision,
with a zoning designation ofRSF-3 residential lots
South:
Various commercial uses with frontage on Pine Ridge Road or Airport-Pulling road or
both, with a zoning designation of C-5
Industrial uses along Lee Ann Lane and Yahl Street
West:
AERIAL MAP
Pine Air Lakes PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
December 21,2006 CCPC
Page 2 of 8
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated (Urban - Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity
Center Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Relevant to this petition, the Mixed
Use Activity Center Subdistrict permits a full array of commercial uses, residential uses,
institutional uses, hotel/motel uses at a density consistent with the Land Development Code.
Pine Air Lakes is an existing mixed-use commercial/retail project located within Activity Center
#13. Activity Centers permit a full array of commercial uses, residential uses, institutional uses
and hotel/motel uses at a density consistent with the Land Development Code.
The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved Development Order 85-5, which
approved the DR! known as Pine Air Lakes on November 12, 1985 for 1,280,600 square feet of
commercial floor area. The Southwest Regional Planning Council appealed the Development
Order and the appeal was settled by the BCC adopting Resolution 86-63 on April 15, 1986. A
revision to the DR! was approved in May of 1994 pursuant to Ordinance 94-25 changing the
square footage from 1,280,600 to 957,000 square feet of floor area comprising 707,000 square
feet of retail uses and 250,000 square feet of office uses. The original approval and subsequent
amendments were found to be consistent with the 1989, Growth Management Plan, as amended.
The applicant employed the firm of Metro Transportation Group, Inc., to conduct a Substantial
Deviation Analysis for a Development of Regional Impact Study. The study maintains that the
market in Collier County will most likely not support the development of 250,000 square feet of
office space. Therefore the developer is seeking to increase the retail floor area and decrease the
office floor area as shown in the following chart.
Land Use Originally Currently Proposed Developedl
Approved Approved Approved
Retail 707,000 707,000 1,000,000 561,202
Office 368,000 250,000 75,000 13,489
Hotelll nstitutional 205,000 0 0 0
Total 1,280,600 957,000 1,075,000. 574,701
(Measurements are provided in square feet)
In addition, A Fiscal and Economic Impacts of the Pine Air Lakes DR! Substantial Deviation on
Collier County was prepared by the firm of Fishkind & Associates, Inc., and submitted as part of
the Development Order Amendment to the Pine Air Lakes DR!. Pursuant to the study the fiscal
impacts that the proposed change will have on Collier County are as follows:
The proj ect pays for itself in terms of fiscal impact to the County and has a positive fiscal impact
for the School District as shown in Table 1 below. The total net fiscal impact to the County is
$3,922,544. The net present value of the fiscal impact on the County is $2,660,517. The
positive net present value demonstrates that this development pays for itself in terms of impact to
the County. For the School District, the project provides a net present value capital benefit of
$32.2 million.
Pine Air Lakes PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
December 21, 2006 CCPC
Page 3 of 8
Collier County, Net Total Fiscal Impact $3,922,544.
Collier County, Net Present Value NPV) of Total Fiscal Impact $2,660,517.
Total Ad Valorem Revenue for Collier County $1,947,717.
Collier County School District, NPV of Capital Impact $537,884.
Average Annual Economic Output in Local Economy at buildout $197,126,731.
Average Annual Economic Output in Local Economy during $128,813,361.
Construction
Total Direct and Indirect Employment Impacts at buildout $6,784.
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of
Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and
redevelopment projects, where applicable. (Comprehensive Planning staffs comments are
shown in parenthetically italics.)
Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their
properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made
without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (Provided
for in Section L 1.07, B.)
Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help
reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for
traffic signals. (Provided for in Section V/L 7.13, B.)
Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets
and their interconnection point with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless
of land use type. (Provided for in Section VIL 7.13 K.)
Staff therefore believes this project is consistent with relevant requirements of the GMP FLUE
and the GMP FLUM.
Transportation Element: Transportation staff has reviewed this project based on the current
TIS guidelines and with respect to the Collier County Growth Management Plan Transportation
Element and has determined that the project is consistent with the Transportation Element if the
PUD document is amended to address the concerns raised regarding PUD Section 7.1.1. This
issue is discussed in detail in the analysis section of this report.
ANALYSIS:
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria upon which
a favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Sections
10.02.13 and IO.02.13.B.5 of the Land Development Code and required staff evaluation and
comment. The staff evaluation establishes a factual basis to support the recommendations of
staff. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) uses these same criteria as the basis for
their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn, use the
criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are completed as
separate documents and are attached to the staff report (See Exhibit A and Exhibit B).
Pine Air Lakes PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
December 21 , 2006 CCPC
Page 4 of 8
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document to address any environmental concerns. The Environmental Advisory Council did not
review this petition because the proposed changes do not have any impact on environmental
Issues.
Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document and Master Plan that accompanies the request, and is recommending approval of this
amendment subject to the stipulations in the PUD document, especially staffs wording of PUD
Section 7.1.1. The petitioner is not in agreement with staff wording and has proposed alternative
language. This issue is discussed in more detail in the Deviation Discussion of Zoning Staff s
reView
Zoning Review:
Relationship to Existing and Future Land Uses:
A discussion of this relationship, as it applies specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land
use planning, refers to the relationship of the uses that would be permitted if the proposed zoning
action (PUD amendment) is approved, and to the requirements or limitations set forth in the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The list of uses is
not proposed to change, per se. The PUD was approved to allow both retail and office uses, and
that is still the case. The actual mix of how much of each type-retail and office-is what is
proposed to change. The uses were determined to be consistent with the GMP when the original
Pine Air Lakes rezoning was approved, and as part of that consistency finding, the uses were
deemed to be compatible with the land uses that have been developed or would be developed on
adjacent tracts. As discerned from the aerial photograph, the surrounding zoning discussion and
the Master Plan, the Pine Air Lakes PUD is already developed or developing with mostly retail
uses.
The surrounding area uses, consisting of either industrial or commercial uses, have co-existed
with this project as it has been developing with seemingly little problems; no changes are
proposed to the PUD document that would allow different development.
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. There are
no "new" land uses proposed in this petition; the intensity of the retail uses is proposed to
increase but a decrease in office uses is also proposed to offset any net increase in project
intensity. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested intensity on the subject site, the
typical compatibility analysis would include a review of both the subject proposal and
surrounding properties as to allowed use intensity, development standards (building heights,
setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural
features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. The
Master Plan submitted for the PUD does not show project design detail. No buildings have been
shown on that plan. The Master Plan is not required to show design detail such as building
footprints. Staff does not believe the proposed amendment will affect the finding of
compatibility that was made when this PUD was originally approved.
Pine Air Lakes PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
December 21, 2006 CCPC
Page 5 of 8
Deviation Discussion:
The petition is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC for parking
requirements. The deviation is found in PUD document Section 7.14.1.
The petitioner proposes the following language for this section:
7. 3 of the Future Land Use Element. However, any parking spaces lost due to these
interconnections shall not be required to be replaced. The Developer shall be
granted a deviation from the minimum parking requirements set forth in the LDC
equal to the lost parking spaces.
Transportation staff is concerned about this deviation as is zoning staff. Transportation planning
staff notes that there is an LDC amendment pending in the current cycle that if approved, will
revise LDC Section 4.04.01.E. The excerpt essentially states what transportation staff wants in
PUD document Section 7.14.1. The LDC amendment states:
During the development or redevelopment of commercial or residential projects and
all rezone petitions shared access and interconnection shall be required within and to
the boundary of the application under review. Should the shared access or
interconnection require the removal of existing parking spaces, the applicable
development will not be required to mitigate for the parking spaces. The County
Manager or designee shall require the shared access and interconnection unless in
the professional judgment of the County Manger or designee one of the following
criteria prohibits this requirement.
1. It is not physically or legally possible to provide the shared access or
interconnection.
2. The cost associated with the shared access or interconnection is unreasonable.
For this application unreasonable will be considered when the costs exceed the cost
of a typical local road section or is above 10% of the value of the improvements being
made to the development
3. The location of environmentally sensitive lands precludes it and mitigation is not
possible.
4. The abutting use is found to be incompatible with the existing or proposed use.
Staff is concerned about approving a "blanket" deviation such as this language proposes. Staff
cannot adequately provide any recommendation to the CCPC or to the BCC for such a deviation
because the extent of the deviation or the possible ramifications of approval are not known at this
time. The ultimate use of the parcels is not known, thus the amount of required parking for
which a deviation would be sought is not known. Staff cannot evaluate a deviation request
unless the petitioner provides a LDC citation stating the specific parking space requirement and
state what would be provided instead. Staff cannot evaluate the deviation's impacts upon the
public health, safety and welfare. Staff believes that if the petitioner wishes to pursue a parking
deviation beyond what is proposed in the LDC amendment, the deviation should be addressed in
another PUD amendment when specific information can be provided.
Pine Air Lakes PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
December 21,2006 CCPC
Page 6 of 8
Transportation Planning and Zoning staff members have discussed this issue with the agents.
The petitioner's agents are not in agreement with stafP s position, citing fear that either the LDC
amendment will not pass, or if it does, it may be in a different form, and/or the LDC could later
be amended to change the language. This petitioner would then be subject to something other
than what is proposed. Staff understands the petitioner's concern with the potentially changing
future regulations, but notes that staff has similar concerns with potentially significant but
unknown parking space provisions.
Zoning and Land Development Review staff has reviewed this deviation and recommends
DENIAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has not
demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety
and welfare of the community."
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The agent for the applicant held the required meeting at the Italian-American Club on January
31, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. Six persons other than the developer's team and county staff attended.
Several in attendance identified themselves as surrounding business owners and employees. Of
those who spoke, the majority had concerns relative to traffic impacts and interconnection
possibilities. Mr. Richard Y ovanovich, acting agent for the property owners presented the overall
conceptual site plan. Ms. Karen Bishop, acting on behalf of the developer(s), responded that a
frontage road is to be constructed on both sides of Naples Boulevard, as well as possible
connection improvements from Corporation Boulevard and the Industrial Park. One person
objected to the request for increasing the total square footage of the current PUD, citing current
traffic congestion and the potential for increased hazardous driving conditions. (Synopsis
provided by Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator)
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning
Commission forward Petition PUD-Z-A-2005-AR-8550 to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation that this amendment be deemed consistent with the GMP, and further
that the PUD amendment be approved, with the limitations contained in the PUD document and
subject to the amended DR! Development Order.
Pine Air Lakes PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
December 21,2006 eepe
Page 7 of 8
PREPARED BY:
~fJ~
KA D SELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
1)1 Uu.- 7/1.~-tJiZJ.'
MARJO~. STUDENT- TIRLING ~
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
x1<.AAVl Yn.~
SUg'AN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEP ARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
//-~fs-Oro
DATE
/Z--{)cr-~
DATE
/2..- 4. Db
DATE
/a..-s-- Old
DATE
/.2. #r,..
H K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR "DATE
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the January 23, 2007 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARKP. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
Exhibits:
A. Rezone Findings
B. PUD Findings
Pine Air Lakes PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
December 21 , 2006 CCPC
DATE
Page 8 of 8
Exhibit A
REZONE FINDINGS
PETITION PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
Chapter 10.03.05.G of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) requires that the report and
recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners show that the
Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following,
where applicable:
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of
the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map and the elements of the
Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Pro: County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an in-depth analysis (see staff
report) of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the Conservation & Coastal
Management Element, the Future Land Use Element and the Transportation Element of the
GMP offering a recommendation that this petition be found consistent with the overall GMP.
Con: None.
Findin~s: Based upon staffs review, the proposed development is in compliance with the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) for Collier County
and all other relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern.
Pro: The location and zoning map that is attached to the staff report show the site size or
configuration of the parcel do not change.
Con: The petitioner's may be viewed by the surrounding property owners as an intrusion into
their neighborhood.
Finding: Staff believes the petitioner's commitments to participate in roadway improvements
will offset any negative impacts upon the surrounding property owners.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Findings: The location and zoning map that is attached to the staff report show the site size or
configuration of the parcel do not change.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Findings: The district boundaries are logically drawn as previously noted.
Page 1 of 5
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed land use
change necessary.
Pro: The proposed change is not necessary, per se; it is being requested in compliance with the
LDC allowances to seek such changes.
Con: The subject tract could be developed without this amendment adding square footage. It
is the petitioner's choice to seek the proposed action.
Findings: The proposed zoning change is appropriate based on the existing conditions of the
property and because its relationship to the FLUE (Future Land Use Element of the GMP) is
positive.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
Pro: The County's current land use policies in the FLUE support the proposed action or at the
proposed use is not contrary to the current land use policies.
Con: The perceived higher intensity may not coincide with the nearby property owners'
perception of the area's potential development.
Findings: The proposed change should not adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood because the recommended new transportation improvements and other
conditions already contained in the PUD document and the DRI Development should ensure
the least amount of adverse impact on adjacent and nearby developments.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or
create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses because of peak
volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction
phases ofthe development, or otherwise affect public safety.
Pro: Development of the subject property is consistent with provisions of the Transportation
Element of the GMP, requiring neighborhood connection because the petitioner has agreed to
create provide interconnections. As noted above, the petitioner has agreed to participate in
roadway improvements to offset adverse effects the perceived increased traffic may cause;
therefore, approval of this project should not create types of traffic deemed incompatible with
surrounding land uses and it should not affect the public safety.
The GMP Transportation Element Policy that encourages interconnection to neighborhoods
provides a positive effect on public safety because interconnections conserve highway capacity
on collector and arterial roadways.
Con: As urban intensification occurs, surrounding property owners could perceive there will be
negative impacts.
EXHIBIT A
Rezone Findings
PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
Page 2 of 5
Findings: Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for consistency with the
Traffic Element of the GMP and was found consistent. Additionally, certain transportation
improvements are included in the PUD document.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
Pro: Road improvements precipitated by this development and water management
improvements to accommodate site development are designed to accommodate the normal
drainage requirement and are already in place for the most part.
Con: Urban intensification could potentially increase area-wide flooding in a severe rainfall
event.
Findings: Every project approved in Collier County involving the utilization of land for some
land use activity is scrutinized and required to mitigate all sub-surface drainage generated by
developmental activities.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable
Findings: All projects in Collier County are subject to the development standards that are
unique to the zoning district in which it is located. These development standards and others
apply generally and equally to all zoning districts (i.e. open space requirement, corridor
management provisions, etc.) were designed to ensure that light penetration and circulation of
air does not adversely affect adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area.
Pro: Urban intensification typically increases the value of adjacent or underutilized land.
Con: None
Findings: This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be
internal or external to the subject property, and which can affect property values. Property
valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself mayor
may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven by market value. The mere
fact that a property is given a new zoning designation mayor may not affect value.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable
Findings: The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the Land
Development Code is that their sound application, when combined with the site development
EXHIBIT A
Rezone Findings
PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
Page 3 of 5
plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in
zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasting with the public welfare.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Findings: The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan, a public
policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive
Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege.
Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because
actions consistent with plans are in the public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning.
Pro: The petitioner could finish the development of the commercial PUD within the parameters
of the existing PUD document and the DRI Development Order allowance.
Con: None.
Findings: Any petition for a change in land use is reviewed for in compliance with the GMP
and the LDC with the Board of County Commissioners ultimately ruling what uses and density
or intensity is approved or, on the contrary, if the petition is denied. This petitioner is
proceeding through the proper channels to gamer that Board ruling.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
County;
Pro: Staff believes this amendment request proposes changes that are within the scale of the
needs of the neighborhood and County.
Con: Nearby property owners may object to the perceived intensification because of concerns
about increased traffic congestion.
Findings: The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan, a policy
statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be
acceptable throughout the urban designated areas of Collier County.
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable
EXHIBIT A
Rezone Findings
PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
Page 4 of 5
Findings: Because the petitioner is seeking to amend a particular PUD to add square footage to
an already approved and partially built project, this analysis is not germane in this petition.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would
be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable due to existing development.
Findings: Any development of this site would require considerable site alteration with the
existing or the proposed zoning.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management
Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County LDC regarding
Adequate Public Facilities.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable
Findings: A multi-disciplined team responsible for reviewing jurisdictional elements of the
GMP and the LDC public facilities requirements has reviewed this land use petition and found
it consistent and in compliance for zoning approval. A final determination whether this project
meets the full requirements of adequate public facilities specifications will be determined as
part of the development approval process
EXHIBIT A
Rezone Findings
PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
Page 5 of 5
Exhibit B
PUD FINDINGS
PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
Section 10.02.13 .B.5 of the LDC of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning
Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria:
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation
to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage,
sewer, water, and other utilities.
Pro: The nearby area is developed with industrial or commercial uses and the petitioner
amendment would add additional retail square footage to the project. The existing portion of
the Pine Air Lakes PUD uses have existing in seeming harmony with the neighborhood and
staff does not anticipate that the amendment will change that situation. The petitioner will be
required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other
utilities.
The petitioner has agreed to provide for any increased traffic impacts and address staff's
concerns about safety regarding the increased intensity in several ways as noted below:
The petitioner has agreed to provide an additional north bound right turn lane from Naples
Boulevard to Airport Road, within one year of the PUD Amendment and Development Order
Amendment approval if the county requests this improvement (PUD Section 7.14.E.3).
The petitioner has agreed to provide an additional one (1) foot sidewalk easement shall be
provided by the Developer within the twenty (20) foot buffer along the Airport Road
frontage, north of Naples Boulevard, at Collier County's request within one year of the PUD
Amendment and Development Order Amendment approval (PUD Section 7.14.0).
The developer has agreed to the following additional Transportation conditions (PUD
Sections 7.14 Q-S):
At the request of Collier County, a Collier Area Transit (CA T) bus stop with shelter
will be installed by the developer or at the discretion of Collier County a
designated park and ride location will be required in lieu of the shelter. The exact
location will be determined during site development plan review and will be
constructed within one year of the PUD Amendment and Development Order
Amendment approval.
Developer shall contribute to Collier County's SCOOT program along Pine
Ridge Road to include tvvo additional intersections in the amount not to exceed
$50,000.00. Contribution to Collier County shall be made within one year of the
PUD Amendment and Development Order Amendment approval.
In lieu of the annual traffic counts for the PUD monitoring requirements, the
developer agrees to make a payment to Collier County to install four permanent
count stations not to exceed a total of $40,000.00 as per LDC Section 10.02.13.
Payment to Collier County shall be made within one year of the PUD Amendment
and Development Order Amendment approval.
Page 1 of 3
The Developer agrees to coordinate the design and coordinate the construction of
the interconnection to the north into the industrial park with the owner of Naples
Dodge, as shown on exhibit "C", within one year of the request of Collier County
the Developer agrees to provide the appropriate easements.
Con: The additional retail square footage may be viewed as having a negative impact upon
transportation.
Findin~: The stipulations included in the PUD document adequately address the impacts
from the proposed amendment.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities tha.t are not to be provided or maintained
at public expense.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: Documents submitted with the original application provided evidence of unified
control. The PUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and
maintenance of common areas.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Pro: County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis (see staff report) of
the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP offering a recommendation that this
petition be found consistent with the overall GMP.
Con: Staffs analysis is subjective. Many of the goals, objective and policies do no have
quantative means to measure compliance. The GMP Transportation Element Policies 5.1 and
5.2 contain measurable components; however, FLUE Policy 5.4 does not. Compatibility is
more subjective.
Finding: Staff has recommended that the subject petition has been found consistent with the
goals, objectives and policies of the GMP as provided for in the adopting ordinance. Please
see the staff report for a more detailed discussion.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and
screening requirements.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
PUD FINDINGS
PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
EXHIBIT B
Page 2 of 3
Finding: Staff analysis as contained in the staff report indicates that this petItIon IS
compatible, both internally and externally, with the proposed uses and with the existing
surrounding uses.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: The amount of open space set aside by this project is consistent with the provisions
of the Land Development Code.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: Timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements does not
appear to be a significant problem as part of the PUD amendment process, but the project's
development must be in compliance with applicable concurrency management regulations
when development approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
Pro: The petitioner has agreed to several transportation conditions as explained above.
Con: The surrounding property owners may not perceive that adequate accommodations
have been made to address roadway impacts.
Finding: If "ability" implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system,
potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of
roads, then the subject property has the ability to support expansion based upon the
commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements
will be addressed when development approvals are sought.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations
in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development
standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that
would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The development
standards in this PUD are similar to those standards. The petitioner is not seeking any
deviations as part of the rezoning approval.
PUD FINDINGS
PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
EXHIBIT B
Page 3 of 3
December 21, 2006
MR. SCHMITT: You have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good morning, everyone. It's
8:30, and we need to get started.
Item # 1
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
If everybody will rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2
ROLL CALL
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And will the clerk -- or the
secretary please provide the roll call.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent.
Commissioner Caron is here. Commissioner Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is absent. And Mr.
Tuff?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here.
Page 2
December 21, 2006
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, addenda to the agenda. I have no
continuation request for items A through F, so they'll be going
forward.
On 9(B), the discussion of our LDC issue that was raised last week by
-- or last meeting by Commissioner Schiffer, we'll be deferring that till
the January 4th old business, so if staff can make a notation to move it
to that agenda, it will be not utilized on today's agenda.
And is there a motion to accept the agenda as --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- recommended?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Tuff.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Strain, can I ask, this issue on
the LDC amendment, is that something that the board requested, or
was that -- because we were prepared to discuss that today. I'm not
sure -- you're deferring that till the next meeting?
Page 3
December 21,2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Today's meeting is going to be
rather involved. I expect we're going to be here all day. Our January
4th meeting, of which I've already received the agenda and approved
it, is much smaller.
I checked with Mr. Schiffer who is the originator of the request
for 9(B). He had no problem seeing it moved to January 4th.
And out of deference to this board, the court reporter and others who
may be here for nine or eight hours, 10 hours today, I just -- I think it
would be more productive to have it on January 4th.
And that was just what this board just approved, so we'll go forward
with that.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay, just for the record then, we'll move it,
but for the record, the entire proposal was removed from the board's
agenda and was -- is being deferred to the forthcoming cycle. So the
board -- the entire item was withdrawn from this cycle of the LDC
amendments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not going to get into the
discussion on the issues of it right now. But on January 4th we still
would like a follow-up report like we had asked. And then any further
discussion or clarification that this commission may deem to be
warranted that would help clarify it in the future will be provided at
that time.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay. Now what about the other agenda item
in regards to the LDC amendment cycle, FY '07 amendment cycle?
All our intent was to do is to hand out the schedule and ask whether
you concur or not concur with the proposed schedule.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 9(B) was the only item removed.
9(A) is that item, so that still stays. So we'll still continue on with that.
(At which time, Commissioner Midney enters the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next meeting of this board -- and
Ray, I know there was some confusion last week over what we were
told on December 7th about not having any meetings until today.
Page 4
December 21, 2006
I learned through discussions with staff that you keep track of the
meetings involving zoning issues. But apparently somebody else
keeps track of issues not involving zoning that this board is supposed
to be involved in. And in that regard, I don't know who to ask today if
we have any other meeting between now and January 4th.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I was reading from a calendar that was supposed to have everything
on it. And I've since made sure that our secretaries make sure that all
that information is on there.
But you are correct, there are other lists that other departments
such as the comprehensive planning department, if they don't notify
my staff then it may not be on the calendar.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schmitt, in an effort to be
better organized for our sake, is there someone that can be positioned
as a point person for this --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- committee to rely upon to--
MR. SCHMITT: That is in fact Ray's staff. That information was
on the calendar. Ray didn't have it. But that -- you have one single
point person and that is the zoning staff -- the zoning staff, they keep
one calendar, that is your calendar. That information was on the
calendar. Unfortunately Ray didn't have that information and passed
out what he thought he had was the most current which in fact wasn't.
But --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like to know is from now on
when I ask that question, can we rely on what Ray says and have no
more of this meeting popping up in the middle between odd times
when we probably don't have any other meetings?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, yeah, absolutely. I mean, Ray made a
mistake. I guess --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just -- I don't think he made a
mistake, based on the responses I got when I questioned on how this
Page 5
December 21,2006
happened. I was told he only keeps track of the zoning matters. If
now we're changing that, that's fine.
MR. SCHMITT: That is incorrect. There's one calendar for the
planning commission that includes all the hearings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So from now on we will be
asking the question and whatever comes out of that answer, that's what
we're going to live with. Because having an interim meeting in
between surprised everybody. And luckily we had a quorum, but yet
we still didn't have a meeting because we didn't have a court reporter
because another office in the county canceled the court reporter.
So it certainly is not well organized in that regard. If you could --
MR. SCHMITT: Well, it was organized. The court reporter was
asked for. It was canceled. I don't know why. That meeting was
advertised, it was scheduled, and there was an error made in giving
you the information. I dispute that it was poorly organized. That's, I
think, a poor choice of words, but we'll leave it at that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't mean that in regards to
any impingement or infringement on your department. I simply meant
in getting this board the information we need, knowing we have a
meeting, I would rather see an organizational change made that is
more effective than what we currently have. How's that? Is that a
better way of stating it?
And IT, if the gentleman from IT is here, the second monitor is
not working up here. Mr. Schiffer won't be able to see things. So if
you could, when you finish that, that would be helpful.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
With that, planning commission absences. Is everybody planning to
be here on January 4th?
Page 6
December 21, 2006
Mr. Midney, welcome. He sneaks in a few minutes after the hour
every time.
Is January 4th acceptable to everybody on the board? Okay, I
have no indications of any absences, so January 4th looks fine.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 2006, REGULAR
MEETING: NOVEMBER 16~ 2006~ REGULAR MEETING
Are there approval to the minutes of November 2nd regular
meeting?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Commissioner Adelstein,
seconded by Commissioner Murray.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Approval of November 16th regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein again,
Commissioner Murray again.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 7
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Thank you.
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - NOVEMBER 14, 2006, REGULAR
MEETING; NOVEMBER 28. 2006. REGULAR MEETING
BCC reports and recaps. Ray, November 14th and November
28th.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On the December 12th meeting, the
Board of County Commissioners heard the rezone for RZ-AR-8039.
That was the KO Whippoorwill rezone. That was going to the RMF-6
district. And the board approved that by a vote of 5-0.
The board also approved the PUD rezone for Summit Lakes, and that
was also by a 5-0 vote.
They also heard a report from Dan Summers concerning the
emergency management plan. And the board had directed that Dan
present that to the planning commission, so I've been requested to try
to coordinate some time or days that you might want to hear that from
Dan.
Page 8
December 21, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I recall correctly, our January 4th
schedule is not that jammed up. If that's a convenient time for Dan's
department, why don't we take a look at doing it then.
MR. BELLOWS: January 4th?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. SCHMITT: That briefing was the hurricane evacuation
briefing. It was prepared by -- I believe it was CH2MHill that
prepared that evacuation study. The board asked and then voted to
have that presented to the planning commission as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. I'm glad we could see it.
I'm assuming there was an executive summary and backup data. And
I know that this board may have questions about the backup data, so
as intense -- that data backup that's available could be sent to us
obviously prior to the meeting, that would be very helpful for us
understanding --
MR. SCHMITT: If you ask for this on January 4th, probably
won't get that out till sometime next week, if I get that at all. I mean,
I'm going to get that from Dan and his staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's the reason I was
mentioning it. Because if we can't get it next week, then maybe we
should look at a future date.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason, next week is when we
usually receive our packet. And your staff is working very
expeditiously lately, because we're getting our packet today. So that's
-- a week ahead.
MR. SCHMITT: I believe the packets are going out today for the
January 4th meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that works real well. And if we get
this one next week, we still have plenty of time to review it.
MR. SCHMITT: In regards to your calendar, I've directed Ray
to give you a calendar at the January 4th meeting that will have all
Page 9
December 21, 2006
your meetings on for 2007, to include all the GMP amendment cycle
meetings as well, and the LDC meetings. So we will give you a
complete calendar of everything that's scheduled. It is scheduled. The
GMP meetings are scheduled.
The LDC meetings, if you approve this schedule, will be on
there, and all your planning commission meetings. And we'll give you
an annual calendar, with the understanding there may be some tweaks
here and there. But I will give you an annual calendar at the next
meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Joe, that's all we're asking. There's
no problem there.
And I like the fact that Ray is the point person, because we see
him constantly anyway and that works well for us. The difference with
this last meeting was we had it on the agenda, and it was canceled
because originally we didn't need it. It was an A VIR meeting. So that
was canceled for that purpose, but then it was reactivated for an EAR
meeting. And that's when I went back through in the minutes and I
tried to find what happened, and that's what I found.
So I could see how it could have slipped up. We'll just expect a
refresher every time we ask, that's all.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On that Whippoorwill KO
report, if you recall, we recommended denial on it. I think the vote
was 7-2.
But in watching the commissioners, they were presented with
information regarding traffic that changed from the time we reviewed
it. We were concerned about the traffic deadending down there at
Whippoorwill Lane, which is a deadend road.
But at the commission meeting, apparently they have been able
to -- transportation to design and prepare for an exit either onto
Livingston Road or some other exit.
Page 10
December 21, 2006
Is that not right, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: I didn't catch the last part of the question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- we voted against the
Whippoorwill project 7-2 because of traffic issues. One of the issues
was the only exit was to on a constrained roadway, Pine Ridge
through Whippoorwill. One of the issues the applicant transportation
had come forward with was that they needed another connection at the
end of Whippoorwill, which they hadn't confirmed yet.
Between this meeting -- between it leaving here and getting to
the BCC, it was continued a couple of times, once or twice. And I
believe the reason for the continuance was to work out that connection
between the end of Whippoorwill and to some connection that is going
to involve the extension to Green Boulevard.
And I think that was the basis why the BCC saw it differently
than we did. And we may have seen it differently as well, had that
connection been on the books when it came to us. Don, you're at the
podium.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning.
I know we talked about it, but we didn't know we had a definite deal at
the time of planning commission. That's why they delayed the time in
between the planning commission and the board.
And then we did lock up a deal with a developer to the south to
build that connection in their design right now, and that's soon -- you
know, about a year to 18 months, so -- and that's the information we
passed on to the board at that time, too.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So it wasn't in effect then at the
time we reviewed it?
MR. SCOTT: That's right, it wasn't -- it was what we talked
about, but we weren't positive it was happening at that point.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I was interested in that,
because that was really the only cause that I could see for
recommending denial. And that evaporated in the time it got to the
Page 11
December 21, 2006
. .
commISSIon.
MR. SCOTT: It makes a big difference, and we're happy to get
that connection in there.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the benefits of this board's
thorough review before it goes to the BCC, if applicants see that there
is a problem, it does provide the opportunity to rectify the problem so
it's not so highlighted in front of the Board of County Commissioners.
So by the no vote and then by the correction, we actually produced a
good thing of that. So that system worked fine in that regard.
With that, is there any other -- you've finished your recaps then?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The chairman's report. I wish to report
that we have some cookies for break, and that we've got a nice
Christmas story with a candy cane. And I appreciate that. And I want
to thank those of you that have provided those niceties. But they will
not soften this board's attitude towards what we're discussing today.
We haven't partaken of those yet.
Item #8A
PETITION: PUDA-2006-AR-I0030
So with that, we will move into the advertised public hearings.
The first one is Petition PUDA-2006-AR-l 00-30. PUD amendment to
reflect the current LDC sections for Hammock Park Commerce Place
PUD, a northeast intersection corner of 951 and
Page 12
December 21,2006
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road.
All those wishing to participate in this petition, please rise and be
sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of
planning commission members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one, and that is I met with the
applicant and his representative, Bruce Anderson, and discussed the
project. Most of our discussion focused on the traffic and the phasing.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I met with Mr. Anderson
regarding the matter we're discussing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I need to remind myself, I
need to talk slow today, and I will try to do so. I ask everyone to
follow and not overspeak one another. Wait to be recognized.
And if Ms. Caron, if she sees the fingers moving too fast on
Cherie', please kick me in the side or something to let me know to
slow down. Thank you.
Mr. Anderson, it's all yours.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
very much.
F or the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and
Andress law firm on behalf of the applicant, Sembler Company.
Also, I'd like to introduce Bob Mulhere and Emilio Robau of
RW A, Inc.; Reed Jarvi with Vanasse Daylor; and Amber Overby,
Director of Public Affairs for the Sembler Company. I'd like to ask her
to come up here for just a moment and share with you the public
outreach efforts that Sembler engaged in prior to this matter coming
before you.
MS. OVERBY: Good morning. It's Amber Overby.
O-V-E-R-B-Y.t
Page 13
December 21, 2006
And as Bruce mentioned, I'm with the Sembler Company and
have seen you all before.
And I just wanted to talk to you a little bit about -- and I had
talked to you before about Sembler, but most recently in the last two
months we've received two more very distinguishable awards.
The first was we were named by the Florida Redevelopment
Association in Tallahassee. Our project called Tangerine Plaza was
recognized as the best redevelopment in the entire state for 2006,
which was a pretty exciting reward for us.
In addition to that, in October we also received an award for one
of our projects in Atlanta called Perimeter Place. And the award was
issued by the Atlanta Regional Commission, and it was the award for
the 2006 Livable Centers Initiative Achievement Award. So we're
very happy, and we continue to be producing award-winning,
innovative projects.
In keeping with our corporate philosophy, it is my job to make
sure that we continue to engage with neighbors in every community.
And you may remember when we were here presenting for Brooks
Village that we held extensive meetings and discussions with the
neighbors, and they ultimately played a very integral role in the
proposed development that was ultimately approved.
In the case of Hammock Park, Sembler held its first
neighborhood information meeting on August 28th, and a few people
showed up. And the focus of the conversation was related to
including medical office in the project, which we do intend on doing.
We then contacted the surrounding communities again last month to
update them on the progress and inform them about this hearing. We
contacted Lely, Verona Walk and Naples Lakes Country Club, and
held meetings with all but Lely.
And these meetings were very positive and productive, and gave
us another opportunity to engage the neighborhood leadership and
continue to build that dialogue.
Page 14
December 21, 2006
And actually, in fact, in the meeting with Naples Lakes, we
surmised that a Mediterranean sty Ie design was preferred over an Old
Florida, and that we will now be incorporating into the motif for the
project.
So we continue to work with neighbors and engage, and my door
always remains open. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Commissioners, this is a PUD amendment
that has been required by the Board of County Commissioners as part
of the PUD extension and sunset review process. This property is just
over 20 acres, and it's located in the commercial activity center
boundaries at Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard.
It is presently zoned and has been since 2000 to allow 200,000
square feet of commercial uses. This PUD amendment would reduce
that allowed square footage by 20 percent, from 200,000, to 160,000
square feet. Weare requesting one additional change to the PUD to
allow the option to go up to 100,000 square feet for office uses, not
just retail. That wouldn't change the overall cap of 160.
At present the ordinance has a cap of 50,000 square feet for
office. And the reason for that is, frankly, discussions with HMA and
other medical providers that may wish to locate close to the new
hospital.
A companion item that is not technically before you today is a draft
developer contribution agreement that remains a work in progress.
But we did want to provide you with the framework of what we're
working on. It has not been finalized. We're still negotiating on some
of the finer points.
But basically the DCA would provide for phasing of the project's
certificates of occupancy with 45,000 square feet of commercial uses
that we'd be allowed on approval of the PUD amendment. And the
remaining 115,000 square feet would be permitted to receive their
certificates of occupancy 15 months after approval.
Page 15
December 21, 2006
The Board of County Commissioners' hearing on this matter I
believe is scheduled for late February. So the remainder could not
receive certificates of occupancy any earlier than May of2008.
Under the developer contribution agreement, the developer is
providing the county with an estimated $1,626,000 worth of
right-of-way and drainage improvements, and it's proposed that they
would receive $566,000 in temporary road impact fee credits, which
would be completely repaid at the beginning of Phase 2. This
developer contribution agreement gives and saves the county more
than a million dollars on the ongoing Rattlesnake Hammock Road
project. The other members of the team are available to answer
questions and/or give a presentation. I'm going to ask Reed Jarvi to
come up here in a moment.
And in the meantime, I'd like to introduce and ask Mr. Bellows to
distribute to you a letter of support from the CEO of the new HMA
Hospital that's located on the same side of Collier Boulevard as this
PUD.
Mr. Jarvi, if you could come up and address some of the traffic
issues, or lack thereof.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Anderson, before he does that,
you're suggesting a change in the amount of office space, the
maximum?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may have already said this. What
maximum are you looking at?
MR. ANDERSON: 100,000.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Out of the 160?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then maybe -- the reason I asked
that is maybe Reed could tell us the impacts to traffic, if changes like
that were made.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 16
December 21, 2006
MR. JARVI: Good morning. My name is Reed Jarvi,
Professional Engineer with Vanasse Daylor. We prepared the traffic
impact statement for this project. I have a brief statement, and I'll
attempt to address Mr. Strain's question.
First off, when we did the -- this traffic statement, we've been
involved with this project for several years, and we did the original
Hammock Park Commerce Center I guess four years or so ago and the
extension, and we've been involved with an SDP also at this parcel.
As you go through the impact statement one of the things you
may note is that we've continued to use general retail, which we
typically use as shopping center on this project to remain consistent
with the other previous approvals and submittals. So we have done --
kept consistency over the life of this project.
As Bruce mentioned, we are proposing to go from 200,000
square feet of retail to 160,000 square feet. That is a 20 percent
reduction in square footage. It is an approximately 16 percent
reduction in p.m. peak hour trips.
The reason for that, in case you're wondering, is the formulas are
not linear, they're logarithmic. So the bigger the shopping center, the
less the increase in trips are. So there's a slightly different formula.
The full build-out of the project as currently amended meets the
consistency requirements of the county. Staff has noted that in their
staff report.
Also, it was proposed today as an SDP, which it is not, but if it
was proposed as an SDP, it would meet concurrency of the adjacent
road network. I think both of those statements are important to know.
We don't feel that the project as presented needs phasing; however,
during discussions with staff at the developer cont -- in accordance
with the developer contribution, we have agreed to phasing. As Bruce
noted, 45,000 square feet after the PUD and the remainder in 2008, 15
months after the approval.
Another thing to note, and you've all heard me say this before,
Page 17
December 21, 2006
but it's important to note again, that this is a commercial project.
Commercial projects are attractors of traffic, they aren't generators of
traffic. All the residential units that are out in this area, 951 and
Rattlesnake Hammock, Lely, down to the south, some of the other
projects to the north, are going to shopping trips, office trips
somewhere now. They're going to the Publix, the Wal-Mart, whatever.
And some of them may be even going to farther than what would be
considered a neighborhood area.
So with the development of this commercial project, we will
actually capture trips that are pretty much already on the roadway
system. This actually could improve the situation out there from a
traffic standpoint. I don't propose that at this point in time because of
the way we do our traffic concurrency and consistency evaluations at
the county. But the traffic that's out there going four, five, six miles
for a shopping trip now might go one or two miles for a shopping trip,
which would actually lower the vehicle miles traveled, and that would
be a benefit to the area. Roadway construction. Just to note, widening
of Rattlesnake Hammock Road to six lanes, that's to the west of951,
is already underway. It's anticipated to be complete in late '08.
Widening of Collier Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to 41 is in
the final design stages, and it is anticipated to start construction next
year. Those are the projects in the immediate pipeline.
Also, Bruce noted that the developer's contribution agreement
addressed right-of-way for a future Rattlesnake Hammock Road
extension. That will -- is anticipated to connect to what might be a
Benfield Road connection in the future, north-south road.
If you may remember, there is a north-south road scheduled -- or
addressed in the long-range transportation plan. That would go from
somewhere 41 up north, and Rattlesnake extension would provide an
integral link to that from 951 and parts to the west.
They also are constructing, as part of that new crossing, a 951
canal at the current location of the entrance to Swamp Buggy. And I
Page 18
December 21, 2006
think that will be important to upgrade that intersection for future uses
of both this project and possibly other uses out to the east. The
question that Mr. Strain had, I don't have the exact numbers, but I can
tell you that I've done a comparison for trip generation accounting for
pass-by traffic, and if we would change to general office, one foot of
general office equates to .36 trips -- excuse me, one trip of general
retail equates to .3 trips -- .36 trips of general office, or .76 trips of
medical office, that's in the p.m. peak hour.
So it would be a reduction of -- depending if it's medical office to
general office, of probably somewhere 75 -- 25 to 75 percent, roughly,
on a trip for -- or a square foot to square foot comparison.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you do the traffic analysis? I can't
recall. I'm sure it's --
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir, I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, for Pioneer Lakes.
MR. JARVI: Oh, Pioneer Lakes, no, I did not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because they have a conversion
ratio in here for exactly the same thing. I don't think it matches up to
yours, but I guess we'll deal with that--
MR. JARVI: Yeah, I -- well, it may not because being in -- I
can't directly speak for them, but being a regional mall, or a much
larger commercial, if they converted it with a pass-by comparison, it
would be a different number pass-by. So it would be -- it would
probably still be fruits, but it wouldn't be apples and apples.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the applicant requested an
increase in office. I just wanted to be assured that if that was a
consideration, then traffic wouldn't be worsened, it would be
improved.
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. It would be less in either case. General
office or medical office would be significantly less.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of the TIS? I
know transportation staff, we'll certainly have to talk with them.
Page 19
December 21, 2006
Do the members have any questions on the TIS part of this package?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reed, on your Page 2 --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had one, but that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me just quickly go over it.
If I'm looking at on Page 3, when you say the area conditions, I don't
know how significant this would be, but down where it says Collier
Boulevard, the speed limit is posted at 45 miles per hour. That may be
a 45 mile an hour road, but it's actually posted at 55.
MR. JARVI: I think -- yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, then I don't know whether
that impacts significantly on that. I doubt it would, but I just wanted it
to be clear. But I do know that that road probably under state rules
should be at 45.
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. And I would just ask
that -- you wouldn't know, the -- this is probably for staff, about when
the six-lane expansion, it was supposed to begin in 2006. You said the
design is in final --
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll ask the question later of
Nick.
Thank you, that was it for me on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Reed, on Page 2 you list some
improvements that are needed on four segments of road system. To
what extent on each one of those improvements is your applicant
going to be making those improvements?
MR. JARVI: Actually, these would all be site related. These are
for access to the project directly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So you're making all those
independent of impact fees?
Page 20
December 21, 2006
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You haven't got it turned to the
page, but I notice in your writings that you're basing your TIS on the
fact that the committed improvements would be made. Is that a fair
statement?
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I also notice that the level of service that
you were trying not to exceed was level of service E. It's on Page 11.
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what this boils down to is
with all your improvements, you can make those improvements, still
retain level of service E at the time the improvements are completed;
is that a fair statement?
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other
questions of the TIS?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. JARVI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Bruce, I think you're
sneaking off because the hard questions are yet to come.
Did you have any other presentation, comments? Because there
are some questions we may want to ask of whoever is representing the
language in the PUD. Is that you?
MR. ANDERSON: I'll be happy to sacrifice Mr. Mulhere.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But before you sacrifice him,
you had made one statement that I caught that I need to understand.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said the BCC requested these
changes.
Page 21
December 21, 2006
MR. ANDERSON: They requested a PUD amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why did they request a
PUD amendment?
MR. ANDERSON: Because they refused, unwisely, to extend
the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying the BCC is unwise.
MR. ANDERSON: No, I'm just saying that particular decision.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just wanted to make sure I got your
words straight.
So this PUD has sunsetted. They refused to extend it until they
came in with an amendment?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the reasoning for the amendment,
did they have any specific direction for the reason for the amendment?
They just wanted to re-review it or --
MR. ANDERSON: Wanted to bring it up to the new LDC
references and code requirements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And to do that, to get the
extension, you voluntarily dropped the 40,000 square feet?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to boil it all down
to. Were there any COA certificates issued for any parts of this project
prior to today's meeting?
MR. ANDERSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Bob, good morning.
MR. MULHERE: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice that Emilio is here, and he was
wearing one of those weird little things in his ear like you used to until
you lost yours.
MR. MULHERE: Maybe that's mine. I can't find mine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a company expense, it's 39 bucks.
Good luck.h
Page 22
December 21, 2006
Is there any members of the commission have questions? I do
have some, but I certainly want to defer to the rest of you first on the
PUD.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll defer to anybody else first,
but I would like to ask a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 14 of 18, it says that
we're changing from a commercial -- to a commercial PUD from an
RPUD, and that's not correct, is it?
MR. MULHERE: That is not correct. Can you point it out to
me?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 14 -- wait a minute, let me
get to it. This is on revised document two, revision number two.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 14 of the PUD itself. It's
Section 4.1, purpose; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Urn-hum. And RPUD is crossed
out and CPUD is --
MR. MULHERE: In the document that I have, I don't -- it
reflects CPUD, so --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm looking at --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Strikeout and cross-through.
MR. MULHERE: Oh, the struck-through. Okay, I'm looking at
a clean document.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Revision number two.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And it says that we're going from
an RPUD to a CPUD. But I just wanted to confirm--
MR. MULHERE: Yes, it has been corrected.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And it was not an RPUD
before.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It was always a commercial
Page 23
December 21, 2006
project. Thank you. Let's see. On Page 3 of 18 it says at the top of the
Page B, it says the property is currently vacant. The entire site has
blank. What goes in there?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be Section 1.4.A, the last
sentence.
MR. MULHERE: The entire site has Hammock Park Commerce
Center PUD zoning. So the entire site is zoned PUD.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So this is a continuing
sentence. Okay, thank you.
MR. MULHERE: I did not bring the strike-through, underline
version with me, so I'm looking at the existing one and the clean one.
I assume that you also got at copy of the clean one. Oh, I've got one
right here now.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But for discussion purposes, it's--
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's fine. I've got one in front of me
right now.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 6 of 18,2.10, native
vegetation retention requirements.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It says in underline that the exact
boundaries of the preserve may vary. Does this mean you're going to
be recreating preserve areas?
MR. MULHERE: No. The preserve -- and if I could go -- well, I
don't have a color exhibit. I'll put it up there. It's a little bit easier to
see.
It's kind of funky. Didn't look green to me on that, but -- this is the
preserve area right --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you'll need to grab a mic.
MR. MULHERE: The preserve area is shown at the top of that
exhibit, just in this area here. And the exact boundaries may change
slightly, but that is existing native vegetation. That will not be
replanted, that will be retained.
Page 24
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Then I have a question on
Page 17 of 18 on the ordinance, which must be the current PUD. Here
it says that native preserve vegetation is 1.78 acres.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. The difference is that we are -- we have
extracted the public right-of-way that we will be dedicating, which
reduces the amount of preserve that we're providing, native
preservation. The original PUD did not -- I think they probably
weren't at a time where they knew what was going to be dedicated.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Page 18 of 18.
MR. MULHERE: That means we're getting towards the end.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Under buffers. Why is this being
taken out?
MR. MULHERE: That's already required by the LDC.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Environmental, I'm sorry. But
they're talking about buffers.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it's already required. The LDC
specifies what needs to be done, so it would be redundant language.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You're just doing redundant.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Bob, the whole PUD is full of
redundant language. That was one of my comments to make. So I'm
wondering why this one was taken out and the others aren't.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Well, on top of that, staff requested
that it be taken out. Because it's slightly different than the way that
they would apply the standards today.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Then we'll talk to staff. Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: It is in a sense redundant however, because
the LDC does specify, you know, how to buffer from the preserves.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks. That's all I have for right
now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
Page 25
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, do you have a copy of the
strike- through?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, I do, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Would you turn to Page 16?
MR. MULHERE: 16?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Page 16.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did they ever fix your screen?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. That's all right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would someone call IT and ask them--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, they came up and said they
had to take the panel off to turn it on, so forget it. N ever mind.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On Page 16, Item D as in David,
the fourth and fifth line down have both the strike-through and an
underline. What is this, a fielder's choice, you pick one or the other?
MR. MULHERE: No, that language is intended to be
struck-through. So yeah, there should not be an underline there.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, throughout the --
comparing the two PUDs, the ones that are strike-through and the ones
that are not strike-through, there are inconsistencies in all of the many
pages of this. Which one should we be using in making our judgment,
the strike-through copy or the other one?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm not sure what inconsistencies there
are. I mean, I do see that your underline and struck-through -- and I'm
turning to the clean copy right now to verify that, if you'd just give me
a second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Kolflat, that may be more ofa
question for staff or the county attorney. Because I agree with you, in
some of these PUDs coming up in today's meeting, we have four
copies of the PUD, all of which are done a little bit differently.
And this particular one and each one following, I don't know
what the preference of this board was, but I relied upon the
Page 26
December 21, 2006
strike-through version for my mark-ups and questions.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I think that's probably the appropriate
version to utilize. And if there's a question on it, I've got both copies
here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I think the problem is that if you
look at the non-strike-through version, which is supposed to be the
clean final copy, it doesn't match the strike-throughs and adds that
were in the strike-through version. And Mr. Kolflat pointed that out.
And that is a real concern, because when we vote today, we've got to
vote on the edition that is the correct one that we utilized.
Ms. Stewart -- Ms. Student, I'm sorry.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, Marjorie Student-Stirling for
the record. I work off the clean document, because the clean document
is the official document. Strike-through and underline is provided for
your information to show you the difference between the old one that
after all is being repealed and the new one. That's kind of a working
document for you.
But because we are repealing the old one and adopting a totally
new PUD document, the official document is really the clean
document.
And what should be is there should be between the strike-through and
underline document and the clean, it should match.
In other words, if you were to look at the underlined things as
added and stricken-through as deleted, that should be a perfect match
with this clean document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what Mr. Kolflat is pointing out,
and he did the research I believe to find this, is that it is not a perfect
match.
In that case, maybe when we make our motions on any projects
today we clarify that it is the strike-through version as cleaned up
based on the version we reviewed, regardless of what the clean version
in our packet is. So--
Page 27
December 21, 2006
MR. MULHERE: Mark, there should be -- I mean, you should
have a copy of the ordinance that adopts this PUD. And behind that
there should be a clean version of the PUD.
And I'm looking at the clean version and I'm looking at the item
numbered D. And it is as I said, the strike-through language, even
though some of it is underlined -- you are correct, Mr. Kolflat, that
should not be underlined -- it is struck through. So the clean version,
it is only that first sentence that appears. And I don't know what you
have in your packet, but you should have a clean version as well.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's finish with Mr. --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to point out one
thing. Before I requested, and I think this board agreed, that it would
be very desirable to have a revised date noted on any document that's
given to us so that we understand which came first and which one we
should relate to.
This is very, very difficult to go through, Bob, and I just add that.
I would hope we would reinforce that view.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, based on Bob's comments, I
know that you have reviewed these two documents. Is there anything
between these two that specifically doesn't track between the
strike-through on this project?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, some of them are minor,
but there's about 15 pages that I found that had discrepancies that
weren't consistent with the strike-through philosophy, but I don't know
that this is the time or place to go into that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think there's no better time. And
unfortunately -- but I'd like just to take a couple of examples. And if
those examples prove to be not as concerning, maybe we could just let
staff handle the rest of it at some point.
Why don't we just start with a couple of examples that you have.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right. On Page 2 --
Page 28
December 21, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your speaker, Tor.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Page 2 of both documents.
MR. MULHERE: Page 2 of the strike-through underlined
version?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Page 2 of your final version.
MR. MULHERE: By the way, obviously we prepared the
struck-through underlined version. So any errors in that are not staffs
errors. Staff wanted to make sure I put that on the record.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right. For example, on Page
2, under OR17081667, you have that there?
MR. MULHERE: I'm looking for it.
Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The containing 20.33 acres
more or less is shown underlined, which would indicate an addition in
the strike-through copy, but it's also still shown on the original copy.
In other words, why would we underline the one in the
strike- through when it's already --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it is additional language. It probably
should not be underlined on the new one. So that underline probably
needs to come out.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The next one I had--
MR. MULHERE: Except for the material, but -- which page,
sir?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Page 6. Up at the top of the
page on 2.1 O.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It shows in the original
document, which is a non-strike-through, what I refer to as original,
that pursuant to the LDC and so forth on there.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Then underneath that the exact
boundaries of preserves. But if you go to the strike-through, you show
Page 29
December 21, 2006
that as being an addition in the strike-through, which would indicate
that it did not appear on the original, but it does appear on the original.
Why was that underlined as an addition when it was already in the
original document?
MR. MULHERE: I don't know, I've got to get to the original one
here. I'm looking at that now. Okay.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I mean, when you start to try to
read and understand this, you go bananas.
MR. MULHERE: I don't show it on the original document that I
have here. 20079, Section 2.1 O?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but if you look at 2.10 on 2079,
there's some more language there that was shown as not being
amended in 2.10 of the new document. It should have been repeated
there in the new set -- the one -- the strikeouts there. You don't have
any crossouts.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I see. Pursuant to the LDC as amended
15 percent of native vegetation on-site shall be retained.
And what you're saying is that there's language referencing
Division 3.9, Section 3.9.554.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's a lot more language that's
been omitted in the strike-through that wasn't in the strike-through --
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it was in the original PUD.
MR. MULHERE: But the clean version does have the language
that is intended. I agree that there are discrepancies here in terms of
what was struck-through and underlined. But the clean version is the
document that staff is recommending approval of, does show the
correct language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's my understanding that you just said
your firm supplied the strike-through version.
MR. MULHERE: We did, we did.
Page 30
December 21, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how would you take an existing
document and rewrite it as a strike-through but not strike through the
things that --
MR. MULHERE: I don't know. I don't know. I have to find out
how that could have happened.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bob, this board knows you, you've
been coming before us for a long time. It is concerning, though,
because we basically now are having to say that the applicant's
supplied materials are -- we can base our findings on those, because
they are in reliance on the fact it is the true original document, and
you just said it -- we just now know it isn't.
MR. MULHERE: But by the same token you have -- I mean, I
recognize you shouldn't have to do this work. I agree 100 percent.
But you have the original PUD, and you have the clean version, which
is what you're adopting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. But I think -- and I'm
not saying this as a deal-breaker here today --
MR. MULHERE: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what I'm trying to say is --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I got the message.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it may weigh differently on our
review of this document if we know for sure what you were deleting
from the original document.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well, apparently what was deleted was
an old reference to the LDC that doesn't exist today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this case.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could be different in other cases. And
I think that's an important consideration that Mr. Kolflat caught. And
I don't know how it needs to get corrected, but it shouldn't happen
.
agaIn.
MR. MULHERE: Well, yeah.
Page 31
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: If you want to go to Page 7, I
can show you another one, too.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I'm having a lot of fun.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Page 7 --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce said you would.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Page 7, up at the top there,
under item one.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You show strike-through
material that was not in the original document up there at the top. And
you --
MR. MULHERE: Okay. All right, let me--
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- subsection Band C is
struck-through on the strike-through copy, but that was not in the
original. So we've got a strike-through something that was not in the
original.
MR. MULHERE: 2.13. I have it in the original that I'm looking
at, so I'm not -- you know, I'm looking at the ordinance, which is
signed in Ordinance 2000-79 has an A, B and a C under B of2.13. So
it's been revised. It has a 1, B(I), A, Band C. So that one, at least
from my perspective, is correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, the two copies I have did
not jive that way. You're referring to the ordinance?
MR. MULHERE: I'm looking at the original ordinance here,
2000- 79.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, but in our packet we also
received a PUD that was not necessarily the original ordinance.
MR. MULHERE: I don't know if that's the clean PUD. I don't
know what it is. The three documents that are germane are the
strike-through, underlined one, the original one and the clean one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The strike-through language on the -- in
the document we received as a strike-through document, it does
Page 32
December 21, 2006
appropriately strike through that language on that issue, Tor. If you
go to the original document, that last sentence does occur in the
original document, so that one seems to be okay.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On the ordinance there, is that
what you're looking at?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The original ordinance does have that
sentence that was struck through.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I didn't compare it to the
ordinance, I compared it to the clean copy that was included in here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The clean copy shouldn't have the
strike-through sentence in it. When you have a strike-through
sentence and you move to a clean copy, the strike-through sentence
gets completely deleted.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, there are several others.
Perhaps we should just forget those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think as a follow-up to this, if staff
during the break or during lunch could take a few minutes and run
through the remainder of these with Mr. Kolflat to make sure we don't
have any substantial issues to deal with, that would be helpful. Okay,
Mr. Kolflat, were there any other issues of yours?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Not on the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, and this is open space,
Page 5 of 18,2.9.
MR. MULHERE: Are you looking at? I hesitate to ask, the
strike-through version or --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're both the same.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's just, I'm not sure what we're
trying to say. Looks like we're saying that obviously we have to have
30 percent, as per the LDC. That's for the entire site. And that's also
for individual units, unless the entire site is 30 percent, and it doesn't
Page 33
December 21, 2006
apply to the individual units. The concern I have is --
MR. MULHERE: Let me see if that was in the original PUD.
Because -- I mean, it should be. It's not struck-through, it's not
underlined. So I agree with you that that language, which was from
the original PUD, seems a little difficult to follow.
I guess we thought -- the bottom line is the LDC requires 30
percent open space. It doesn't require 30 percent open space on
individual parcels or tracts if you replat them. It requires it on the
entire PUD. That's what the LDC requires.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would it require on the
individual lots?
MR. MULHERE: There's no requirement. I mean, you're
obviously going to have open space, because you're going to have
buffers, water management, side -- you know, things like that. But
that is applied to the PUD as a whole, it is not applied to individual
tracts. You need that flexibility in design, outparcels and things like
that. You may not have 30 percent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
think the idea is that these are gross acreages where this is applied as
part of the platting process, if it's to be platted, or part of the site
development plan process. And you don't wait till you have individual
lots broken out to start to apply it, because in the stream of the way the
process works, it's applied at a point earlier.
MR. MULHERE: This is redundant language, as Mr. Strain said.
Because this is an existing PUD, it appears to me that there is a
significant amount of redundant language that was not struck through.
I suppose there's no harm in that, because it does read exactly as the
code requires. As confusing as it's written, it still basically says you
need 30 percent and you don't have to apply it to individual parcels.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why does it say including
individual development parcels?
Page 34
December 21, 2006
MR. MULHERE: This requirement applies to the entire
development area including individual parcels. This requirement does
not apply to individual development parcels as long as it can be shown
that the required open space is found throughout the development
area. It's not well written.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think what that means is it
applies to the total acreage. And that total acreage would include the
future individual development parcels. I believe that's what that
means.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to go back to the original
document, this is one of those strike-throughs you didn't move to the
new document. It would have probably helped clarify it. The original
document says the total project is 18.15 acres, requiring a minimum of
5.4 acres to be retained as open space throughout the Hammock Park
Commerce Center.
That sentence wasn't shown as a strike-through, but it would
probably clarify in fact what the total requirement for the parcel was.
Then how they got there through individual breakup of that parcel is
irrelevant as long as they retain the amount required. I think that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they didn't provide another
carry-over or strike-through of that language either, which is more
than just an LDC reference. That's on Page 6 of the original ordinance,
Bob.
MR. MULHERE: I'm looking at it. Yeah. It appears to me that
the references to the old LDC were removed but not struck through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In some cases. I think it looks like it's
arbitrary. And I'm wondering whose decision was it to make that
arbitrary move, meaning some clerk in the back room punching
numbers and then somebody following up and not reviewing it?
MR. MULHERE: My staff.
Page 35
December 21, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then when it got to our staff, it
wasn't caught. Mr. Kolflat has now brought it to the surface.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Ms. Caron. Brad, were
you finished?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not exactly. My concern with
that was that, you know, the site could be developed where there's an
area that has nice open space and it's in an area where it's really
compressed. And I'm afraid that area might be up on Collier
Boulevard. So I'm concerned with the aesthetics that could happen
leaving the clause the way it is.
If you -- I would be happy if you just kill 2.9, if you say it's
redundant with the code.
MR. MULHERE: It is. That would be fine. Because Sembler
develops shopping centers all over the state, and particularly have
done quite a few in Collier County. They haven't done that in any of
the shopping centers, and I'm quite certain they won't do it in this one
either. But we can remove that language. It is redundant.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only other question I had is
that, did you ever think of -- did you do the planning for this, Bob?
Are you the one that studied the planning aspects?
MR. MULHERE: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who did that?
MR. MULHERE: Hold on a sec.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't think it was going to be that
hard, did you?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. It's actually not worth
the wait.
MR. MULHERE: Vanasse and Daylor did the original master
plan. We modified it. It would be Dwight and the engineering staff,
RWA.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But was there any thought ever
Page 36
December 21, 2006
given, specially because of the roadway that may be in the back and
all, of adding residential to this?
MR. MULHERE: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sembler won that award for
Livable Centers, this might be a nice place to --
MR. MULHERE: There wasn't any thought given to it on this
particular parcel. There are other opportunities that -- in this activity
center that probably made more sense. They're not the subject of this
petition.
But I could let somebody from Sembler speak to that issue --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, move on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat and Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, following up on Brad's
comment, do you have the plan here that you could look at, your plan?
MR. MULHERE: The master plan?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You show on the plan, and I
can't quite read that, but you show on the plan C commercial in the
amount of 14.6 acres.
MR. MULHERE: I'll see if I can find that reference that you're
talking about.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It shows various parcels, C,
FPL, P for preserve and ROW.
MR. MULHERE: Oh, you're talking about the table.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Okay.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And under that you list four
parcels, the commercial, the FPL easement, the preserve and
right-of-way.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And the values there are for the
Page 37
December 21, 2006
commercial, 14.64; for easement, 2.45; preserve, 1.63; and the
right-of-way, 1.5.
Now, I assume that the three there, FPL easement, preserve and
right-of-way, are all open space.
MR. MULHERE: They are. They could be counted towards
open space. Certainly the preserve would be. Not the right -- well,
the right-of-way is not counted toward your open space.
In other words, you're dedicating that for public right-of-way, so
you don't have to include that acreage when you calculate your
required open space.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the FPL easement in the
preserve would be?
MR. MULHERE: Depends on how it's going to be developed.
There are improvements that could be made within that preserve, and
if certain improvements are made it might or might not count towards
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Let's assume there are no
preserves and they would be classed as open space.
MR. MULHERE: Well, for example, there is going to be a
roadway potentially running through there at some point.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: If I take those values and total
them up, it comes to 20.22. And if I take those last three, assuming
that they were all open space, the right-of-way, preserve and
easement, that comes up with 5.58. And that divided by the 20.22 is
27 percent, it's not 30 percent.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, but you haven't included all the buffers
and stormwater management lakes and all the other things that will
count as open space that you don't see in detail in the water
management plan --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That would be included in
commercial?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, it would be included in commercial or --
Page 38
December 21, 2006
yeah.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Will that be more extracted out
of --
MR. MULHERE: Oh, there will be. There will be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, when you respond, would you
slow on down on how quickly you respond? This is getting a little bit
over the top.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, I will. Thank you.
Mr. Kolflat, the open space calculations don't really entirely reveal
themselves until you've done a much more detailed site plan. And at
that point you know the exact acreage of, for example, perimeter
building landscaping. Perimeter landscaping. Those buffers, those
things all count towards open space as well, as well as landscaping
within parking areas.
So I can't give you a ballpark percentage, but, you know, you're
talking about several acres of additional open space that isn't included.
We know what we have to meet to meet the code.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So you will commit to the 30
percent and then take whatever has to be taken out of commercial
whatever other direction you use on that.
MR. MULHERE: Correct. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a quick point here. In your
original ordinance under 2.9, open space requirements, it does say the
total project is 18.15 acres. However, the staff report today and the
master plan attached today are 20.23 acres.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: Correct. That is the correct. The 20.23 acres
is the correct PUD size.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So you'll make that
Page 39
December 21, 2006
correction as well.
MR. MULHERE: Well, it is correct in the clean copy.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It is? Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Bob. I'm going
by the strike-through version. On Page 7 of 18, under item two, all of
those items, it says site filling exceeding 25 acres. None of that would
be applicable. So that on the clean copy should be gone, right?
MR. MULHERE: Well, it's not struck through and I don't think
it is gone. I think it was just left in place. But, yeah, it was.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a 23-acre property, right?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. This is -- let me just read through it for a
minute, and then I'll --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Surely.
MR. MULHERE: I think that's standard language again out of
the LDC. At least that first paragraph is.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: It looks to me like it's pretty standard
language out of the LDC that wasn't struck through.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's true under D, the
permittee shall post a surety bond or an irrevocable standby letter in
the amount of 110 percent of certified cost. That tends to bind you up
a little bit, wouldn't it?
MR. MULHERE: That's if you do that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If they're complying.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, if you do that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's fine. The next one is
on Page 10 of 18, and I'm again looking at the cross-out version, but
I've seen -- there are a number of things in here, I'm just wondering
why you continue to include them, such as number 14, funeral service,
crematories. Number 15 -- am I not talking? I apologize. Okay. My
bad, as they say. Under item 14, funeral service and crematories; 15,
Page 40
December 21,2006
gasoline service stations; number three, automotive repair. On the
following page you have number 24 and number 26. You intend to
put motion picture in there?
MR. MULHERE: I'm going to have to defer the responses to
those questions to Sembler.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're proposing to increase the
amount of office structures.
MR. MULHERE: Right. I just can't answer those questions.
The -- a lot of these things were simply not touched because they were
in the original PUD, and there really was no direction to remove
anything.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then it was this way and today
it's more this way. And I guess we're trying to get to that way. So
maybe somebody could answer that.
MR. MULHERE: I don't know if Mr. Filippelli was here when
.
you swore In.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go any further, let me
suggest something. And I know, Bob, you're going to have -- if you
have specific issues about uses that they mayor may not need
anymore because of what they presented today, the BCC, in
remanding this back through the system, did so to clarify it, to make
sure it meant the references to the LDC were cleaned up.
And this whole pattern of this particular PUD does not meet the
sty Ie of the new PUDs coming through. It is full of redundant
language, some of which now has been cleaned you, some of which
has been chosen not to be cleaned up. Some sentences have been
chosen to be not shown as strike- throughs, some sentences were
shown as not only strike-throughs but then underlines.
I don't believe that this is cleaned up. I don't believe it meets the
intent of the Board of County Commissioners. I don't believe it's
proper to go forward with a document that we don't know today what
it is we're going to be voting on as far as the final language goes. And
Page 41
December 21, 2006
for my satisfaction, I don't think you could clear it up today.
Plus I know the DCA is not worked out. That the various bullet
points, working bullets points from here that staff is -- transportation
staff has worked on are now inclusive in the DCA copy that we
received.
So I'm suggesting that this be considered as a continuance to a
time when this documentation is better prepared, cleaned up and
summarized to us in a manner that we can understand what it is we're
voting on.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I would tend to
agree with you. But I did have one more question, that if that's going
to happen, I would hope they would look at this issue, if it's
appropriate. And then I would make a motion, actually.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we haven't closed the public
hearing --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's true.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I keep that on the table for discussion.
But Mr. Murray, if you want to go ahead with your --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just -- there are a couple of
things. And one in particular about the buffer, that I'm trying to find
the page here. Okay, on Page 18 of 18. It struck me that we're going to
have an FP&L road potentially, and I did note that at the point of the
road -- and I know around the property line we're talking about
buffers, a couple of which are A buffers, which I think are observed.
But about the FP&L road, where I know that bit of soil runs through
there is pretty messy and so forth. I'm just wondering, was any
consideration given to putting any kind of buffer along the potential
roadway or along the easement there that FP &L has so as to make
your property look attractive?
MR. MULHERE: I don't think there's been any decision or any
extensive thought given to it until we -- obviously we have to permit
that. We do have to provide some sort of at least a drainage swale.
Page 42
December 21, 2006
There's going to be some water runoff from that. And I think the
county will probably dictate what type of plantings we need. I'm sure
the client wants to do it the right way.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think so to. And all I'm
really attempting to do is bring it to your attention in case it might
have been overlooked that in itself I think is useful to put buffers in
there.
And with that, I'll return to the chair, based on his statement,
which I concur with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: Come on, Bruce.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or Bruce. We can -- I can turn to the
county attorney and ask what options we have to force a continuance
based on the fact that we have not got clear information in front of us.
I can ask for consensus from the board to see if they all agree. I can
go to any route you want. What do you suggest?
And I'm not trying to point the finger at anybody for doing
wrong. We just don't have the data I see in front of me as consistent
with what's being discussed. We can go on and continue this for hours
on end. It may take that long to get through it.
So what is your preference?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, let me make a more general comment,
not directed specifically to this PUD. And that is we need to do one
way or the other. We need to either adopt these ordinances as
strike-through and underline, which is really, truly legally how they
ought to be done, or these clean versions that we are insistent upon
filing.
And for better or worse, what we're all struck with today is the
clean version. And the strike-through and underline version is
provided hopefully to assist in the review, but it is not the official
document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bruce, one point comes to light
Page 43
December 21,2006
right there is the strike-through version that we're looking at is not a
strike-through version, and that's been proven by extreme examples
provided today. So that's a little concerning that we don't have a
strike-through version that is even reflective of the original document.
In reviewing historic documents on other PUDs, it is common to find
on the record as recorded documents the strike-through version. Just
as you said, that provides a history to anybody like myself going back
and wanting to understand how things changed.
I don't know if we're legally obligated to record a clean version
or a strike-through version.
Margie?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I can just address that. The way
legislation is done, it was strike-through and underline. But many
years ago it was -- I guess it was probably 15 years ago now, where it
was decided to do the PUD to PUD rezone, and you repealed the old
document and you re-adopt a clean document.
Now, the other option is to do the strike-through and underline
with only repealing it to the extent that it's consistent -- in other words,
what's not stricken through and underlined remains in place and then
you do a strike-through and underline part of the PUD like we've done
on Pelican Bay, and Lely Barefoot Beach comes to mind where there
are really old PUDs. The thing about that is when you want to read the
document to see what the ordinance currently says, you've got a stack
of ordinances like this. Pelican Bay is the best example. There must
be, oh, I don't know, ten ordinances. And you start at the bottom and
then you look to see what was stricken through in the next one, then
you have them on top of that like that. So that was why it was thought
that you repeal the old PUD and you re-adopt a new one that's clean.
And the strike-through and underline is provided so you can
understand how the changes took place from the old PUD that is still
in effect to what is happening in the new.
But it makes it a lot easier, because every time I have to look at
Page 44
December 21,2006
the Pelican Bay PUD, I know I'm going to have to look through -- and
I'm just throwing out a number -- but maybe ten documents with the
strike-throughs and underlines to try and figure out what it says.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there an ordinance that requires a
clean version be recorded, or is that a policy --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, that's been a matter of practice
for, I would say, the last 15, maybe 16 years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this board could recommend either
way they wanted?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's the feeling on this
particular panel?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I think your suggestion of
continuing it is very good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I could go either way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I feel that I understand what
they're trying to say.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it should be continued.
And I would opt for a strike-through and underline version myself.
But that's just because I like to be able to see the history.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I do too.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, continue it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein said he thought it should
be continued. Mr. Murray did too.
Mr. Tuff?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: I'm comfortable moving forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's about a split board then. What
would you guys like to do then, Mr. Mulhere, Mr. Anderson?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I would
Page 45
December 21,2006
recommend, based on conversations with Mr. Anderson, that this item
be continued to the very next planning commission meeting.
Therefore, they can retain their BCC hearing date.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that. We have a
light hearing on the 4th, so that would work well. I appreciate your
cooperation.
Is there a motion to accept the request for continuance?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Adelstein.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Murray. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Before we -- we are continuing this, but if there's any member of
the public -- are there any registered, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No one is registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if any member of the public
was here we'd at least hear them if they couldn't be here on the 4th.
So with that, this matter will be continued to January 4th. And I
appreciate your cooperation. And please, between staff and the
applicant, get us clean -- get us strike-through documents that reflect
the original one. I think that the intent of this board is probably going
to go with the strike-through version. So I think that would be the safe
Page 46
December 21, 2006
one to utilize.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd remind, that please, if it's not
too much of a burden at the bottom of the sheet, revised date show
which one we're talking about, so that we know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the DCA goes, I'm sure this
will provide -- transportation will be able to get us a DCA that both of
you agree on, or at least have the working points in that need to be in
there.
Thank you very much.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it.
Item #8B
PETITION: PUDZ-A-2004 -AR-64717
Okay, with that, we'll move on to the next petition, petition
PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6417.
This is the Ronald Benderson et aI, Trustee, rezone I-75/Alligator
Alley from PUD to Commercial Planned Unit Development, CPUD.
Will all those wishing to testify on this matter please rise and be sworn
in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of
the planning commission?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I met with Mr. Anderson
regarding this matter. I had a chat with him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a conversation with Mr. Anderson
as well. It centered mostly around the traffic issues, which will
Page 47
December 21, 2006
certainly be discussed today.
F or the benefit of the applicant and staff, we will be breaking at
10: 00 sharp for the court reporter and for Kady, so don't be surprised
if I stop you in midstream at something and we take a 15-minute
break. Okay.
MR. DUANE: Morning. For the record, my name is Robert
Duane, from Hole Montes and Associates. Good morning,
Commissioners.
I'm here representing a project that's located on the north side of
Davis Boulevard, the 1-75/ Alligator Alley PUD.
I have with me a number of individuals this morning. I have
Bruce Anderson from Roetzel and Andress, I have Rob Price from the
TR Transportation Group. I have Richard Reed from Kimley Horn. I
have Ken Passarella from Ken Passarella and Associates. And I have
Terry Cole from Hole-Montes and Associates.
Mr. Chairman, my presentation is actually going to have three
parts to it. I'm going to give a brief overview. Mr. Anderson is going
to follow me, and Mr. Passarella is going to follow Bruce Anderson.
And if we can just, for continuity sake, it's a relatively short
presentation, if we can run through it first and then address questions
when we're completed, I would appreciate that very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will try to work that way.
MR. DUANE: Thank you very much. The subject property, you
can see the aerial photograph there. It's 40.88 acres on the north side
of Davis Boulevard. It also has frontage on 951, and you can see 1-75
that's located to the north. You can see the CPUD master plan that is
located adjacent to it.
Subject property has been zoned for commercial PUD since 1989
when it was first designated in the activity center.
While there are a number of changes I'm going to go over in this PUD
with you, let me just highlight the principal changes that are before
you this morning. Weare reducing the size of the conservation area
Page 48
December 21, 2006
from 15 acres to approximately 11 acres. That change was
unanimously approved by the EAC when it went before them
sometime ago, which was actually last year . We're increasing the size
of the commercial area by approximately 3.6 acres, from
approximately 26 to approximately 29 acres.
We're deleting residential uses from the PUD, and we're also
deleting any provisions for any future hotels or motels.
There is, however, an existing hotel that's located in this project, as
you can see on the aerial photo, and that is a Quality Inn, I believe.
There are also two fast food restaurants on the Davis Boulevard Road
frontage.
We've also made some changes from the old PUD. We've revised
the internal circulation system. I have a copy of that PUD I can put on
the visualizer if we need to look at that in any detail later on in our
presentation. The westerly-most entrance on our CPUD master plan is
shifted over approximately 50 feet from the access that was originally
depicted on the 1989 master plan. That was just to provide a little
more utility for the corner lot.
And we also have shared access with the Naples Gateway PUD,
which is located to the west of the subject property.
In the current PUD ordinance, there are no limitations on square
footage. I'm talking about the one that was adopted in 1989 . We are
proposing 265,000 square feet of floor area in this PUD, which
translates to approximately 9,000 square feet per acre, which is a
relatively typical yield for a larger commercial parcel of this size.
The developer has obtained adequate public facilities certificates for
130,000 square feet of the 265,000 square feet proposed. And in fact
we are transferring an additional 15,000 square feet of certificates
from Davis Crossings, which is another Benderson project which is
located on the south side of Davis Boulevard.
So to that end, there's a minor revision that I'm proposing in
section 5.2.H of our PUD ordinance that currently identifies that
Page 49
December 21,2006
certificates have been issued for 130,000 square feet. And I would
like that section to reflect our change to 145,000 square feet of
certificates that are available, for a total proposed allotment of 265,000
square feet.
We have also included a provision in the PUD ordinance that we are
willing to accept one acre of storage from Davis Boulevard in our
water retention system, should the FDOT need an area to store
additional water. In the event that the FDOT is not interested in
storing that water in our system, we have agreed to accept water from
951 in the amount of one acre of storage area. So those are some
benefits that this particular project brings to the table.
We have been to the planning commission on this case twice,
once in November of 2005 and then we were back again in January of
2006.
As chance would have it, the FDOT took the widening of Davis
Boulevard out of the work program and that resulted in a lengthy
discussion as to how this project would be phased and how it would
go forward.
Our proposed phasing right now is based on the -- it's based on
the end of -- or by January of 2009 is when we're proposing that the
balance of our square footage, that's the difference between the 265
and the 145, go forward.
At our planning commission last January, since we have some
new members, there was discussion on a range of issues, most of
which of those -- most of which of those changes have been
incorporated into the PUD document. I believe Mr. Chairman that you
had a concern about gasoline service stations. We have now taken
that out as a principal use and we made it as an accessory use, as often
wholesalers would like to provide this type of service to their
customers. And we think by doing so, it will actually result in some
reduction of traffic by those people not having to go elsewhere to get
gasoline.
Page 50
December 21, 2006
We've made some clarification in the document about the
language that provides the density for the existing motel. It's been
clarified in the ordinance. We had some discussion about the height.
And we have also clarified that to note that it's a maximum of 50 feet,
and we've deleted references to five stories.
We had a lengthy discussion at our last meeting, Mr. Schiffer and
I engaged each other, as to how we should address architectural
standards in this project as a result of that, and concerns that he had.
The primary facade now on the north, south and east sides of the
building will be primary facades to enhance its aesthetics from 1-75
amongst from other locations.
We've incorporated a deviation into this PUD that was not in the
last review. The two existing restaurants constructed with 10- foot
buffers. The interchange activity center number nine requires 25-foot
buffers right now, but those two developments preceded that
requirement and frankly don't have sufficient area without making
other changes to their development. So we merely called that out as a
deviation in an abundance of caution.
There has also been some changes in the number of acres that are
available in this activity center. When it was before you last January,
there were 22 acres. There's a cap in this particular activity center,
like there are in other centers, of the number of square feet. That 22
acres has dwindled down to eight acres, according to your growth
management department, in my discussion with them in recent weeks.
But that is sufficient for us to accommodate the 3.6 acres of additional
commercial area that we're requesting.
Mr. Chairman, you also had concerns about auto repair and car
washes at our hearing last January. And we've designated those as
accessory uses in the CPUD ordinance.
And that ends my overview of the project. I will turn this over
now to Mr. Anderson, who is going to highlight some of the efforts
that have been ongoing to prepare this and other DCA agreements to
Page 51
December 21, 2006
try to provide funding for the widening of Davis Boulevard. Thank
you.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll be brief so we can break in four minutes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three-and-a-half.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
For the record, Bruce Anderson with the Roetzel and Andress
law firm. I just wanted to point out a few things that Benderson has
done to try to help solve and move forward the Davis Boulevard
widening.
N umber one, at the request of transportation staff, they funded an
area-wide study that was prepared by Kimley Horn and done in
concert with county staff to address improvements both on Davis
Boulevard and County Road 951.
They are also advancing payment of all of their impact fees for
roads to put up some upfront money that the county in turn will be
loaning to FDOT to expedite the Davis Boulevard widening.
And those provisions have been incorporated into the draft developer
contribution agreement.
And as Mr. Duane told you, they are accepting stormwater from
one acre of right-of-way from either Davis or County Road 951.
And I have nothing else to elaborate on. And the rest of the team will
be happy to answer your questions. I don't know that we have any
other formal presentations, after you get back from your break.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was one environmental issue.
Were you going to have Mr. Passarella make a presentation, as Bob
Duane indicated earlier?
MR. ANDERSON: He can do that, or he can answer specific
questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to you, then. Why don't we take
a break till 10: 15 and we'll resume at 10: 15 with that. Thank you.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back on. We left off with
Page 52
December 21, 2006
presentations by the applicant. If there are no further discussions by
the applicant, we can go into our questions of the applicant at this
point.
Bob, is that consistent with what you had in mind?
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the planning
commISSIoners.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, and it's over that
architectural standard. I think it's good what you're doing, but I just
want to question that it's on page four six in the non-struck-through
version of it. If you're having trouble finding it, I'll --
MR. DUANE: I have it. It is correct. It is four -- on page four
six, and it's number E, the last one.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just the way it's worded, it
says the anchor tenant shall be required. I'm not sure what an anchor
tenant is, who the anchor tenant is, where the anchor tenant is.
MR. DUANE: I was thinking, do you have a substitution that
you'd like to make?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I really don't, because I don't
want to do something where, if the buildings are separated, that we're
providing primary facades and a little alleyway either. Otherwise, I
would say all -- you know, north, south and east facades.
I would rather say that than waste words.
MR. DUANE: We're fairly certain that we're going to build
something very close to what we're depicting on the PUD master plan.
As you can see, it details one relatively large principal structure. And
then we've got the outparcels along Davis Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then -- and the way that's
colored, is the intent to build the darker section first and then the
lighter section later, or is there any coloring representing anything?
MR. DUANE: I think that's correct.
Page 53
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it would not be -- unless they
don't build the second phase, there's no sense taking the northern
phase of that dark sepia color and make that a primary facade.
So how do we make sure the -- well, first of all, if you're not going to
build the second phase, then that should be the primary facade. Once
you build that second building, it was a waste of money to do that.
MR. DUANE: I'm amenable to -- anchor came to mind because
that was going to be the principal focus of our center. Principal.
Do you have any suggestions, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we could say all
buildings. But if in fact those two phases happen rather quickly, there
was a waste of making one of those facades.
MR. DUANE: But the outparcels don't need to have facades on
three sides. That's why I was trying to make a distinction between the
structures fronting on Davis Boulevard and the quote, unquote anchor
tenant that's going to be the focus of the planned unit development.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There is requirements for it in
the architectural standards, but -- what if we said the principal
building, you use that phrases in other areas here.
MR. DUANE: Principal building is fine.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I just?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I just interject, may be
appropriate, may be not, the northernmost building as opposed to the
principal building. Because I agree with what you've said. What
you've indicated is true, they will have wasted a lot of money if they
don't --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Bob, the other facades,
that's only really true of the north facade. We certainly want all these
facades, and we certainly want all south facades.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I was referencing the
northernmost buildings. In other words, that would give them the
Page 54
December 21, 2006
opportunity, if they plan to have a structure later on, that would be the
one that would have the facades. That's okay, I don't--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, but I want the rest of the
building, especially on the east and south, to have facades.
So if we just change it to the principal building shall be, would
that isolate it okay?
MR. DUANE: That's fine. Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, Don.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have a copy of the underline
and strike-through version I'd like to refer to. And there's no page
number on it, but it's -- transportation is the subject.
MR. DUANE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Transportation is 5.2,
transportation requirements.
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And then on the next page under
D, as in David, it says the adjacent development to the west has been
designed to provide shared access or interconnections with this
development.
Can you indicate on the chart there where those access and
interconnections are located?
MR. DUANE: Right here.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: There's just one?
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. On the next page under
utility requirements, 5.3 .B, as in Baker, we talk about wellfields to be
developed. When will this occur as far as the wellfields?
MR. DUANE: That will occur at the time of our first
development order submittal.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But I mean, is there any plan for
wellfields to be actually installed there or are we just --
Page 55
December 21, 2006
MR. DUANE: Well, we're providing the easement areas for
them as well--
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You're providing the easement
for any time in the future they might want to put it there themselves --
MR. DUANE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. Then a small typo
on the next page, which is under D, 5.5.D. I think in that second line,
for should be stricken out.
MR. DUANE: I'm sorry, that would be section 5.5.D?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: D as in David.
MR. DUANE: Okay. And the --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Second line, there's a for,
F -0- R. I think that should be stricken out.
MR. DUANE: You're correct. Thank you. Nice catch.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Then the traffic impact
statement, I had a question on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, before we move into the
TIS, I'm assuming you have your traffic engineer here, Bob?
MR. DUANE: Yes, I have two of them here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we hold off on the TIS
questions until we get to that document. Would that be okay?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on the PUD
document for the applicant?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Okay, I have a couple.
On page one-one, section one, statement of compliance. This is
different. We have six -- five, I'm sorry, five different PUD-type
documents in front of us today. Their statements of compliances are
all fairly consistent except for yours.
Yours has the ambiguous and superfluous language that I'm sure
Mr. Anderson slid in there. Something like the subject tract is
Page 56
December 21, 2006
strategically located which affords the site superior access. Those are
ambiguous terms that I don't see a need for in the statement of
compliance. And they aren't in any of the other PUDs that I've seen
come through.
MR. DUANE: Well, this goes back to 1989. It was obviously
adopted by the planning commission at that time by the Board of
County Commissioners. I don't have any objection if you want to take
that out. It's in the ordinance currently today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, item number -- let's go to the first
page. The second one, activity centers are the preferred locations for
the concentration of commercial activities, which this project
complements. I don't know if it complements it. I know it meets it.
So why don't we drop after the word activities. Activities centers are
preferred for commercial, we know that.
Number three, why don't we just take the word strategically out.
The subject tract is located at the intersection. It's more factual that
way. Which affords the site, instead of superior access, just drop the
word superior, just access.
MR. DUANE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move down to number eight. Proposed
development will result in an efficient and economical extension of
community facilities. Well, I certainly would think a lot of people
might decide that isn't true. And that should be reworded or just
struck completely. I'm not sure why you need it there.
MR. DUANE: Well, I mean, that is an objective of the future
land use element. We're upfronting almost $7 million to contribute
from our DCA agreements the efficient and economical extension of
that service to the county by funding the extension of Davis
Boulevard.
But I'm open to any suggested language change that you may
want to make.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just drop the words efficient andn
Page 57
December 21, 2006
economical out. I'm not sure the price we're paying for roads, even if
you're funding it, is economical.
As far as community facilities --
MR. DUANE: I think those words are right out of our future
land use element.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's fine. But I'm not -- if you're
going to repeat it in yours, then why hasn't anybody else repeated it in
theirs? And I can't see the need for ambiguous statements in any of
our documents.
So if you don't have an objection to it, then why don't we just
drop the --
MR. DUANE: No, we can strike those two words out of the
objective of Policy 5.3.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
If you move on to number 10, the last sentence, why don't we just say
therefore the proposed CPUD can be found consistent with revisions
of the FLUE, period.
Your last part of that sentence provides only one reason why you
think that's true. I think you really want to be more encompassing if
you're going to say anything at all.
MR. DUANE: Well, within the context of the 8.35 acres
available, it was just establishing that that minor increase in the
acreage was consistent with the allocation that was available in
activity number nine. But I'll be happy to strike it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Could I have clarification on that, please?
What were you striking?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to identify yourself and use
the speaker, Mr. DeRuntz.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Michael DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the
Department of Zoning, Land Development Review.
Can I have a clarification of what was stricken on that number
Page 58
December 21, 2006
10?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After the word -- after the acronym
FLUE, everything.
I have a few more questions that I'm turning to. On your 5.6,
your affordable housing requirement, you referenced a commitment --
and I wouldn't have asked this question had it not been in your PUD,
but now that it is, I need to understand why you chose 125,400 square
feet as applicable to the commitment for affordable housing and not
the whole 265,000.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Strain, what section was that again,
please?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5.6. It's on Page 5.3 of the
strike-through version.
MR. ANDERSON: I believe that 124,500 should be 130. It's a
typographical error. And that 130 is based upon the amount of
certificates of adequate public facility that have already been issued
for this project. The affordable housing fee that would be paid is based
upon the additional new square footage that is being sought today.
And I use the term additional square footage loosely, since there isn't a
cap on the square footage today, but--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, then I have a question.
Because is it not actually 145? Because you are taking --
MR. ANDERSON: We don't have the 145 yet. We are seeking
that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I thought --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you strike the reference to
any square footage and just leave it that it's 50 cents per gross leasable
square foot for whatever square footage you develop?
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, because we're covered with the last
sentence there in that. Yes, sir, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, are you making notes of these so
Page 59
December 21, 2006
that we haven't got to repeat all of this?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I missed one. Back on 5.2. Page 5-2, it
would be Item 5.2.1, you're talking about whether or not you obtain
your improvements, the roads are improved, you still would have a
right to get a CO for all your square footage you want to put on that
property no later than January 2009; is that correct?
MR. DUANE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the phasing that you're suggesting is
145,000 now and no more until 2009?
MR. DUANE: December 31, 2009, rather than January 1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but you're tying it to a date.
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm just letting you know that when
transportation comes up here, I'm going to be looking to tie it to
action, not date. We already learned that actions are problematic on
the Target at 1-75 and Immokalee Road. And I don't know if two
mistakes are worth making. You made a correction on 5.3 .H, I think it
was. The last sentence from 130,000 to 145.
MR. DUANE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you said the reason you made that
was because you transferred COAs from one side of the street to
another?
MR. DUANE: Yes. Davis Crossings, we had additional
adequate public facility certificates that we didn't use across the street.
I've not been involved in those discussions with the transportation
department, but my client and Mr. Anderson have both indicated to
me the transferring of those certificates from one of Benders on's
projects to another is apropos.
These were the impact fee credits that they upfronted to the
county several years ago before the ordinance changed and disallowed
them to do that. But those certificates are still alive and well and we're
Page 60
December 21, 2006
just transferring them from one project to another.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure that we'll have a debate with
transportation when they come up on that one.
Mr. Adelstein, did you want to speak?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I do. This idea of
January, 2009 COs, as far as I could see, if you wanted to use them we
end up with a parking lot there in the first place. I would recommend
to this that you delete that date and to the date when the idea comes up
when you get your six lanes in. Otherwise this is just a threat. I don't
think it should there, and I don't think you would want it there.
MR. DUANE: I understand we'll have a debate on this shortly.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: A debate on it is something
we've got to get rid of --
MR. DUANE: Discussion.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- and get rid of now. It's not
something that's going to do us any good. Because no matter what the
threat is, it isn't going to happen, it can't happen. We don't need a
parking lot, we need a road.
And the answer to this is it should be as soon as possible. We
should get the six lanes as soon as possible, but don't put a threat in
here, it isn't needed.
MR. DUANE: I understand. It wasn't intended to -- go ahead,
Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Before we go further, I'd like for county
transportation to address the date issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to finish my questioning
first, then I would like to have your TIS guy up here to answer
questions of us, then I would like to get county transportation up.
Bob, on the staff supplied information, they said that the agent
for the applicant held the required NIM on June 16th, 2005; is that
correct?
MR. DUANE: It was in the summertime, and the exact date I
Page 61
December 21, 2006
cannot tell you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe we have a--
MR. DUANE: It was a long time ago. This project has been in
the pipeline for the better part of two years now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe we have a provision about the
NIM being within one year of the hearing date of this board. I'm not
clear on the language from that. Can you tell me -- can someone from
staff tell me how that applies here, if it does?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, there's no language in the LDC
pertaining to this requirement. Weare currently working with the
LDC coordinator to put that language in the next cycle.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So under that then there is no obligation
for the applicant to have any NIM other than the first one they had?
MR. BELLOWS: They fulfilled their requirement per code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll move on to the TIS,
unless there's other questions of the panel of the applicant so far.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. PRICE: For the record, my name is Robert Price, with TR
Transportation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to just answer questions?
MR. PRICE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the commission? Mr.
Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On Page 3 of your traffic impact
statement, down at the bottom, it says the six-laning of Davis
Boulevard from Collier Boulevard to west of Radio Road was funded
for fiscal year 2008. That does not include the little stretch of Davis
Boulevard from Radio Road to Collier Boulevard?
MR. PRICE: It was at that time funded. Unfortunately, right
between when we did this TIS when we came back to the planning
commission in January, the state pulled their funding from that section
Page 62
December 21, 2006
of Davis, which is the entire reason why we've been going through this
DCA and trying to help the county upfront the funding for Davis
Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So it's not funded now; is that
right?
MR. PRICE: That's correct, it's not funded now.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On Page 3 of the statement,
down at the bottom of the page, you talk about the year 2008, that the
130,000 square feet of commercial floor area proposed in Phase 1
would be completed by this time. How accurate is that prediction?
MR. PRICE: I would say at this point it's not very accurate.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, should we say it's not
accurate at all, not even be near it?
MR. PRICE: It's not accurate at all. But please sir, keep in mind
this TIS is a year old. And we've been -- in the meantime, our other
consultant has been working with the county developing an areawide
analysis that would account for this project and other projects in this
vicinity as part of the DCA.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did provide a technical
memorandum updating points within your TIS dated December 8th,
2006. Is that -- that was in our packet, if that helps, Tor. If you saw
that as well?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's all the questions I had,
Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on the
traffic from the TIS before we get into county staff? I have a couple,
and it goes back to this technical memorandum. Maybe it wasn't you,
maybe it was Kimley Horn.
And that's you, huh?
MR. REED: Yes. Good morning. My name is Rick Reed with
Kimley Horn and Associates. I prepared the technical memorandum
that you referred to.
Page 63
December 21, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Page 2 of your memorandum, last paragraph. In addition to the traffic
associated with a major approved development, existing 2006 peak
season volumes were adjusted by a four percent annual linear growth
rate.
MR. REED: It was based upon discussions with county staff. I
believe over the past five years there has been a five percent growth
rate along 951. So we just reduced it by one percent and included
traffic from 10 developments in the area, which would more than take
care of the historical traffic growth rate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who on county staffwere you
discussing this with?
MR. REED: Nick and Don. They've been involved in the
discussions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope Nick's available for the EAR
meeting on January 4th when we discuss population statistics. It's a
far cry different than what we've been told in the past.
On Page 4 of 5, you talk about that all intersections, and it's your
second paragraph, all intersections are expected to operate an accepted
level of service during the future 2009 p.m. peak hour.
Is that assuming that the widening of Davis and everything is
complete?
MR. REED: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For this project, you use the 820 ITE
code, shopping center. Or you didn't, Metro did, that you based your
technical memorandum on.
MR. REED: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you look at stand-alone retail, big
box, which is what's now being proposed for this project, the ITE rate,
how does it compare to an 820 rate?
MR. REED: I believe generally if we use, say a supercenter or a
big box, just generally the rate is higher. But at the time Metro did
Page 64
December 21, 2006
their study as well as we revised the technical memorandum, we didn't
know what was proposed to being developed, and 820 was a catch-all
for general retail, what could be developed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We run into this all the time on
this commission, and I was told, as this panel has been told by the
transportation department, that you're supposed to be looking at the
worst case scenario of the allowable uses that apply to your project.
820 then is not the worst case scenario, as you have just stated.
You have something to say, sir?
MR. PRICE: Yes, sir. Rob Price, TR Transportation. Actually,
820 is worst case scenario. You're not -- when you look at stand-alone
-- I mean, this is clearly not stand-alone retail, this is a shopping
center. It's got outparcels, it's got a main anchor tenant. So shopping
center encompasses entire projects, not just one building. Stand-alone
retail would be just one single building with no outparcels, no
additional commercial development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you had a big box with an
outparcel, because the outparcel was there you ignore the impact of
the big box and you classify it as a shopping center because it has an
outparcel, that makes it qualified because there's two there. Well, that
dilutes the impact of the big box severely.
MR. PRICE: Actually, I mean, the big box is incorporated into
the entire analysis. It's the way ITE does their surveys.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you do the one for Home Depot on
Pine Ridge and Airport Road?
MR. PRICE: No, I did not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I'm now seeing how
that one got through the system. That parking lot is similar to what
you're proposing here. It's got outparcels up front and a big box
behind it. The problem is it's impossible to get in and out, get through
that parking lot and find parking spaces. There weren't enough area
allowed. And you're heading in the same direction with this, by thea
Page 65
December 21, 2006
way that it's being calculated. Yes, sir.
MR. REED: What I'd like to add, in my experience, if we were
to break them out into individual land uses, say the big box, drive-in
bank, fast food and consider internal capture estimates between all
those uses, that generally comes out to the same trip generation
estimates as if you were to use 820 for the whole site.
So it's not too far of a variance, but it is adequate to determine the
traffic impacts of the site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope you're right. It would have been
nice to see that as a comparison to what you presented here today.
But I guess we don't have that. Let's see if I have any other questions
of transportation before Nick comes up. Your trip pass-by reduction
rate is 29.3 in the former Metro study. And I will be asking
transportation, based on some recent language I've seen them put
forward, if that's consistent with what they're now looking for in ITE.
Do you know if it is?
MR. PRICE: It's consistent with ITE, yes. But based on the new
county TIS guidelines, we would have to reduce the pass-by.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. Okay.
MR. PRICE: Whether that's actually how the development will
operate is up for -- you know, up for debate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your study, the Metro study, you said
that as part of your analysis, the six-Ianing of Davis Boulevard was
not assumed complete until the year 2015. Are you revising that
thinking?
MR. PRICE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're thinking it's going to
be complete in '09; is that --
MR. PRICE: Based on --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- I want to know -- you made the
statement. So if your 2015 isn't right, you've got something that
influenced you to think '09.
Page 66
December 21, 2006
MR. PRICE: Well, based on the statement that we did in the TIS
a year ago, there's been some substantial conversations held with the
county and the DCA. And it's my understanding it will be six-Ianed
before 2015, more like '09.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the guy after you is going to have
to answer that. But I just wanted to understand your point of view.
Thank you, sir. Mr. Bob Duane, can I ask you one more question I
missed earlier?
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got -- we get multiple copies of
PUDs. I know we've already discussed that on the prior document.
Yours wasn't as bad, thankfully.
But you provided a letter on September 8, 2006 to Michael
DeRuntz. And in it you talked about a series of things that you were
modifying from the last time you were before us. And on Page 2,
number 10, the phasing requirement struck through as section 7.2.R
has been deleted in the phasing of this and other properties and will be
addressed in a DCA agreement. I tried --
MR. DUANE: At the request of county staff, we put it back into
the transportation commitment section. And that was addressed in
subsequent correspondence to the project planner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that kind of explains where I was
concerned with. Thank you.
MR. DUANE: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Midney.
Bob, just a minute.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Also for Bob. Can you just for
me please summarize the new development contribution agreement to
DCA and how that's going to make the traffic on Davis and Collier
Boulevard acceptable?
MR. DUANE: I'm going to -- I can answer it, but I'm going to let
Mr. Anderson, since he specifically drafted the DCA, this and other
Page 67
December 21, 2006
agreements address it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, deep breath. For the record,
Nick Casalanguida, Transportation. I've got a lot of explaining to do
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to talk slow, too, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I will. She's got the boomerang and
she's going to hit me if I talk too fast.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to give her the ammunition.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You talk fast, too. Let me give you an
update on Davis Boulevard where we're at right now. Maybe that's a
good way to segue into some of your questions. DOT has offered up
$20 million in advancement reimbursement in 2012, approximately to
be paid back in five million increments at that time. The county
would have to agree to fund the project in advance to qualify for that
money, which we've done a letter of intent to DOT for that project.
Now, where does that project begin and end? It's not from Santa
Barbara all the way to 951. It would be from just west of Radio Road
to 951, including the intersection. So it would be almost a phased
Davis Boulevard project.
Most of our problems on Davis Boulevard is on that first phase.
So if things go well and we can do that, that would begin construction
in Spring of '08. We would need about -- it's a fairly short project of
that length, we would need two years to be conservative. Takes you
back to the end of '09, where you've seen that date, December 31 st of
'09.
Now, critical to the Davis project is you need the right-of-way.
DOT has told us if you are condemning any right-of-way along that
corridor, forget it, it's not going to work. The condemnation process
that FDOT goes through would delay this thing out way out.
So now the only right-of-way we need -- I say we, collectively
the county and DOT, but the county first -- would be the right-of-way
on the south side of the road, which is controlled by Benderson
Page 68
December 21, 2006
Companies in one certain area.
So we've approached the Benderson Corporation and said we
need to work together. You have a PUD that you're going for an
amendment for, we've got a roadway project that needs to be funded
and included in the next couple of years. It's kind of one of those
Catch-22. They need us, we need them.
Now, I think neither one of us in proposed DCA points has tried
to back either -- the other person in a corner. They could have asked
for much more money for the property, they could have said no, we'll
condemn it. They wanted approvals. They were already vested for
130,000 square feet. They're asking for 145 vested now, an additional
15,000. But they're asking for 265 total. They've agreed to wait for
the 265 until the end of'09 when we anticipate that project will be
done.
Now, do I have a guarantee? No, sir, I do not. I cannot tell you
definitively that will be done then. It's our goal to be done by then.
But I can tell you, if this falls apart, then I am way out again. That
money will disappear and this proj ect could languish for another five
or 10 years.
So there's a certain sense of comfort we went back and forth. We
could have said for the balance of 135,000 square feet till the project is
done. They weren't comfortable with that, and it was kind of, again, a
yin-yang with that. We're trying to make them comfortable, and we
need them and they need us. So that's where those dates kind of came
into play. In reference to your ITE questions about land use 820, it's
consistent in a shopping center that has other outparcels together to
use 820.
And when I did look at some of your questions you proposed
from last time, when you do the trip reductions for internal capture, it's
taking into account in 820. Could it be off by five or 10 percent? It
could. The analysis that Rob and Metro has done and Rick Reed has
done for Kimley Horn is extensive and nauseatingly looked at. We
Page 69
December 21, 2006
looked at different growth factors.
We've taken into account Santa Barbara Extension, the
interchange at Golden Gate Parkway as a reduction. We didn't even
do a straight reduction to that, I think we brought it into, I don't know
what year it was, Rick. Did we do a straight reduction next year or
did you include that in your analysis? By '09. A roughly 10 percent
reduction in trips because of the interchange over there as well, too.
So in kind of closing, it's fairly consistent with what we've done.
We've done a lot of analysis. We need each other's project. It is a
public private partnership. And they have worked with us and we've
given a little and they've given a little.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other questions of transportation?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I think I have some. I think
the one that hasn't been answered yet is the pass-by trip reduction rate
of29.3 percent. It was provided in the very first go around back in
January. It's in -- I think we just heard it's inconsistent with your new
policy.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much of an impact does the
changes to that have on the outcome of this project; do you know?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would not cause that intersection
here completed and fixed to fail, that additional trips.
Now, I'll qualify that and answer your point, and bring it back to
memory what happened in front of the board when we adopted the
new TIS guidelines and procedures. We made an agreement in front of
the board and the community that we would not implement those
procedures with any application that had not gone through the preap.
phase yet already, to be consistent with prior applications that were
already going forward.
So the board agreed with that statement and the development
community felt that was fair. We also felt that was fair. These
Page 70
December 21,2006
applications have been in the pipeline for over a year. To make them
go back and redo the analysis because we changed the rules halfway
through the board wasn't comfortable with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as these transfer of 15,000 credits
from the COA on the south side of the street to the north side, I am not
recalling the provisions in the Land Development Code involving
COA credits. Is there a provision in our ordinances that allows that to
happen? Because I had always thought they go with the land and if
you don't use them you lose them kind of thing.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm going to honestly have to defer to
the county attorney. I made no provision to deal with transfer over
those. They have asked me if I had a problem with that, and I said
based on the agreements that we are doing, I don't. But I'm not a legal
spokesman for the county.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, and I'm going to have to
double check the code on that, and I will. That's my understanding, it
ran with the land, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have brought this up earlier. I
just heard about it today at this meeting, so it's kind of a surprise.
They're talking about it now.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, as a point of
reference, I'll let the attorneys look that up to see if that's possible or
reference that. That was something Bruce was trying to
accommodate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have other issues, so we might as
well get into those.
Can you tell me -- go ahead, I'm sorry.
MR. ANDERSON: I'd like to address that, Mr. Strain.
That's just a practical explanation that I have offered to you of what
we're doing to demonstrate that it does not result in a net increase in
vested traffic. That's all. It's just by way of explanation.
Formally it's not going to be transferred across the street. They're just
Page 71
December 21, 2006
going to reduce the COA on the one parcel from 130 to 100, I believe.
And they're seeking to get an additional 15 on the other side of the
street. That's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I guess I've got some
concurrency management questions of traffic, transportation.
Nick, I thought under the checkbook on currency method that people
basically go on line, and the issue I'm thinking of is the Wal-Mart on
951 and 41. They made an improvement out there that gave them just
slightly more than they needed to get their COSo And I was
understanding that the next people in line behind them would be the
first ones to benefit from what little more was left before everyone
was again shut down.
If you have a hierarchy of people who have diligently waited in
line, how do we control the fact that now they want to move 15,000 of
what's already been issued across the street because they're not using it
on the one side of the street.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would recommend we're just not
going to move the 15,000 and that's a moot point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but then in order for them to get
the additional 15 on top of the 130 in COAs that they would like, how
would they possibly do that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Currently we're talking consistency
and currency, so I'll address both. Consistency without Davis
Boulevard -- Santa Barbara has just been bid and it's up for
construction -- without fixes to 951, in five years your TCMA will
probably fail. I can't tell you exactly, because I'll have to run that out
for five years.
But right now if we do concurrency, you have a TCMA that's
intact. So they would do the 15 percent additional impact fees, do the
TDM strategies, and they would have concurrency through the TCMA
that is intact right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in essence they could keep the 30 on
Page 72
December 21, 2006
the south side and still get an additional 15 on the north side and still
meet concurrency?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And still meet concurrency.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now this is at the intersection of Davis
and 951?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. Keep in mind, when they submit
their STP there's operational issues that come up in the planning too,
your new TIS guidelines. Now, while they would have concurrency,
you could go back and say that intersection's failing. It's unsafe, that
movement. We're going to stop you until it's fixed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm concerned is we've
already turned down projects along that portion of 951 because of the
failing level of service in that area, and I'm just surprised that --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've turned down zoning projects on
that, correct. But, see, that's consistency, that means that five years
I'm at such a point, and if I don't have it programmed, we're not going
to zone you. But we haven't turned down some SDPs. Because
currently under our adopted CIE that's in still in our plan. Not Davis,
but 951.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So their request for 145, which is a
159,000 increase, that they have not yet bought COAs for, even if they
were to get that from this panel or other panels, they still aren't
guaranteed at the time they go through that it's going to be available;
is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If for concurrency there would be for
the TCMA process because it's endowed. Through operational they
would not if there was an issue that was a definite failing movement
that was a health, safety problem, through the TIS guidelines and the
board adopted, you could stop them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Explain to me why this isn't double
dipping here.
Page 73
December 21, 2006
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Because you just said that they can
take the extra 15 now, but then after it can go back to the other side of
the street and they can use the --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. They can't move the 15. I
don't think they could move the 15.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So if the 15 remains --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: To the south.
COMMISSIONER CARON: To the south.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But they build it to on north, then
they're going to end up being able to build it to the south at some
point. Why isn't that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, what I think you're trying to say is
they have more -- there's more capacity on your books for that area, is
that -- that would allow them to get 15,000 more square foot; is that
right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. It's new 15,000 feet.
Actually, new 135,000 total, but new 15 they want to use now.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, it's surprising. Our system, if
it was shown to be failed practically anywhere, it should be shown in
that area.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is. That roadway, that segment is
failing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How can they get a new 15 OOO?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's zoning. So -- it's hard to--
it's consistency versus concurrency. So you want to --
MR. SCOTT: I'd like to answer a little bit different.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Don Scott for the record.
MR. SCOTT: For the end result, the concurrency side of it, can I
guarantee anything at this point? No.
Page 74
December 21, 2006
I mean, obviously we're going to go forward with Davis, but
obviously if Davis doesn't get funded you can't guarantee later on
concurrency.
And we're all tying this together with the DCA and everything
else. But obviously the board's the final decision on whether we do
that DCA. FDOT has a little say in this, too, because we need
guarantees from them that we are getting our money back, that we're
programming the rest of it, things like that. It's all very intertwined.
But all the assumptions are is that we get this stuff done based on
what we're doing here today. But obviously if we don't, then all those
things are out the window.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has the DOT already blessed this
action, what you're trying to do? Have they come to you and said, if
you put this package together we'll go ahead and go for it?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, as Nick says, if we're not -- if -- we've had
some things about pond sites, for instance. If we have to go through
the eminent domain process to get the pond sites, then the years
change, everything changes, everything is out the windows.
We're working with them very closely. I'm making sure that we have
a project that can be delivered with all the pieces that we're talking
about here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't you have other pieces besides this
project and the one to the south controlled by the same applicant that
you have to deal with?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if this applicant were to get
approved today but somehow one of the others failed the whole thing
goes down the tubes but this applicant's approved.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There are two critical pieces to this
Davis puzzle. This applicant right here, Piece A. Piece B is another
applicant to the south who already has zoning. Those will be heard on
the board the same day the zoning would be there as companion items.
Page 75
December 21, 2006
If Piece A and Piece B don't get approved, then I would say this would
be an issue in front of the board. Those three would be tied together:
That pond site, this right-of-way and this zoning will be on the board
on the same hearing date. We've timed it together to the, I believe,
second hearing of January to bring it to the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm glad to hear that. At
least that's coordinated.
Are there any other questions of transportation? I have just a
couple more.
You were fingered as the guy that said there was a four percent growth
rate in that area. Can you explain how you got to that, why Mr.
Weeks is wrong when he says there's 30 seasonal growth rate.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thirty percent seasonal growth rate?
Seasonal growth rate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. That says peak season.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. I think he's talking about off
season versus season as opposed to generally new traffic, so there's a
difference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I'm just being facetious --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're setting me up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But I would like to know how
you arrived at four percent. That is -- because I think the number that
we used for linear growth rate was somewhere around 11 or 12
countywide.
I'm not sure where your -- your traffic counts last year showed 5
percent as average, 5.2. So how did you end up with four as an
acceptable number?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We took three or four different road
mix in the area. We also took into account the Santa Barbara
extension that's coming down to Rattlesnake Hammock through that
improvements to Santa Barbara as well. Not the extension, I'm sorry,
the improvements that are funded right now . We also accounted for
Page 76
December 21, 2006
the interchange at Golden Gate Parkway.
Now, as Rick pointed out, and it's true, we loaded up the
improved developments on the side streets and plugged those in right
away, plus the growth rate.
So not only did we put a nominal growth rate of four percent, we
turned down a lot of development that probably won't come on that
quick at the same time.
So again, we analyzed this ad nauseam. The difficult part is that
around 2013 to 23015, assuming a very aggressive growth rate, those
improvements start to fail as well too without the county doing
different things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the four percent rate that
you've got here not only relies on the expansion of Davis Boulevard, it
relies on the expansion of Santa Barbara and the completion of Golden
Gate Parkway.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Both bidded and under construction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's the timing of Santa
Barbara?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would say about two years to 30
months.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of
transportation?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick. Mr. Klatzkow.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just to clarify what we're doing, because
this is just one deal of many we're working on. Plan A was that the
state was going to widen Davis Boulevard. They didn't. This is Plan
B. Plan B is we're getting a bunch of developers together and we're
selling concurrency. They're giving us enough money, we'll be able to
fund the construction the state was supposed to do that will create
additional capacity, okay, so that they can then do their development.
So with DCA what we're doing is we're selling certificates, we're
Page 77
December 21, 2006
getting the impact fees paid up front, we're getting some rights-of-way
donated and the whole package, so we can do these improvements
ourselves because the state backed off. There's a lot of pieces to this
puzzle. This is just one of them. You're going to get a couple of them
on time to go. But if all these pieces don't come together, all right, if
anybody backs out of the deal so we can't do this funding, it's all going
to blow up.
And then we're at Plan C. I'm not sure what plan C is. It may be
a moratorium at this time.
But that's what we're doing. We are selling certificates in order
to get the money so we can do the improvements so that hopefully by
the time construction is done, there will be sufficient capacity for
these various big boxes to get built on. That's exactly what we're
doing here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. And Nick,
before we finish with transportation, we received a DCA a draft from
the applicant. And as you know, I had a lot of -- because I spoke to
you about that, I had a lot of questions about that draft. And you
assured me that was the applicant's language, not your department.
Now you had working points that you wanted to make sure were
going to be considered, included. You want to expound on those
working points now so we understand what the issues are in that
regard?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. The applicant will pay within a
-- we're negotiating a time frame, 90 days, 120 days -- and we talked
about a certain time -- one hundred percent of the impact fees,
roadway impacts fees for all capacity, additional square footage that
he's asking for.
One thing I want to clarify what Jeff said before I continue on is
that 60 to 80 percent of the funding for Davis is coming from the
Benderson's prepaid, already purchased COAs that they did a long
time ago that we're collecting on in 10 or 12 days, over two weeks or
Page 78
December 21, 2006
so.
So a lot of the money isn't -- when Jeff said we're selling our
concurrency, we're trying not to do it as much from future projects but
projects that this board and other boards have already approved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you leave that point, how
much is this -- from Radio Road to 951, what are the costs?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: My guess is between 16 and $20
million.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much are you getting from the
Benderson?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Probably between, I want to say, ten
to 14.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the rest you're picking up from--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: A couple smaller projects that you'll
see coming forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to fund all that prior to
their CO? They're going to fund all that up front?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Up front. Some of it's already in our
accounts.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Business points. The additional
capacity -- or square footage that they're asking for is approximately
135. They're asking for 15 of that to be added to the 130 they have.
So the 120 additional square footage would not be available for
certificate of occupancy until December 31 st, 2009. Prepay their
impact fees. The right-of-way that's across the street that we will have
exhibits for that they're preparing right now will be dedicated within
60 days of request to the county at a fixed price of $15.72 a square
foot. That one-acre of impervious road surface will be treated in that
development. That's in the PUD as well, too.
And then I think the TCMA requirements is in the PUD language
and I don't think we need to address that in the DCA. Those are the
Page 79
December 21, 2006
key points, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, there was a lot of -- and I know it
because Bruce wrote it, a lot of superfluous language in this compared
to the DCA that he sent out. And I went over some of that with you at
a meeting you and I had, in particular references to values of property
that really weren't part of the deal.
Are you assured those are going to be removed from the --
because if they're in there, we've got to go into some discussions on
those.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have a lot of respect for Bruce, but
we've made it a policy decision that we'll do business points and the
county attorney will draft all DCAs. We're going to take out anything
that really doesn't have anything to do with the strict business points
and just deal with strictly business points.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will shorten it.
Okay, are there any questions of staff or anybody on
transportation at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, I guess your turn.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Michael DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
You have a copy of the staff report, several copies of the staff
report, the supplemental staff report and supplemental staff report
number two. This has been a -- the project has been continued, as
you're well aware, for reasons about the capacity of the roadways
along Davis Boulevard. I believe a lot of the questions were answered.
I note that Bob did go through a variety of the changes in the PUD
document.
With the DCA agreement, the staff is recommending approval of
this. It is found to be consistent with the comprehensive planning and
Page 80
December 21,2006
compatible with adjoining properties, and we'd be glad to try to
address any questions that you might have at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there questions of Mike?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, in your staff report, Page 2,
you reference on the top of the page a series of sections. I can't find
them in the PUD. Maybe -- or maybe I did find the language, but not
the section. Can you take a -- can you help me with that point?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Is this the supplementals?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's your staff report dated January
19th, 2006. So those sections -- the PUD's been completely rewritten,
so all I want to make sure is that that language is comfortably in
another section of the PUD, we just haven't referenced it. Is that it?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the last question I had.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions of
staff?
Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, not for you, Mike, I need to
go back to transportation. Is Nick still here, or Don?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just need this repeated. This
project is going to cost $16 million, approximately, correct?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct. That's the estimate that FDOT has
given us so far, but obviously they're not at 100 percent design yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you say 60 or 16?
MR. SCOTT: Sixteen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, then Nick egregiously --
COMMISSIONER CARON: He said 6-0, I thought.
MR. SCOTT: No, 16. One, six.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Sixteen. Oh, this makes a huge
Page 81
December 21, 2006
difference in what I was going to ask. If the biggest developer is only
going to get 14, are we ever going to be get from two other smaller
projects --
MR. SCOTT: No. What FDOT has offered us, obviously, is $20
million payback. And we're going to stay with the $20, not knowing
how the bids come in. One of our hopes is the possibility of including
this with our 951 project. Remains to be seen if the timing is going to
work out that well. But we'll see.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do you have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have one question of the -- of
Bruce before we close the public hearing and go into discussion.
Guess what question I'm going to ask?
MR. ANDERSON: What date we're going to the board?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The phasing issue. I do not feel
comfortable tying a project to a date. I'd like to see it tied to the
completion of that segment of Santa Barbara Boulevard.
MR. ANDERSON: Santa Barbara?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, Davis, I'm sorry, from Radio
Road to 951.
And I know you have a lot of assurances from a lot of people that
that's going to happen. And how you make that happen is up to you.
But I think that if that were a condition, not only would the
department have -- the transportation department have their ability to
push harder, but they would have your assistance as well.
So I'm still reluctant to work with a specific date like you have.
And I just wanted to understand if you had any movement on that
from your side or if you feel you have to have a date?
MR. ANDERSON: Let me ask you this. We could probably--
Page 82
December 21, 2006
I'm authorized to give on the date, to delete the date if we can add the
assurance of being able to get that additional 15,000 that we could do
up front.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think for the benefits that you are
providing to get Davis Boulevard moved along, that I had no problem
with that myself. I can't speak for the rest of the board but I didn't see
that as a problem.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. No other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing. We'll
entertain a motion. Is there a motion?
Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion that -- I
lost the paper on the number -- the AR number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you were going to make a
motion and you lost the paper, huh.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that would
PUDZA-2009-AR-6417, known as the Benderson PUD; is that right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2004.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2004?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 2004?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My apologies. But I would make
a recommendation to move this to the Board of County
Commissioners with approval. I didn't hear any stipulations. I have
none that I myself would offer.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will second the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a motion by Commissioner
Murray to recommend approval. There's been a second by
Commissioner Adelstein.
Page 83
December 21, 2006
And now discussion. We'll start with Mrs. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And there was a stipulation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a whole pile of stipulations.
COMMISSIONER CARON: There were many. Okay. That's
fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I had a stipulation, Mark. Why
don't can you run through yours.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was hoping I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the most important one that -- and
I agree that the 145,000 square feet is acceptable now. And that the
remainder of the square footage to be built will be delayed until such
time that Davis Boulevard is completed between Radio Road and 951.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was a given.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That the DCA that finally gets evolved
include the four working points that Nick spoke to us about. And that
is that they pay 100 percent of their road impact fees within a certain
time frame, as Nick stated. That they receive okay for 145,000 square
feet now and the rest is deferred until Davis Boulevard is completed
from Radio Road to 951. That the right-of-way dedication is provided
at the cost of $15.72 per square foot. That one acre of impervious
right-of-way area is allocated to be accepted by the project in one of
their on-site properties. Those are the bullet points that I recall from
Nick. The time frame that we just worked out basically on the
phasing.
And then the last thing is the various changes we recommended
to the PUD that they seem to be agreement on, and Mike has carefully
made note of those as we went through the meeting. Those are the
points that I recall.
Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, just to make sure, did you
get the one about replacing the word anchor tenant with primary
Page 84
December 21, 2006
building?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And how do we know
these things actually do get in? I mean, the staff takes these notes and
then makes sure that before they go to the commissioner hearing --
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. It goes to Marjorie first--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, you should know that better than
anybody.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Sorry. It would go to the county attorney's
office first to make sure that these are all included.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Excuse me. Planning staff takes
the notes and the planning staff makes sure that they're included. And
then we operate as a back-up working with them to make sure the
stipulations are correct.
But the planning staff is the one that takes the notes and makes
sure those stips are included.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thus it's not smart to carry it in
the resolution itself? It's not necessary?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, it will be included in the PUD
document.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that the end of the comment?
If so, will the motion maker -- oh, Mr. --
MR. ANDERSON: Just one point of clarification, Mr.
Chairman. You used in your motion completed, and I believe the term
is substantially completed. That means where it's open for traffic.
They may be doing, you know, little finishing touches.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate the clarifies. That's exactly
the intend.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would the motion maker accept
the --
Page 85
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- stipulations?
Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You just took the wind out of my
sails because I was going to make sure that happened.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the second accept the stipulations.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded.
Stipulations have been okayed.
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Well, maybe it is
Christmas after all. Or we're saving our bah, humbug for Richard.
Item #8C
PETITION: SV-2006-AR-9400
The next item up for today is the petition SV -2006-AR-9400.
And it's the Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC for the Swamp Buggy
Races/Florida Sports Park. It involves a variance for the sign that
they've had out front forever.
MR. MULHERE: Real quick.
Page 86
December 21, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will anybody wanting to testify on
behalf of this petition please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the planning commission
have disclosures? I think I may have mentioned this to Mr.
Y ovanovich. I was shocked that this had to be on our agenda today.
MR. MULHERE: I'll try to be--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray had a disclosure.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At nominal length, I had a
conversation with Mr. Tom Cannon regarding some of the particulars
in here. He is associated with Swamp Buggy.
MR. MULHERE: My name is Bob Mulhere, I'm with R W A
representing the applicant on this petition. With me is David Torres,
who is division vice president with Toll Brothers. Rich Y ovanovich
also. And I know Tom Cannon was here. I'm not sure ifhe's still here.
But Tom Cannon was here. He'll be right back. I'll try to be very
brief. As Mr. Strain indicated, the sign's been in its present location
since 1986. Anecdotal testimony is that there was a permit issued,
though evidence cannot be found. S igncraft put up the sign. The
request is -- and it's an off-site sign. It's located within the Big Cypress
Basin right-of-way and the future Collier Boulevard extension area or
the extension of Rattlesnake Hammock extension area.
And so what we've structured and staff is supporting is a variance
that would last no more than three years, might be shorter than that if
due to construction reasons it ends up having to be relocated.
The sign would have to be relocated eventually anyway because the
future proposal is to relocate the location of the Swamp Buggy park
activities. And that's several years out, assuming it actually goes
forward.
So we've asked for a temporary variance to allow the sign to
remain in the same location it's been for 20 years.
I do have a couple of minor changes that I discussed with staff relative
Page 87
December 21, 2006
to the stipulations. And if I can read those to you, I think they're
relatively minor.
Just thought it might be helpful on condition of approval number
one to add a couple of words such that they would read the
off-premise directional sign shall be allowed to remain in place for a
maximum of three years. It says three years, but I think this clarifies it
a little bit.
The second one, a right-of-way permit shall be secured if
required, within four months, parens, 120 days. Two months, boy, I'd
sure like to think we could get everything done and get it in and
submitted. But there's a possibility it might take a little bit longer and
I'd sure like to put the time in. Four months I think is adequate.
Stipulation number three, the same change, a building permit
shall be secured within four months, parens 120 days from the date of
the BCC approval. Obviously, if we submitted everything that we
need to submit, it shouldn't take very long to get out. It's really only an
electrical permit that's required and a base landscape plan.
And then on the last one, the required landscape plan shall be --
landscaping shall be planted around the base of the off-premise
directional sign. And what I've suggested is we put in language that
reads a planting plan shall be submitted to Collier County with the
building permit application. And then the applicant may utilize
manual irrigation techniques if the planting plan includes xeric or
drought tolerant plants. There's no irrigation now. We'll put plants in,
it's right next to the canal.
Those are the changes that -- and staff agrees with those
. .
reVISIons.
And that concludes my brief presentation. Questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions?
Mr. Midney, then Mr. Kolflat and Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question about the
communication to Mr. DeRuntz from Philip Jimenez (phonetic).
Page 88
December 21, 2006
MR. MULHERE: Oh, yes. Thank you. I'm glad you brought
that up and I should have brought that up myself.
I did talk to Clarence Tears, who is the director of Big Cypress
Basin. And he indicated to me that typically you would not be able to
get a right-of-way permit for such a sign. But given the fact that it's
existing, and that's why I asked for the change to say if required under
the stipulation, they will not ask us to get a right-of-way sign for this
sign, given the conditions that are in place, the limitation on the time
frame, it's an existing sign.
So, you know, I think we can address the concerns of Big
Cypress Basin, and that's why I put the language in, ifrequired.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you're saying that this, which
is dated December 5th, is no longer operative?
MR. MULHERE: Correct. We will have to get a right-of-way
sign from Collier County -- or permit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The first condition, you
mentioned two conditions, actually. There will be the permitted
relocation of the Swamp Buggy or a maximum of three years. Would
you also extend that to include the extension of Rattlesnake Hammock
Road or the six-Ianing of Collier Boulevard?
MR. MULHERE: In other words, that if it's requested to be
removed by Collier County as a result of those activities of
improvement we would remove it and relocate it?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. Also, would you accept
the fact that the owner would be responsible for the removal and not
the county, if that should occur.
MR. MULHERE: That's no problem.
So, if I may, I think I can -- the off-premise directional sign shall
be allowed to remain in place for a maximum three years from the
Page 89
December 21, 2006
BCC approval date, or the permitted relocation of the Swamp Buggy
activity is completed, or if requested to be removed due to facilitate
improvements to Collier Boulevard or Rattlesnake Hammock
extension, whichever comes first, period.
And then another sentence that says the relocation costs shall be
born by the applicant.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's the way I had drafted it,
too. That would be very acceptable, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's already been covered, thank
you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just have -- Mr. Mulhere, are
you here on behalf of the petitioner? And who is the petitioner in this
case?
MR. MULHERE: The petitioner is Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC. And
let me tell you why that application was drafted in that format. It is
Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC that actually was issued the most recent and
effective and operative notice of violation from Code Enforcement.
We would presume that's because Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC owns the
land that is privately owned that's most proximate to the sign.
The Swamp Buggy grounds, while we are working with the
Swamp Buggy and we have had a contract in place to purchase that
property and relocate them, we do not presently own that property.
But, again, the NOV was issued to Toll-Rattlesnake LLC.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's important inasmuch
as this is a public --
MR. MULHERE: Yes, I appreciate that--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- property, that it be noted that
the Swamp Buggy property is still in the ownership of the Swamp
Buggy corporation.
MR. MULHERE: That is correct.
Page 90
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was important.
Actually, I think that's pretty much it for me, because all the rest
of them go away. I think based on that -- let's see if I have just one
more. Stipulation agreement. That's it. I think that cured the issue.
Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mulhere, someone said there was a
permit issued for this.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has someone proven that there is not a
permit issued for this?
MR. MULHERE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to look at aerial photos
going back 20 years, would you see this on the county tax assessor's
map?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The company that put it up is Signcraft.
Wasn't that used to be owned by State Representative Mr. Davis,
Mike Davis?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any doubt in anybody's mind
that this didn't have a permit?
MR. MULHERE: Well, there's no doubt in my mind.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need to turn to the county attorney and
ask, wouldn't this be considered a nonconforming use? And if it isn't,
still, wouldn't the burden of proof be that there would have to be
something showing, someone would have to indicate stronger than to
question the validity of what the applicant's saying?
MR. KLATZKOW: I scratched my head a few times when this
came on my desk. I'm still scratching my head. I'm not entirely sure
what -- I was never entirely sure what the issue was. It's been there
forever. It's going away pretty soon anyway. You know, I don't know
Page 91
December 21, 2006
what to tell you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much did it cost you to get here
today?
MR. MULHERE: After the fact variance, double the fee.
Several thousand dollars.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I hope any recommendation is --
MR. MULHERE: Plus -- if I had my time on to that, now we're
really moving it up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as far as -- I mean, any fees or
anything paid ought to be refunded back to you, as far as I'm
concerned. This shouldn't have been here today.
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Strain, I know you've got a busy day.
And I'll be very, very brief. But I think it's germane. It seems to me
that the county's position, at least from a code enforcement
perspective, is that the burden of proof is on the property owner. That
appears to be the modus operandi.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying that any department was
wrong. We have a bunch of rules in our books, they have to be
enforced. And there may be times when the practicality of how those
enforced can be exercised because it's black and white.
But I think it's the discretion of the very boards that these things
finally get to take a look at that and see maybe now some discretion
could be suggested. That's where I'm going.
MR. MULHERE: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in that regard, is there any other
questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have a staff report?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Michael DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the
Department of Zoning and Land Development review. You have a
copy of the staff report, and analysis of -- that we need to look at for
variances. And one of the things that I felt that was very important in
Page 92
December 21, 2006
my evaluation of this application is that the sign has been there for a
while. It does serve a purpose, it has served a purpose. And with the
applicant's understanding that this will be removed, we are
recommending approval of this variance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any objection to the
applicant's requested changes to the stipulations?
MR. DeRUNTZ: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, did you--
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I was going to make a motion if
that's acceptable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we have to close the public hearing
first. So let's just move forward with the rest of the request.
Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, when was the
requirement to put the sign permit on the sign? When did that come
about?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Put the sign permit --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't the permit number put on
the sign?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir, it is now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is now, but is that -- during
this time was it?
MR. DeRUNTZ: No. Some 20 years ago, no, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? Ifnone, is
there any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the hearing and
we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Kolflat and Mr. Adelstein both have
indicated they'd like to make a motion. Mr. Kolflat, you had indicated
Page 93
December 21, 2006
first so let's just go with you, and hopefully Ms. Adelstein will second.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Okay. With reference to the
general guidelines ofLDC section 9.04.03, A through H, to be used in
making a determination in this variance request, we find the following.
One, a special condition exists relative to the sign in that it has
been located there approximately 20 years, and without it the public
would not be able to ascertain upcoming events, cultural and historic
activity .
Two, there is a special preexisting condition in that the sign was
constructed in 1996 before adoption of current LDCs.
Three, literal interpretation of LDCs will create an undue
hardship on the applicant in that the Swamp Buggy facility is remote
and difficult to find and needs directional information to survive.
Four, existing sign does not inhibit the site visibility of vehicular
traffic at the Rattlesnake Hammock and CR -951 intersection, and does
not adversely impact the health, safety and welfare of the public.
Six, the variance meets the intent and purpose of 5.06.01.A of the
LDC and not injurious to the neighborhood.
Eight (sic), approval of this variance will be consistent with the
GMP.
I move that we recommend acceptance to the county
. .
commISSIon.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, I'll second the
motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, you had said that the sign's
been there since '96, I think you meant '86.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I yes, I did, I'm sorry. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The motion was made by
Commissioner Kolflat, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, wouldn't we want to add
Page 94
December 21, 2006
the several points that were made by Mr. Mulhere to the
recommendation?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it -- the stipulation would be that
the staff recommendations would include the stipulations as amended
by the discussion with the applicant; is that it?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That accomplishes the purpose.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would highly suggest that the
Swamp Buggy facility is a corporation that's been working with the
community for years. I would like to see that their fees be refunded
for this effort to get here today.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I didn't know if
that was appropriate, but I certainly support that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whether it's appropriate or not, I think
we can send the message to the BCC.
Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: I just want to add that any refund for this, since
there's been staff time expended and effort, that money has to be
refunded from the general fund or some other form. It's not simply
just a matter of refunding the dollars. If it is, I'm passing that cost off
to the other applicants who paid permit fees.
And I understand exactly what you're saying, but there would
have to be some kind of a budget amendment associated with that that
monies to refund this would come out of the general fund. Just so you
understand the process.
I would also like to comment that maybe this board would
consider recommending to the Board of County Commissioners
something as obvious as this, and truly obvious as this, because I read
this as well, that the zoning director have some authority to approve
something like this administratively.
The petitioner chose to bring this through the requisite process in
order to get the variance that's required, rather than appeal before the
board or some other method, certainly, they could have gone through.
Page 95
December 21, 2006
They complied with the Notice of Violation and chose to follow the
proper procedures.
But it certainly would have been far more appropriate in a case
like this where there's certainly something that existed for a period of
time that this could have been done administratively.
And I think from the planning commission maybe that's the type
of recommendation that should be forwarded to the County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, I appreciate your
comments to us, and I agree with you. You have various departments
that have got their hands tied in the flexibility that they're allowed to
have. And this is a prime example of where some flexibility ought to
be allowed.
And if our signal to the BCC is that that is needed, then that
certainly is something I hope we're putting across by a stipulation
suggesting that there needs to be a refund of any fees required of this
applicant.
And I also like your recommendation that we consider looking at
some latitude provided to the zoning director in regards to issues such
as this.
So with those stipulations, does anybody have a -- Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's on number three. I
would rather see that worded that a building permit should be applied
for within the time frame, not secured. Once it's into the process
there's an awful lot of things that can happen that the client has no
control over.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not -- I don't care if we mince
words on that, Brad, but the point is we don't know they don't have a
building permit. Nobody knows that. In fact, we have testimony that
says they do have a building permit.
Page 96
December 21, 2006
So I'm more inclined to believe they already have one. So why
do they need another one?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, if we're going to go
ahead with these -- I mean, I would rather take them out too, if you
want to do that. That's not what was proposed, though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going along with the stipulation
request because the applicant suggested it. Had the applicant
suggested that, wait a minute, we did have a permit, nobody will
believe us, but we're testifying we have one, as Mr. Mulhere indicated,
I'm comfortable with that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then, could we make a
motion that in essence treated this as if it was permitted and -- I mean,
it's here because of what's --
MR. DeRUNTZ: Excuse me, Mike DeRuntz. Code enforcement
has cited them for a violation of not having a permit. And this is -- this
petition is before the planning commission right now to rectify that.
And they're attempting to do that. And so the building permit would
need to be issued.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have the -- do you have the
availability to get all the building permits issued on that property? I
mean, the answer is that you don't. I don't believe the county has
records, they've lost them all.
So we don't know if there was a building permit issued here or
not in fact. We know that there may have been one, there may not
have been one. Code enforcement's caught in the middle because they
don't have one, so they can't say then that there is one. So they have
to say there isn't one. I understand that. I'm just trying to find a more
amiable solution to something as obvious as this one is.
MR. MULHERE: If I could just add. I said I'd be brief. There is
electric, and I think part of the concern that code enforcement had was
to make sure that there was an inspection of the electric. You know,
there's lighting on the sign.
Page 97
December 21, 2006
And I think we didn't object to that. We want to make sure that
it's safe, too and -- although it probably is. Maybe you could say a
building permit if required after inspection. If that resolves the issue
for you guys. I mean, if it meets the code, you know --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't we just have an
inspection and we can note in here that they're going to make any
improvements necessary based on that.
MR. MULHERE: Which may require a building permit, right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that sound, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think that if the petitioner wanted to
contest the issue that indeed they have a building permit then the
better mechanism would have been just to go to the code enforcement
board to get a determination. For whatever reason they decided not to
go that route. They wanted to clean it up. The clean way to get this up
by this process and we're done. I understand it's an expensive process.
I understand it has a little bit of Alice in Wonderland aspect to this.
But it cleans up their record title.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, your concern was the word
secured.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. I would rather have it that
the secured word be applied and then let the process take its time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That works better for the applicant, I
would believe.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern is if they didn't get
a permit in two weeks essentially this could void this resolution. We
don't want that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you're fine. Mr. Kolflat,
there's been a series of discussions. There's been some stipulations and
added language. Are you comfortable with that discussion?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I am, as long as it doesn't holdh
Page 98
December 21, 2006
the process up. I think let's get it off the table and get them cleared.
Whether they had a permit in the past or didn't have a permit in the
past I don't think is germane to the overall fact that it ought to be
approved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. So you have no problem with
the stipulations that we discussed?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: As long as it doesn't slow down
the train.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now we've got to go back to the
beginning. The stipulations that we discussed then were the changes
to the approvals as stipulated by staff, except that we will -- the
applicant had suggested some changes, all of which are beneficial.
You accept those?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Brad has suggested using the word
as applied instead of secured. Do you accept that?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had suggested that we -- or
recommend a refund of the fees paid for the applicant for the variance
process to get here today.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's what I'm not sure of.
What does that lead to, further discussion or further action?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just vote on it. And then it goes to the
BCC and they decide if they want to do that or not.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: How does the applicant feel
about that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you guys want the money back or
not?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant would like the money
back.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who paid the money, the Toll
Page 99
December 21, 2006
Brothers or the Swamp Buggy?
MR. TORRES: Toll Brothers paid the application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? Mr. Kolflat, would you
make a decision on that, since you're the motion maker.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'll accept it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion maker -- are there any
other stipulations that I missed? I think not.
Does the second accept the stipulations?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, all in favor of the
motion as stipulated, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
All those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you all. And
I assume that with this conversation, staff will relate to the BCC that
the planning commission, and we might want to take a moment to at
least provide a consensus on this fact, would strongly recommend that
there be some discretion to the zoning director in regards to matters
such as this.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would, Mr. Chairman, perhaps
even a memo from the chair attached to the executive summary in this
matter might be useful, so that it's patently clear that they see the
intent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt?
Page 100
'"--'^" ---'--,~
December 21, 2006
MR. SCHMITT: I would only caution that I think what you are
certainly trying to do is accommodate the petitioner. The petitioner,
there's a board that exists that the petitioner could appear before if
they disputed the Notice of Violation, and that's the Code
Enforcement Board. They chose not to go down that road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, what you had said earlier was that
if we could provide a suggestion to the board that would help relieve
these matters, that's all I'm suggesting.
The other issue is over with for right now. The petitioner came
here, and even if he had gone before the Code Enforcement Board, the
fact that this could have been resolved by more discretion on the part
of the zoning director would have been a lot easier than either way.
That's all -- we're agreeing with you on that.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. But the sign -- there would have had to
have been some kind of authority to put the sign in the right-of-way.
And there was no record of any type of permit.
So I'm just saying that, again, if we're going to put -- just so you
understand, I agree with you in regards to allowing for criteria to be
developed to give the zoning director some authority to resolve issues
like this. But there still would have to be some kind of criteria,
previous or aerial photography or other type, something that would
validate that, at least in the opinion of the zoning director that there
would have been some sort of approval granted for this.
And I just want to caution this panel that in fact that's what we
would have to come back with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I fully agree with you. But that is what
I would expect you to come back with. We certainly aren't going to try
to disseminate that here at this panel.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I think maybe the way
we should do that is to look at the grandfathering of projects.
First of all, we look in a community that essentially could have
Page 101
December 21, 2006
buildings destroyed past 50 percent rather easily. So I think that
there's a lot of issues that come up. As we're going through LDC
amendments we hear a lot, well, that would mean it would make a lot
of things nonconforming. I think we have to really look at how
properties get grandfathered in this community.
And maybe that's the topic where we study all this, it's not just
simple like this issue was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, all I'm trying to do is let the board
have a -- and submit ideas that there may be something now that we
could do to alleviate issues like this. You're talking about a bigger
issue that would take more time to get into.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This could fall into. It could be
a subset of that issue. But I think the weakness is in how we handle
nonconforming, especially if they're destroyed or abandoned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to move on. I can see we're
going to get tied up in a conversation on this one. So let's just move
on for the day. And I think the best thing to do at this point is take a
one-hour lunch break and return at 12:45. Is that agreeable?
Okay. We'll reconvene at 12:45 in this room. Thank you.
(A lunch break was taken.)
Item #8D
PETITION: PUDA-AR-2005-AR-7818
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, members of the commission,
we're back on. And if everybody would quiet down and take your
seats.
I notice that we have -- Mr. Hancock's here now in charge of
marketing for Davidson Engineering. I guess that's going to be the
next subject we're going to be talking about. So the meeting will now
resume.
Petition PUDA-2005-AR-7818, which is the Freeland and Schuh Pine
Page 102
December 21, 2006
View PUD at the southwest corner of Pine Ridge Road and
Whippoorwill Lane.
Would those wishing to speak on behalf of this project please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the planning
admission. Earlier this morning on my way out for lunch I had a brief
conversation with Mr. Hancock over the traffic issues. Other than
that, I don't have any other disclosures. Okay, Tim, it's all yours.
MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman,
members of the planning commission. My name is Tim Hancock with
Davidson Engineering, representing the applicant Freeland and Schuh,
Incorporated, the property owner. Freeland Schuh is more or less Mr.
Ben Freeland, who is also here today. Ben is president of Naples
Nissan and also president of Mobile Internet Technologies. He is in
fact the applicant. And as I mentioned earlier, the property owner.
Also with us today, a part of our team, Mr. Jim Krall,
professional engineer, civil engineer with Davidson Engineering, who
I believe is speaking with Mr. Schmitt in the hallway. And also, on
transportation engineering, Mr. Reed Jarvi, professional engineer also.
The nexus of the application to amend the existing Pine View PUD
was very simple. The applicant wished to simply add one use, an
automotive retail facility, automotive dealership to an approved
commercial PUD to allow for automotive sales at this location. The
site is to be the future home of Naples Nissan, which currently exists
on a somewhat cramped and difficult site at the intersection of Airport
Road and Progress Avenue.
The Pine View PUD was originally approved in 2000 to provide
for a broad range of commercial uses with no cap on square footage
on a little more than 15 acres of land.
The project location, as you can see on the aerial before you, is at
the southwest corner of Pine Ridge Road and Whippoorwill Lane,
Page 103
December 21, 2006
approximately one-half mile west of 1-75. To orient you further, just
to the north, or toward the top of your screen is Pine Ridge Road.
Whippoorwill Lane continues along the eastern side of the south. And
by reference, obviously, 1-75 here to the right as you look at it, and
Livingston Road here to the left.
The site is bordered on the north by Pine Ridge Road and a full
range of commercial uses in essence across the street. There's a
common intersection here of Whippoorwill and Pine Ridge, which the
commercial uses on the north side use for access. There's a racetrack
gas station here that I'm pointing to. You've got a hotel, restaurants,
and my favorite, the Harley Davidson dealership on the north side.
To the south of the property is an existing Hospice of Naples facility.
They are currently contemplating expansion of that of that facility.
We've had discussions with Hospice that have gone very well. And
there's been a long-range partnership between this parcel and Hospice
that's been mutually beneficial.
At one point, the previous property owner allowed Hospice
access across the back of the site in order to provide construction, and
that relationship continues with Mr. Freeland and Hospice at this time.
Just to the west of the property, which this aerial does not indicate the
current level of impact and construction. You're well aware of the
Kraft site where Kraft Construction has their office building. And
then there will be multiple outparcels and other retail opportunities
closer to Pine Ridge Road on that site.
The subject property as identified here lies entirely within
activity number ten. And is such is afforded the full array of
commercial uses subject to compatibility determinations.
The current PUD contemplated a mixture of commercial uses
including retail and commercial, but did not include automotive
dealerships. As such, were the property to develop under its existing
zoning, retail and office mixed use projects could yield approximately
150,000 square feet of space, but it's worth noting that the PUD again
Page 104
December 21, 2006
does not really contain a cap on building square footage, it really is
whatever maximum is achievable under the current development
standards.
The proposed use of an automotive dealership is entirely
consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And as stated in your
staff report, is deemed to be compatible with the relatively high
intensity of surrounding land uses, which include gas stations, hotels,
fast food, restaurants and the like.
As shown on the CPUD master plan, the project is, as designed,
serves to amplify criteria contained in both the Growth Management
Plan and the Land Development Code and through project design. For
example, while an interconnection is typically required among
commercial parcels, what has been in essence negotiated between the
adjacent property owner and your transportation staff goes beyond a
simple interconnect.
What we have is an interconnect here that will line up with a
stubout that was provided during the platting of the adjacent property
for the Kraft parcel. Through the site a connection is made through
what is a proposed parking area to a point here where then a perpetual
use easement is recorded over this area to allow for access to come
from the Kraft site through the subject property and to a point on
Whippoorwill Lane that has been determined by transportation staff to
be an appropriate connection point.
I think what's important to point out at this stage is that this
pass-through, if you will, doesn't really serve our project in any way,
shape or form. The criteria of meeting the code simply would have
been an interconnect. However, this particular scenario has been
negotiated among multiple property owners and your transportation
staff in an effort to try and assist with solving some problems that are
not associated with the current zoning or the proposed use of the site
for Naples Nissan.
The site also incorporates the required native vegetation in a
Page 105
December 21, 2006
preserve area at the southwest portion of the property. Interestingly,
this parcel, when it was rezoned in 2000, as confirmed by county staf:f,
had no wetlands. Somehow, by 2005 a wetland had formed. And so
we ended up having to go through and having the project delayed by
going through and getting a formal determination on this parcel. And
we think pretty much that was due, as the EAC indicated, to a pooling
or ponding of water over time due to adjacent developments around
us. Nonetheless, those steps had been taken. We are standing here
today with the full approval of the EAC in 6-0 vote.
Also, in accordance with Objective 1.3 of the Growth
Management Plan, which states that Collier County will support
programs which are designed to promote and encourage the
recruitment of new industry as well as the expansion and retention of
existing industries in order to diversify the county's economic base,
the petition before you today provides the opportunity to strike twice
at complying with this Growth Management Plan policy.
First, Naples Nissan is an existing, thriving business in Collier
County. The Freeland name has been associated with automotive
sales in southwest Florida for decades. And the Naples Nissan
location on Airport Road has in essence become a victim of its own
success, therefore outgrowing its current facilities. I think if you've
been on the site, circulation is difficult. And the growth of the
business just necessitates a new location.
One of the interesting components that Mr. Freeland can attest to
is when you start looking for sites that allow for automotive sales
facilities, your search gets narrowed very, very quickly. They're
basically limited to C-4 and C-5. There's not a lot of existing C-4 and
C-5 zoning out there.
When you further limit the fact that being a franchise it can't
really go anywhere it needs to go, it needs to stay in a similar
geographic area to its current location, quite honestly, unlike projects
that may have multiple sites to choose from, this became really the
Page 106
December 21, 2006
only viable site for the expansion of Naples Nissan.
So I think much to Mr. Freeland's surprise, it wasn't as simple as
going out and looking at a price of several properties. The selection
got narrowed down very quickly and his options are extremely
limited. He does own the property. He's not a contract purchaser.
He's already secured the property and has been paying taxes and
carrying costs on that land for some time now.
Also, as part of the request today is, in approving this use, the
Naples Nissan dealership will be the first building built on the site.
Included within that building on the second floor is the expansion of a
high tech internet and mobile internet technology company. That
application has received the support of the economic development
council and as such has qualified the application through zoning and
SDP as a fast track application.
Obviously there are transportation issues, which we will discuss
today, that have served among other things to delay the project. We
don't necessarily blame the fast track process for that. But I think it's
important to note that in addition to preserving and protecting the
expansion of existing business in Collier County, we're also making
way for a target industry that the Board of County Commissioners has
identified for the promotion and creation of high wage -- or high
wage, high tech jobs. This process, this project will allow that
expansion of that business to occur also.
In addition to the supporting elements contained in your staff
report, it's worth noting that this rezone will not result in authorizing
more traffic on adjacent roads as compared to the existing zoning on
the property.
As mentioned in your staff report, the proposed use will produce
approximately 10 percent fewer trips than a similar-sized office
building. That reduction gets even greater when compared to retail
uses which are also currently permitted.
Also, due to the vehicle storage component associated with
Page 107
December 21, 2006
automotive dealerships primarily for display and to ensure adequate
selection, the overall land use intensity, in other words, the number of
building square feet per acre is much lower than when you compare it
with an office or retail use.
In short, the proposed use is less intensive from a traffic
standpoint than the vast majority of land uses currently permitted for
the site.
That being said, the applicant is well aware of the transportation
concerns that have arisen during the course of this application, and has
offered in many areas ways to address the deficiencies for both the
near term and the long term future to the benefit of all businesses and
residents who utilize Whippoorwill Lane.
We only had four folks show up at our neighborhood information
meeting. Two were from Hospice, one from Seagate Baptist church,
and one was a gentleman who lives, Steve Delacoff (phonetic), who
lives on Whippoorwill Lane.
With minor questions in other areas, the big concern was they
have problems on Whippoorwill Lane. They have problems getting
out in the morning. The turn lane is not adequate. Things back up
extensively there.
There really weren't a lot of land use questions or compatibility
issues. Everybody on Whippoorwill knows that this is a commercially
zoned site. They knew that this is an activity center site, where the
full array of the most intensive commercial uses are proposed.
So really, the issue coming from the residents was transportation.
We have, as I mentioned, worked with your staff and with adjacent
property owners to try and address as many of these components as
possible.
And I think it's probably most appropriate at this time to turn our
presentation over to Reed Jarvi with Vanasse Daylor, who will outline
for you many of the transportation issues, concerns and remedies.
And then following any questions you may have in that regard
Page 108
December 21,2006
regarding with Mr. Jarvi or with the staff, I'd like to wrap up my
presentation at that point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure we're going to have questions
of the parts of the project that you're in charge of too, Tim. So when
would you like the questions, after Reed gets done or now?
MR. HANCOCK: Actually, after we're done kind of going
through transportation, I really want to address a couple of the
deviations, and that will wrap up my presentation, if that's acceptable,
Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's fine. Thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: At this time, I'll turn it over to Reed Jarvi.
MR. JARVI: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Reed
Jarvi, for the record. I'm a professional engineer with Vanasse Daylor.
Couple points to discuss at this time, and from the traffic perspective.
What Tim said is very correct in that this proposed use has a lesser
intensity from a traffic perspective than what could be done.
If you looked at the TIS, we compared it to an office building,
similar office building. It was about 10 percent less, but roughly the
same amount. But if you would do retail commercial, shopping center,
any kind of major retail use, it would probably be three or four times
as much of an intensity than what we have proposed at this time.
It's very important to note that from a significance factor or
standpoint that this project is not significant on Pine Ridge Road,
which is the only road in the near vicinity that's actually on the
concurrency management system. Whippoorwill Lane is not on the
concurrency management system, but we do impact Whippoorwill
Lane, obviously.
The traffic that is generated by this project will actually be
insignificant by definition and actually is within concurrency and
consistency evaluations at this present time.
It's also important to note that in the very near future, Golden
Gate Parkway will be coming on line first quarter of next year, which
Page 109
December 21, 2006
will divert a significant amount of traffic from -- or at least projected
to divert a significant amount of traffic from Pine Ridge Road to the
Golden Gate Parkway road. And that was estimated several years ago
at about 14, 15 percent in the 1-75, Golden Gate Parkway interchange
justification report that DOT had to file for the Federal Highway
Administration.
So you should see a significant diversion of trips, most likely
before the peak season of this '07. And that will be very important for
this area for Pine Ridge Road and for the people in Whippoorwill.
Another thing that was noted this morning, and in your recap of
the information from the commission, that there is a project on the
south end of Whippoorwill Lane that will be completing the
connection to Livingston Road, which will give the people from the
Whippoorwill area an alternative access to their houses. It will
significantly take out -- or it will provide significant relief for people
that are currently going northbound and turning left from
Whippoorwill to Pine Ridge, and going eastbound on Pine Ridge and
turning right at Whippoorwill. So you will see an improvement in that
movement in the next year and a half or so.
In our analysis we did not look at those two improvements,
which would be -- which shows that the analysis was done in a much
worst case than will probably happen. Things have moved along. The
Whippoorwill connection wasn't contemplated when we did the TIS at
that time. Golden Gate Parkway was a little further out than it is now.
So we did not look at those diversion during the TIS. Big thing to
note is we did look at the intersection of Whippoorwill and Pine Ridge
Road. And we analyzed it with the existing traffic for peak season,
projected it forward, added the proposed use to that intersection, and
saw that there was a problem. I mean, I think if anybody's been out
there, they know there's a problem. But analytically we saw there was
a problem. Proposed mitigation for that solution, which would help the
situation, is the second northbound left turn lane. The client has
Page 110
December 21, 2006
worked with staff and is dedicating right-of-way necessary along his
eastern boundary, which will provide enough space within the
right-of-way to add a second northbound left turn lane, which will
help the people that currently are to the south on Whippoorwill and
some portion to this client. So I think he has taken a proactive
approach to this to help with the solution.
The other things that we are working on, just to bring you up to
speed, there has been discussions with staf:f, and the staff is requiring
the applicant to look at above his impacts to that particular
intersection. And we are working with staff on that study at this
present time.
Don't have it complete, but we're looking, thinking that initially that
doing left turn lane as we talked about on Whippoorwill will be a
significant improvement for Whippoorwill traffic. Probably will be
increasing or recommending increasing the length of the left turn lanes
on both eastbound and westbound Pine Ridge Road, and some
improvements to the north with that study. But we aren't quite
finished with that yet.
But the applicant has committed to work with staff, continued to
work with staff on the solutions to this area. I think that's been very
proactive from his perspective. And also the improvements that will
be coming on line with the Golden Gate Parkway interchange, and the
Whippoorwill connection to Livingston Road will greatly improve this
situation that we're faced with now. This project is part of that
solution.
And that concludes my remarks. And I'll attempt to answer any
questions, if you have any.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're lining them up. Mr.
Midney, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question on the second
deviation, the sidewalk deviation. I'm looking at this map and I don't
see the sidewalks, so I can't understand the deviation request.
Page 111
December 21, 2006
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Midney, if you look at the exhibit that is
on your screen at this time, and I'll trace it for you, because it may be a
little hard to follow. Where the connection occurs here, the two
sidewalks that will be provided will be one that goes through the site,
across the front of the project, all the way out to Whippoorwill Lane.
The second sidewalk will be along the perpetual use easement all the
way out to Whippoorwill Lane.
So instead of putting two sidewalks, one sidewalk on each side of
the perpetual use easement, there will be one here and one up here. So
the net result is two pedestrian connections, just as it would be
otherwise.
Quite honestly, if you're coming from this site and you're trying
to get to Whippoorwill Lane, walk all the way down here and cross
over, when you can do it across the front of the business, made a lot
more sense to us, as it did to Mr. Muller with review staff:
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What does perpetual use
easement mean?
MR. HANCOCK: That means people can come across it as long
as they want.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So it's just like an open space
designation?
MR. HANCOCK: Well actually, it's overlaid across the 24-foot
drive isle that goes through the site here, and then along this access
point here so that folks can travel from Whippoorwill Lane to the
Kraft site over and on that easement in perpetuity.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: By foot.
MR. HANCOCK: That's for vehicular traffic. The sidewalk is a
separate issue. But as you know, sidewalks' no different than through
any commercial site. If they're required by the site development plan
they're required to be accessible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Reed, this is for you. How is
Page 112
December 21, 2006
test driving going to be done off of this site?
MR. HANCOCK: At least initially our point of access is
Whippoorwill. So test driving will occur out to Pine Ridge Road,
probably making the easiest turn, which is a right turn, down Pine
Ridge to a point where they can turn and come back.
At some point -- and remember, if we start construction in '07,
complete in '08, the work on Whippoorwill being extended over to
Livingston should be, you know, following that fairly closely. I'll let
Mr. Casalanguida talk about the timing of that.
But ultimately I would see basically the loop going south on
Whippoorwill to where it hooks over Livingston, over to Livingston,
up Livingston and back to the site. Long term, that would make the
most sense for a test drive route.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Reed, in the calculations you
have for new car dealerships, do you think that's included in that?
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. The data is from ITE, and it is empirical
data that is gathered by different sites around United States, and they
would be -- it's for a new car facility. So any new car facility would
have certain amount of people that would be doing test drives during
the day, so it would be part of the trip generation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron and Mr. Murray, then Tor.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Are car washes included in that?
MR. HANCOCK: Again, the reason I brought -- fortunately this
project has already -- it's in process for a site development plan
approval. So we can speak to you with a degree of certainty as to
what is going to be constructed on the site.
Just as test drives are a component of the overall trips generated
from automotive dealerships, so is maintenance. And car washes
would be included in that. The car wash in this building is actually
integrated into the rear of the building here and is used primarily for,
you know, for vehicles that are in for service as an additional service.
Page 113
December 21, 2006
If you bring it in, you can have the service done, you can do a car
wash. But the car wash is integrated and will be subject to the
architectural guidelines.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But it is factored in the trip
generation?
MR. JARVI: I would say yes. Again, for an accessory use to the
dealership. I don't believe it was intended, and I don't believe it's the
intent of this petition to have a freestanding car wash that would deal
with everybody. It would be people that are using the dealership one
way or another. And that would be factored as part of the data that was
gathered at ITE.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You said that the road
improvements are a year and a half away; is that what you said?
MR. JARVI: I believe Don Scott said this morning they were 12
to 18 months for the Livingston Road connection. The Golden Gate
Parkway Interchange is scheduled for, last I heard, was February of
next year, two months from now.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's actually April now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was pretty much where I
was going with my question. Looking at your Page 3 -- and I want to
compliment you on a catchy phrase under permitted roadway
improvements. You say, for purposes of this study knowing that a
roadway improvement is committed means that the characteristics of
the higher level facility may be used in a reserve capacity estimate.
Well, that's very good.
But how clear are we in terms of this study, because I note they
were identified in Collier Transportation Plan 2/02/03 to 2/07/12. Has
this been updated, your information that's in here?
MR. JARVI: The information that's in here is for primarily Pine
Ridge Road, which has actually been six-Ianed for several years now,
and Whippoorwill Road -- Whippoorwill Lane. There aren't other
Page 114
December 21, 2006
facilities there in the vicinity of this project that are needed from that
data.
I mean, we aren't significant on Pine Ridge Road, so we don't
even actually look at Livingston Road which has been there for a
couple of years now.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do note that there's a reference
here to SCOOT, would SCOOT not be part of this?
MR. JARVI: SCOOT is being done on Pine Ridge Road. If I
remember correctly, Nick, it's up and running now and -- there's about
six percent efficiency there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So all data --
MR. JARVI: SCOOT is a project that's coming -- it's there and
will be expanded in the future.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. All data that we're
referencing here are inclusive of all of the improvements that have
been made, which the exception of that, which was what
Commissioner Caron made, the question she raised. I'm just looking to
see how up to date --
MR. JARVI: No, these are other mitigating things. We can't--
at the time we did this we couldn't measure, the data wasn't known to
how much time SCOOT would improve the situation. And I don't
believe it still is reflected in the concurrency system at this point in
time.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's still too early.
MR. JARVI: And the Golden Gate interchange wasn't -- you
know, we knew it was a committed facility, but the diversion from
Pine Ridge to Golden Gate Parkway was not addressed in this study.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I think I understand.
Appreciate it. I was relating against the significance test, that's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I had several questions, if I
might ask.
Page 115
December 21, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bring your mic. a little closer.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'll learn how to use this maybe
some day. Staff report indicates several intersections will not function
at acceptable levels of service with both background traffic and the
additional project trips. Would you identify those several
intersections on the chart?
MR. JARVI: The only intersection that we analyzed that I know
of is the Pine Ridge Road-Whippoorwill Lane intersection. I'm sure
there's others in the area but they're are not directly affected by this
project.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: This is on our staffreport.
Perhaps I better ask the staff what the several represent.
Also, on this plan that you have here, it indicates on that same
page that access to the project has been provided via Pine Ridge and
Whippoorwill roads. Do you have two accesses to this project or only
one?
MR. JARVI: There's only one -- well, there's two accesses
proposed for Whippoorwill. I would think the reference was access
would be provided via Pine Ridge Road to Whippoorwill. But I think
that's what was meant.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, there's not two separate
entrances --
MR. JARVI: There's two accesses, but they're both on
Whippoorwill. They're not on Pine Ridge. There's not one on Pine
Ridge.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Would you identify the two
buildings that we're talking about here on this plan?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Tim Hancock for the record.
The building housing the Naples Nissan automotive dealership service
and the mobile Internet technology company is right here in the center
of the site. The smaller building up here is an administrative building
to support the used car facility. Both will be architecturally integrated.
Page 116
December 21, 2006
I have something I can show you a little later to give you a sense of
that architecture and a feel for the site.
But those are the two buildings being proposed as a part of the
site development plan that is currently under review by Collier
County .
To answer your earlier question, Mr. Kolflat, the original PUD
showed one access point on Pine Ridge Road and two access points on
Whippoorwill. We have eliminated the access point on Pine Ridge
Road for the main purpose that the extension of the turn lane from
Pine Ridge to Whippoorwill and the inability coming off of Pine
Ridge Road to have a right turn lane coming into the site that we
would control.
In other words, it goes beyond our property boundary. So it probably
could be forced in there but it really doesn't serve the project well.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: At one time though it did have
that access off of Pine Ridge?
MR. HANCOCK: The current PUD does provide access off of
Pine Ridge Road as a right in, right out condition. We are -- and I can
go back to the next slide, that is not depicted on the proposed CPUD
master plan. Only the access points as shown on Whippoorwill.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: While you have this on, could
you describe the stormwater drainage flows that will exist.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And this project is subject to
permitting by the South Florida Water Management District due to the
presence of wetlands on the site.
Through dry detention and swale conveyance, the project will
actually collect storm water and move it to a dry detention area that is
located here adjacent to the preserve. Within the dry detention, the
water will be pretreated. There is some storage component contained
therein. And let me verify, are we going into the preserve?
Once the water's pretreated in the dry detention area, it then is
going into the preserve area, which is a wetland, and then ultimately
Page 11 7
December 21, 2006
discharging along the south property line, underneath Whippoorwill
Lane via an existing conduit, and then ultimately to 1-75 now, which
lies well to the east.
So what we're doing is gathering the water, pretreating it,
discharging it through an existing wetland, which will help stabilize
the hydration for that area, which has been a problem in the past, and
then ultimately discharging to the east via 1-75 canal.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. Looking also at this
sketch that you have up there now, could you identify each of the four
sides as to what type buffer will it be on those sides.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And that gets into a little bit into
some of the deviation language that we can discuss. All properties
within the activity center are required to have a 20-foot Type D buffer
adjacent to roadways. So along Pine Ridge Road we are proposing a
20-foot Type D buffer.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Excuse me, was that 20-foot
Type D, did you say?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. As we get into over here to
Whippoorwill Lane, based on conversations we had with
transportation staff, the applicant has agreed to grant to the county a
12-foot strip of land allowing for the improvements that Mr. Jarvi
mentioned previously.
And transportation indicated to us that they would support a
reduction in required buffer width along Whippoorwill adjacent to that
donation.
What we are proposing as a deviation in the PUD is a reduction
of the buffer width along Whippoorwill Lane from 20 feet to 10 feet
along the area that that donation is occurring.
It's important to note, sir, that we're not proposing a reduction in the
type of buffer. It will still be a Type D buffer. It will contain the
exact same vegetation within a 10- foot strip that you would otherwise
have within a 20-foot strip. I believe that point was somewhat lost in
Page 118
December 21, 2006
the analysis that staff provided, or at least not mentioned.
The second aspect to that is if you -- and those of you that have
seen this before understand -- if you have a 20-foot buffer, typically,
what you do is you plant your required materials at 10 feet and use the
other ten for water management. Type D buffers 20 feet in width are
planted within a 10- foot area and the other 10 feet is 90 percent of the
time used for conveyance of water management. We do not need a
conveyance swale next to the buffer because of the project design.
So the net result of what we're proposing under this deviation
will look and feel the same as any 20-foot Type D buffer. Just instead
of having a conveyance swale in the back of it, the project will start at
that point.
So there's no material difference visually in what the buffer will
represent. And I think that's critical to reviewing that deviation.
Once we get past the point that the dedication occurs, that will revert
back to the 20-foot Type D buffer for the balance of the buffer all the
way back to the southern terminus.
Across the rear of the property, the requirement is a 10- foot Type
A buffer. And again, we've reviewed this with Hospice of Naples, and
they're comfortable with the proposed plan of development, and have
agreed to come back to them and discuss with them at every
opportunity as development occurs here exactly what's going on and
whether we can accomplish what they need to accomplish.
And then across the western side here, again we're commercial to
commercial, and it's required to be, I believe it's a 10- foot Type A.
Let me verify that on my hard copy so I don't misspeak. Yes, sir,
10-foot Type A buffer.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Ray, would you put on that
insert that I handed you a few minutes ago. And slide down to D
buffer, which is on the bottom of the page.
Now, just so I understand fully what you're talking about, this
width now, instead of being 20 feet will be 10 feet. However, the
Page 119
December 21, 2006
planting as described there will still be three gallons double row, heads
spaced three feet on centers, at least two inches in height at planting
and three feet in one year?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So the plantings themselves that
are doing the screening will be the same as those shown on Buffer D.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, they will.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The only difference being that
the width, instead of being 20 feet as far as land, will be 10 feet.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Could you locate on one of
those other charts would show the plan, the 36-foot sweep entrance,
where that -- isn't that the one that comes in off of Whippoorwill?
MR. HANCOCK: I believe when you say sweep entrance, we're
talking -- the entrance right here is planned to be -- and let me go to
the SDP which shows it a little more clearly for you.
You can see here sweep entrance means than it's a right in only.
There's no exiting movement planned at that location, nor would Mr.
Casalanguida permit one. So that kind of makes that a moot point.
It's a right turn only coming in here. And that really is to, and
provides a significant throat length to the dealership with the service
being located on the far side. So we'd ensure that there would be no
backup onto Whippoorwill.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is there any distinct dimensional
differences between a sweep and a regular entrance on the right?
MR. HANCOCK: Not really, other than the interior turn radius,
which is right here. When we refer to a sweep, it really is talking
about a larger radius there. So that based on turning movements,
rather than having a deceleration lane that turning movement can be
accommodated, at, you know, safely at a higher speed than would a
90-degree turn.
So it's really just an increased interior radius in this location.
Page 120
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Could you give me kind of an
indication of the comparison of the maximum building heights that are
adjoining residential in the A-zoned property next to this project?
MR. HANCOCK: To the south of the property lies the Hospice
of Naples. Its height, and I'm going to estimate it at about 25 feet. It's
primarily a single story structure.
As we move to the Kraft site, that is a -- I want to say a
three-story, a three-story Class A office building. Its permitted height
is 45 feet. Its actual height, I would assume, understanding Kraft
Construction the way I do, would probably be 44 feet, 11 and a half
inches. And who would blame them.
As you get to Pine Ridge Road and across the north, there's a
hotel over there which is, I think, four stories tall. The rest of the
buildings are primarily single story buildings at a 25-foot in height.
And as you go to the east, while immediately adjacent to us we
have a Chevron gas station, which is as one-story height of 20 or 25
feet. In requesting the increase in height, what we are looking at is we
have Kraft over here at 45 feet. We have a hotel across the street at at
least that height. We've got a hotel down on 1-75 at more than that
height right next to the interstate. To require our property to drop
down to 35 as it rises this way and rises this way didn't make a lot of
sense to us.
Not to mention, in order to include the Mobile Internet
Technology company, we needed more room on the upper floors.
The second site is in order to completely encase, if you will, the
service area, we needed a much higher ceiling to allow for mezzanine.
Those things dictated us exceeding 35 feet. And I believe we're about
42 feet per the design, Mr. Freeland? We're close to that. And again,
we have an exhibit we can show you that shows the actual building.
Mr. Kolflat, I don't think what you're going to see is, compared to
the Kraft building and the existing structures, that what we're
proposing is in any way, shape or form out of character with those,
Page 121
^ -. --'"~_'._.".._...,-~-~-",..,-_.-.."."""--,_...,~,-,,,--
December 21,2006
and that's why we felt comfortable requesting the additional height.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now your request here to
reduce that buffer width to 10 feet from 20 feet is primarily to gain
more space for the development?
MR. HANCOCK: To be perfectly candid with you, sir, it's about
the only way my client could justify donating the land to the county.
This land is very expensive.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: In working out the numerical
figures on it, what I come up with it's basically 2.6 percent of land for
that ten-foot wide buffer yielding out of the total project. Is it that
sensitive that you could not tolerate 2.6 percent?
MR. HANCOCK: Let me put it in terms for you of the
landowner. How about three quarters of an acre at $22 a foot? That's
how the land is valued.
And so when we look at it that way, it's not a matter of
percentage, it's a matter of what he paid for the dirt and the loss of use
of that land.
So yes, sir, it is significant in value when you consider commercially
zoned property on Pine Ridge Road selling upwards of $22 a foot and
we're being asked to set aside upwards of three-quarters of an acre.
That's the value determination that's being made.
And the fact that the requested reduction has no material effect
on the visual screening of a Type D buffer, we felt that at a minimum
was a fair consideration.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But that is the sole driving force
for the request, is that you want more land for the development.
MR. HANCOCK: We'd like to give away less land.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right, either way.
MR. HANCOCK: But yes. And quite honestly, it came through
the discussions with transportation staff. Unfortunately, what
transportation staff said they would support by way of reduction,
landscape staff apparently didn't agree with.
Page 122
---._."--"..._-~,..,---~._." ',.- .,',"""--_."-.-,,,...,,
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have one more question on the
traffic impact statement. That's on Page 10, and it's under the left turn
analysis, northbound approach. I'll give you a moment to find it.
MR. HANCOCK: Page 10, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Down there at the bottom of
Page 10, it says the northbound dual lanes, left turn lanes should be at
least 420 feet. And they go on to describe that as 275 feet of storage
plus 145 feet deceleration, but 50 feet taper. And the next page then,
on Page 11 up at the top, under the same subject, they talk about 470
feet, 325 storage length plus 145-foot deceleration with 50-foot taper,
which is a difference in composition for the -- seems to me the same
describes at one point in time.
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. There seems to be a discrepancy there. I
can't offhand tell you what it is. I will note to you that back on Page
10, the second to last paragraph, the one that starts with the underlined
left turn lane analysis, it does talk about if we do need -- if we go to a
dual left turn lane scenario, you really only need 254- foot from a
queue basis.
So that will be a design issue that will be worked out with staff
when we get that far, actually.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What confused me is that the
storage area was 275 in one case and 325 feet in another case, while
all the other factors were the same. Why would the storage be
different in those two scenarios?
MR. JARVI: Quite frankly, without looking a little more, I can't
tell you. But I'll look at this as Tim is answering other questions and
I'll come back.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That same discrepancy exists in
the next left turn analysis westbound approach also.
MR. JARVI: Okay. I'll look at those.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Page 123
~.,.,_._--_.._~...,~-,"-,_.,..
December 21,2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I thought it was Ms. Caron,
but okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Did I --
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all right. It's just quickly.
I'm glad you have this up on the screen. You're telling us now that
this internet company is going to be on the second floor of the main
dealership building?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Because according to our
staff report, there are two buildings, and building number two was
supposed to house the internet company. So let me just get the square
footages. Is it, this main building, going to be 51,343 square feet?
MR. HANCOCK: That's correct, approximately. It thought it
was 53,000, but --
COMMISSIONER CARON: And this administration building or
this office building that you're going to have, that's about 6,000, 5984?
MR. HANCOCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: This major area of white, that's for
future development?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. And I'll be honest with you,
we'd like to believe that that area will be required for the dealership.
And the problem that Mr. Freeland ran into on Airport Road, we don't
want to see that happen again. So he has purchased more land here
than he needs for the short term needs of the dealership. He doesn't
want to be hemmed in in the future.
So the expansion may occur in that area to serve the dealership.
If that's deemed not to be necessary, then the balance of uses in the
PUD would control.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray was next, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please leave that document up.
Where will vehicles that are subject to sale, where would they be
Page 124
December 21,2006
stored?
MR. HANCOCK: The primary area of storage and display __
and really, the site isn't built as much for storage as it is for display __
would be in this area up here between the dealership and Pine Ridge
Road.
As you know, there's a canal between Pine Ridge Road and the
property line, which fortunately when the dealership is constructed,
that canal certainly will be maintained a little bit better by Naples
Nissan than it currently is by Collier County road and bridge, because
it in essence is their front door. What we have built into that area are
large contiguous island areas that will be landscaped heavily with
walkways, a small pavilion here, and a parking area, and of course
subject to the Land Development Code requirements for landscaping.
But that will be the area for vehicle storage and display.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there any -- assuming that
they were very successful, would they ever use the parcel that's __
MR. HANCOCK: That is one of the discussions we're having
right now, which is to -- as soon as we can get the SDP approved, do
we want to come back and amend it and open that up for vehicle
storage. And that assessment is occurring as we speak.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I know from the prior
photo or drawing that you have an entryway in there and you -- and I
wondered if that's what that purpose would be.
Now, also, where you do have that other road that you're granting
some kind of, I presume, an easement, I'm not sure what it is.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have -- I'm trying to figure
out where -- is that radius that you talked about there, that shifted
radius was for the express purpose of allowing trucks to come in that
bring vehicles?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where will the trucks come in?
Page 125
December 21,2006
MR. HANCOCK: The trucks will come in the, if you will, of
three access points, the middle access point here -- thank you for
pointing out. The southern access point here is more of less a
placeholder. If this were to develop for use with the dealership,
obviously this would not be necessary. And there's a long history to
something that was originally planned across the back of all these
properties to go from Whippoorwill all the way over to Livingston.
But unfortunately when Kraft, when the Pine Ridge Center East
and West PUDs came in and their development came forward, there
was no provision made for an easement across the back of that
property .
So that potential connector between Livingston and Whippoorwill
across the back of all these properties disappeared with the approval of
the Kraft project.
But that being said, the truck traffic would turn in -- and this was
one questions the folks on Whippoorwill had, because they were
concerned, actually right now, with the hotel over here, some of the
trucks line up on Dudley. Our truck traffic will come into this access
point and this access point alone.
And if I might go to the next slide. What you can see here is
there are offloading areas along that easement well inside the throat
length of that. The trucks would turn in, pull into these areas off the
right-of-way and offload. Most vehicle deliveries occur outside of the
normal business hours, and so, you know, we've accommodated up to
one 18-wheeler at any time in this location that would then offload
vehicles onto the site.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're saying that even
though the roadway is being offered as a means by which people can
interconnect, you believe that you will not have a situation ever or
often where there will be a barrier to free movement.
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. And the reason also is that most
automotive dealerships, when they receive parts delivers which come
Page 126
December 21, 2006
by semi, do it by way of a night drop. And we've provided within the
site plan you see here a loading area across the service area. So even if
we were to get two deliveries at the same time, we can accommodate
both of those trucks within this site plan without impeding the access
over and through that access easement.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But the delivery of vehicles is
something not usual to the evening, although it can happen. It's
intended to be during the day, is it not?
MR. HANCOCK: Let me ask Mr. Freeland to answer that for
you. I don't know of any dealerships at the moment __
MR. FREELAND: They attempt to schedule as often as
possible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mic, sir, and
please identify yourself.
MR. FREELAND: Ben Freeland, owner of Freeland Shoe. In
regards to the shipment, they attempt to deliver vehicles in the
evenings and weekends, if possible. But we do get some occasionally
during the day.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But the provision that you have
there, I can't determine the linear function of that little side car thing
there when the vehicles supposed to pull in. You said at least one
semi could fit in there.
MR. FREELAND: In this location off the access point, you
could fit one 18-wheel semi here. And along this area of the facility
there's room for another to stop.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That seems reasonable, if the
length of it is adequate for the purposes.
But I'm leading really toward the question, the central question in
my mind, we have A buffers where you'll be adjacent or abutting the
property of Hospice of Naples. And the A buffer is hardly any buffer
at all, very, very mild. And if you do intend to store vehicles there at
some point, that's an ugly thing. And no A buffer is going to shield
Page 127
December 21, 2006
that at all.
And I will tell you that I'm very uncomfortable with the A buffer
to begin with, but especially because of that potential. So I would
really ask you to reconsider the A buffer there relative to that.
Now, perhaps it need not go all the way -- what I'm thinking of: a
more dense buffer, it need not go all the way to the point where the
preserve is. But certainly where it backs on that property it needs in
my mind to be adjusted. I look every day pretty much when I drive by
a place where I agreed with the person representing to put an A buffer
in, and it's horrible. I see it all the time. It's absolutely horrible. It has
never grown, it's too sparse and the plants die.
Which brings me to the question I think that Mr. Kolflat asked as
well. You've made a point, which I didn't realize, that they cluster, so
to speak, or they space, the plants, within a 20, they put it in a ten.
And the question that I had posed to myselfhere in these documents
was are we clustering too close, will plants die as a result of that. So
that was part of it.
But as you can see where I'm going with my view here, I'm
concerned with the A buffer. But I'm specifically very much
concerned with an A buffer associated with any potential storage of
vehicles in that area. And I think that the people in Hospice may not
have had that advantage in thinking about that. And I think if they had
they might have chosen a different response to you.
So I'd like you to and Mr. Freeland to think about that as we
progress. You see, what you made the case before is very strong. You
said the value of the property is so great. And there's been no
indication whatsoever as to what will reside on that property. And I
surely think it will not lie fallow.
MR. HANCOCK: There's some history there that I think I could
help shed some light on your concern from the part of Hospice. And
please understand, they have attended our neighborhood information
meeting, had additional discussions with them, and we stand here
Page 128
December 21, 2006
today without any objection from them to what we're proposing.
But let me try to knock those items off with greater clarity one by
one. First of all, Mr. Krall, our chief engineer over design has pointed
out to me that there's a second turnoff area for truck loading. So
where I indicated there were two, there actually are three. This one is
a second one that I'm pointing to right here. There's actually more
room than what we originally had.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's even better. Far
better considering that was intended as a roadway.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And that was the intent also coming
out of the neighborhood information meeting was not to block traffic
moving through there or back up onto Whippoorwill. So that's why
we factored that in. Mr. Freeland has reminded me that there was a
kind of interesting partnership that occurred on the back of this
property. Hospice needed a construction access in order to expand
their facility. And they were granted a 60- foot wide access with the
agreement that they would upon completion replant it to its native
state, if so required. We have not required them to do that.
And I think part and parcel of their consideration here is that that
would be an expensive venture on their part. And so in looking at
what may go back here, while cars may go there, it may also be an
office building, which I think someone would find far less
objectionable.
And if there were to be any type of additional buffer requirement
here, a Type B buffer for example is a vegetative buffer that can reach
SO percent opacity within one year. That may be a reasonable middle
ground.
But the actual conditions back here are somewhat of a creation of
Hospice. And so to place an additional burden on our side to fix
something that was created for their convenience by them may be
difficult to swallow. But your point's taken, Mr. Murray. And if that's
the stipulation then --
Page 129
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not sure that it will be a
stipulation, I'm exploring it with you with the interest that all parties
are served. Because ultimately when the county codes are inserted in
these matters, they are to create continuity, conformity, et cetera. So I
think if you contemplate another building in there, you'll have to put
in a better buffer, I would presume.
But I'm not going to suggest to you -- I'm not going to suggest to
you -- when you're finished. I'm not going to suggest to you that you
must -- I don't want hurdles jumped, that's not where I'm coming from.
And if you had some prior arrangement with Hospice, I would agree.
They're a not- for-profit organization, and I think that might be a
significant burden for them.
But I would urge you, or encourage you and Mr. Freeland too, in
contemplation of the probable use of that property, why not get a jump
on it and put in a B buffer now. And I think that might be helpful in
the long term. That's it.
MR. HANCOCK: I thank you. And I hear you very clearly, Mr.
Murray. And the one, that last item you'd mentioned, the reduction to
a 10-foot buffer up here. I would like to remind everybody that this is
their front door. And so allowing a buffer to fall into disrepair is not
in anyone's best interest, in particular any business located a high
traffic area.
So, you know, that area would be maintained. It is our front door.
And this comer is the most prominent and visible portion of the
project. So hopefully, while the same plantings would occur in the
10-foot area, the maintenance is not an issue.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not going to engage
you in argument, that's not my purpose. But I just recently passed
De V oe Cadillac going down on whatever that road is, Solana, I think
it is, and it's very obvious their buffer is not very high, their vehicles
are very prominent.
Now, ordinarily people become oblivious to things. But it
Page 130
_'_"'-"."---~.-~.._~.__..."..~,.,-","",,-_..,~
December 21, 2006
probably from their point of view it's a great marketing opportunity.
But from the point of view of protecting people and keeping our
community as green as we intend it to be, I think that's something you
to give consideration to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On U.S. 41, just north of
Immokalee Road on the east side, there is a development that's being
constructed now, that I believe is going to be a car lot for -- car
dealership. Are you familiar with that at all?
MR. HANCOCK: I have not worked on that one, no, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: In going by there at the
moment, they have at all statues with lights on it that shine down
along the roadside, close to the roadside, where I'm sure they're going
to display automobiles, and the lights are to light them up in the
evening for visibility from the traffic.
Are you contemplating any kind of extreme lighting on the Pine
Ridge Road of this property?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. As a matter of fact, we're limited to
25-foot on the light fixtures and they have to be shielded to reduce
glare and spillover.
And I think probably the most egregious example of lighting in a
dealership I can think of is the Saturn dealership on Airport Road. As
you drive under those lights at night, it's all you can do to refocus
coming out the other side.
And we -- you know, since that was approved or allowed, our
lighting standards are different today. They would not allow that kind
of glare and spillover to occur.
But the other thing that I think adds to this is there's a larger
degree of separation due to the canal that exists between the front edge
of our property and Pine Ridge Road that will serve to further
ameliorate any spillover concerns onto the roadway.
So the short answer, sir, I don't think that's going to be an issue.
Page 131
December 21, 2006
And I think it is actually improved upon by the existence of the canal
along Pine Ridge Road.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Tim, the drawing you
have up there, which is going into the SDP, is that what you're
requesting, if you get that deviation, or is that showing what you'd
have to do if you didn't get the deviation?
MR. HANCOCK: Actually, this assumes the deviation. As you
can see, there's not 20 feet there, there's really more -- you know, a
couple extra feet outside of that 10- foot buffer that exists.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just wondering why you are
worried about it. And it is only down to about midway on the used car
building, correct?
MR. HANCOCK: Well, right now it is. It's actually all the way
down to the first entrance. But based on what Mr. Jarvi is working on,
if that intersection analysis determines that that dual left turn goes
beyond that point, we are in essence on the hook for that 12 feet
further down.
And what happens as you get further down is in essence if we have to
go to 20 feet it knocks out an entire row of storage here, an entire row
here. That's substantial. So that's the concern on our part.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
I've got a few.
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Jarvi has your answer to your previous
question, Mr. Kolflat.
MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi, for the record. And actually it's very
simple, it's what I thought it was. The first distance you have is in the
background condition, and the second one is under total traffic, which
would be background plus this project. The difference is 50 feet, so
basically this project has 50 feet worth of the responsibility for the
Page 132
December 21, 2006
toll.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So there are two different traffic
conditions that result in those numbers.
MR. JARVI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
MR. JARVI: The first is purely background, no project. The
second is with project.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The report did not state that.
MR. JARVI : It actually says under -- the second ones both say
under total traffic conditions. And then it goes on. The first paragraph
talks about under background conditions. The second paragraph talks
about under total traffic conditions.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you for the clarification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wasn't this project sunsetted?
MR. HANCOCK: That may be because -- I'll be honest with
you, sir, I don't know. We submitted the rezone in May of2005. That
may have had something to do with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do you know?
MR. BELLOWS: I'll have to check.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would someone find out before this
meeting's over, just so we know? Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. Before you had any further
discussion, they're minor in nature, but I just wanted to let you know
of a couple of changes that I had placed in the document. And again,
they're minor in nature. And it's under the transportation stipulations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you refer us to a page and a
section?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, it would be my Page 14. It's
4.6.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the strike-through, that would be
Page 133
December 21, 2006
Page 16.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. And then they talked about
-- and I guess it's really -- I'm sorry, I guess it's really on my Page 15.
Development order, without saying what development order. So we
agreed that it would be site development plan, to take away some of
the vagueness.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, could you cite us to the section
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Paragraph o.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paragraph 0, section 4.6; is that what
you're saying?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Uh-huh. And your language
would just say a development order. So I wanted to know what
development order. And it was agreed to put site development plan in
there. And so any language in there would be consistent with the site
plan, or site development plan. I think it would appear again in Nand
P.
And also, there was a reference also in paragraph 0 just to say
OR book and page. It's more professionally correct to say recording
information. These are very minor, but I wanted to -- and in paragraph
4.7.A, there was a typo. It said dedicated, and it should have been
delegated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4.7.A?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, water management. It said
Swiftmud, dedicated to Collier County by Swiftmud. I think the
correct term is delegated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I just changed some musts to
shalls. And where resolutions numbers were left out, I put the term
number in. But nothing of substance. It's just, you know, to clean up
the document. The things I gave you were the substantive things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now, is anybody going to
Page 134
December 21, 2006
answer my question yet?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows. I have the
copy of the ordinance that approved this PUD. It was approved in
2000. The LDC at that time allowed for five-year time limit for
PUDs. This petition for this PUD amendment was submitted in 2005,
so it was within that five-year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So because they submitted the petition
for this PUD amendment one month before the expiration of the PUD,
the PUD did not expire and it just continued it?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, I think staff allowed for the SDP to be
submitted while an active PUD rezone or amendment was in effect.
Under our policy, we allow for a petitioner to submit an SDP at the
time the PUD's about ready to be scheduled for public hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But according to the sunsetting
provisions, you have to have a certain amount of percentage of
infrastructure and vertical construction completed on-site within
certain time frames. This site is still forested. One month before the
PUD was sunsetted, submission for an SDP was applied that didn't
complete anything on-site.
So now what you're saying is to the rest of the PUDs in this
county, if you want to reextend your PUD and you're that close to the
end, just simply submit an SDP. And the SDP has been in the process
for almost a year.
MR. BELLOWS: That's not exactly what I'm saying. What I'm
saying is they've applied for a PUD amendment which we allowed
them to be part of an SDP submittal concurrent with the rezone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was the PUD amendment and the SDP
submitted at the same time?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't have a record on that.
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, we applied for a PUD
amendment within the five-year window. And I believe Ms. Student
will confirm that the filing of that PUD amendment staves off the
Page 135
December 21, 2006
sunsetting. We subsequently filed an SDP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's the case, why wouldn't
everybody just do that instead of letting their PUDs expire, that's --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's not exactly it. I think there's
a misunderstanding of what sunset means. Sunset does not mean that
the PUD designation goes away. It cannot mean that, because you
have to have other public, advertised public hearings in order to make
that PUD go away.
But what sunset does mean is you're just not going to get any
other development order approvals until the PUD is either extended or
it's amended. So they have not gotten any other approvals.
Now, how staff handles the submission of applications in this
kind of scenario is a policy decision staff makes. But legally the PUD
cannot go away without another public hearing, advertised public
hearing and a rezoned to an appropriate zoning designation.
And I think a lot of people think sunset means it automatically
gets de-zoned, not rezoned. And that is not legally correct. Or it's not
according to our code. So I hope that kind of straightens that out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it doesn't. Basically what I
understand is if you have a PUD and you would normally have
sunsetted, I understand what the word sunsetting means, I understand
that in our code we have certain requirements in order to avoid
sunsetting. But in this particular case, if you want to avoid sunsetting
up until the very last day before the expiration of your PUD, you
simply submit an amendment to the original PUD and you go and you
start the process for as long as it takes.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's not the way I said. That's a
policy -- that's how staff, I guess, handles it. Legally what happens,
the PUD still remains, but you cannot get any development order
approvals unless it gets sunsetted. It's my understanding that there
have been no development order approvals of this PUD, but just
pending development -- applications for development order approvals.
Page 136
. -"'~"'._,~" -.. :-
December 21, 2006
So nothing has been approved.
And that is my understanding how staff from a policy standpoint
handles pending site plans. I can tell you how I think it ought to work
MR. BELLOWS: For the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let her finish.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Excuse me. They have a pending
site plan. This PUD's amended, they make them amend the site plan
to be consistent with this new PUD. So no foul, no harm.
MR. BELLOWS: I just wanted to put on the record that we
would not have accepted a site development plan with the PUDs about
ready to sunset. They wouldn't have been able to get it through in
time. They would have been held up in the SDP not being able to be
processed.
The purpose of the sunsetting procedures is to either they file for the
extension of they amend the PUD. They are amending the PUD, so
we allowed them at some point during the review of the PUD
amendment to submit an SDP as per our policy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just trying to get to the point
that if someone has a PUD and it's supposed to sunset in five years, in
lieu of having to do any work on-site, both site work or vertical, they
simply at four years, 11 months and 29 days, submit an amendment
request for the PUD and it doesn't sunset, it stays the sunsetting and
they continue their PUD indefinitely until this thing gets reamended;
is that correct?
MR. BELLOWS: Basically, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's different than what
I've understood the code to be that we've seen many times. And I'm
glad to know that now.
MR. BELLOWS: If someone -- the purpose of the sunset
procedures is to make them either file for an amendment or file for an
extension. In this case instead of filing for an extension, they filed for
Page 137
December 21, 2006
the amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted to
understand, Ray. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I ask a question on that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would happen if this
application failed at the commission?
MR. BELLOWS: Then the current zoning is in place and it
would be sunsetted.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may. With regard to one of the
items we dealt with this morning, that's pretty much what happened.
The commission sent it back because it had reached that point and had
them come in for an amendment. And it may not be exactly the same,
but the net effect is the same, as I recall. I'm talking about the one
that's hammock something or other. Not a significant point I'm
making, but it is that a process as I saw it from the BCC was that they
said hey, no, it's too late, you can't go. Go back and start over again.
But here I see an amendment coming forward and you're saying that
justifies it or rationalizes it being valid.
MR. BELLOWS: Anybody can file for a PUD amendment.
Even if it's sunsetted, they can file for a PUD amendment.
MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner, unlike an lot of those
amendments where are intended simply to stave off the sunsetting,
that's not even close to what we're dealing with here today. This is
being submitted for a specific purpose. I think the SDP that followed
up the PUD amendment shows that we're not just trying to stave
something off here, we're trying to get something accomplished.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Keep in mind, we don't
necessarily receive an SDP process going. Because I myself, and I
didn't bring it up, I had my note, sunsetting issue, question mark. And
so I'm glad that Mark brought it up. All right.
Page 138
December 21, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, this is a fast track project through
the EDC?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know anything about this grant
that MIT obtained from the EDC back in June of'05? Do you know
what it was for?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm trying to understand why they
qualify for fast tracking.
MR. HANCOCK: Oh, by MIT, you mean the Mobile Internet
Technology?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's how they refer to themselves.
It's auto to auto, but it's actually MIT is the primary company.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, Mobile Internet Technology is a
company that exists here in Collier County today. If you'd like, Mr.
Freeland can explain to you the focus of the company and how they
qualified.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know all that. I mean, I know the
focus of the company. I know what they do. They have three
subsidiaries that do various elements of internet trading of cars or
selling of cars.
I'm trying to understand how they qualified for a fast track provision
in Collier County. Who can best tell me that?
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Freeland can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. FREELAND: Again, Ben Freeland, I guess, owner of
Mobile Internet Technologies. We worked with EDC and most of the
grants were be provided due to job creation and targeted industry,
being technology and high wage jobs for the county. But I think that's
pretty much the basis of all the -- and that qualified for the fast track
permitting as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you qualify for high wage?
Page 139
December 21, 2006
MR. FREELAND: Due to the wage earnings of our employees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're 75 percent of median income.
You're not even at median income. So I'm wondering how that is
considered high wage?
MR. FREELAND: I met the EDC and Collier County's requires
requirements as we went through the application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody from Collier County
here, Ray, that can answer questions. I mean, I'm wondering, if it's
high wage, if you don't even reach median income of this community,
how is it considered high wage? Sixty-six one hundred is median
income. You've advertised on your internet that you are creating 120
jobs in Collier County at the median wage of 50,000. That's 16,100
less than our median income wage in Collier County. I'm wondering
how that qualifies as high wage.
MR. FREELAND: State that again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The median income in Collier County is
$66,100. On the internet your company and their press releases
indicate that your average wage created by the 120 jobs you are
supposedly producing in Collier County is $50,000 a year. That's
16,100 less than the median wage in Collier County. So I'm now
trying to figure out how you qualify for high wage.
MR. FREELAND: Well, I believe when we applied, I don't--
my recollection was the median income was not $66,000 in Collier
County .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was just slightly less. I can tell you
what that is. You applied with $65,000. So you're 15 the thousand
below median income. I'm just wondering how that happens. Only
because it's a fast track issue in Collier County, and the fast track
program is concerning in the sense of who gets in and who gets out of
that program. Mr. Klatzkow.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not entirely sure high wage as defined
by ordinances means the same as high wage, one would think high
Page 140
December 21, 2006
wage means. There's all sorts of percentages there. So that depending
upon the area today, they can go down less than median wage would
be.
What I can tell you is that these applications are checked on an annual
basis by staff and verified, so that if they met the parameters then, and
they're still meeting them, it is what it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem of what they pay
people. That isn't my issue. The issue is they qualified somehow for
fast tracking. Everybody in this county wants to qualify for fast
tracking. And if we let people qualify for it without legitimate reasons,
the whole county is going to be then under fast tracking.
And I don't understand how this got into that system. It's a --
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We in the zoning
department had the same concerns. We can't process everything as a
fast track. That's a process -- it's really designed to work in
conjunction with the Economic Development Council. And we have a
coordinator on staff to work with the economic development council
to ensure that or try as much as possible to make sure those projects
that qualify are indeed, you know, the criteria. Unfortunately those
aren't LDC criteria, that's an Economic Development Council criteria.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just would rather see things like fire
departments and EMS centers and Sheriffs stations be able to qualify
for fast track in lieu of car dealerships.
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I do have the information that
was provided to the EDC and their signoff on it. Honestly, it doesn't
shed a lot more light other than the fact that it was submitted in April
of'05. The median income may have been different at that time than
it is today.
But quite honestly, we've been in review for 18 months. So if
this is fast track, God help us all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think your fast track would have
to be held up until can you got your PUD done, Tim. Your fast track
Page 141
December 21, 2006
is referencing your other permits, not necessarily your PUD
amendment. And it isn't this board's fault or the county's fault that you
delayed five years in the planning for that. You want to turn to Page
18 of the strike-through version of your PUD. There's discussion here
concerning improvements to the road system and when you intend to
be issued certificates of occupancy.
The road system that's not mentioned here that I can see is the
connection of Whippoorwill Lane to the Livingston Road connection.
And I'm just wondering why. I mean, that's a vital connection to
make this whole area work. And do you have any objections to tying
your project to that completion?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, we do. The primary objection we
have to that is that this project does not rely on that connection for the
simple reason that if you were to model the traffic coming out of this
project, when that connection's completed, the percentage of traffic
being generated from this site that would actually not go left towards
Pine Ridge and Whippoorwill but go would go right and around to
Livingston would be fairly small. That connection is critical. It's
critical primarily to the residences that have already been approved on
Whippoorwill, that was approved by the County Commission. So I
agree, it's critical. This business primarily will have its comings and
goings via Whippoorwill and Pine Ridge. That's why to that end Mr.
Freeland has agreed to put himself out financially to not just design
but make physical improvements to that intersection to correct an
existing problem, which is people not able to get out of Whippoorwill.
And those improvements far exceed his, if you will, percentage of
responsibility .
And as such has agreed to make those improvements up front to
improve those existing conditions, to grant a 12- foot right-of-way that
has a value in excess of $600,000 in current value, all to help solve
that problem. We don't control when that connection's made to
Whippoorwill. A private entity controls that. And so that is -- those
Page 142
December 21, 2006
are the reasons for why I feel that Mr. Freeland has done not just his
share of what needs to be done to the intersection he impacts, but
beyond his share. And I would request that that be recognized in any
considerations today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, the answers to my question about
the connection, you're waiting to hold up your COs until that point,
your answer is no, right?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, a few weeks ago a
project came through here called KO Whippoorwill, right down the
road. They did not address this connection, and this board voted in a
far vast majority not to -- recommend denial of that project. Between
the time it left this commission and got to the BCC, that project
worked out its problems in phasing with that connection.
I'm not sure -- I understand your argument, but the people on
Whippoorwill have to get out of that road. And you're going to be
contributing to the impacts on that road. Granted, you're going to be
making improvements, but I see no difference between you and your
access to Whippoorwill Road and the others down south of you and
why if they were asked to wait you can't wait.
MR. HANCOCK: Actually, sir, there's a substantial difference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, you just gave me a 15-minute
dissertation on a one-word answer. I understand your position, I really
do. Ifwe could move on to Page 19. You have 4.1.0.A. It says an
appropriate portion of the native vegetation may be retained on-site as
required. I'm just not sure how the word appropriate fits into the
document. You're going to be retaining what's required, not what's
appropriate. So I think that language change needs to be made. It's a
minor change.
MR. HANCOCK: I'm sorry, the suggestion is to change it to the
required amount of native vegetation?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just take off the words an appropriate
Page 143
December 21, 2006
portion of the, and start the sentence with native.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That will do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My next question is of your traffic
engineer, if I could.
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Strain, would this be an okay
time to just switch? You don't have to take a break, we'll just, real
quick. Actually, she's ready. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take a break in about a
few minutes anyway, but that's fine to switch. We'll just remain silent
here for a couple of minutes, okay.
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm done. She's ready.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Terri. And Cherie'
said that once you're here, we can talk a lot faster. We will try to.
Reed?
MR. JARVI: Sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As Nick has commented times in the
past, we're supposed to be looking at these TISs in the worst-case
scenario. The other projects this morning, even though big box retail
had a higher IT trip generation rate, they argue that 820, because of
the diversity in their PUDs, was justified.
Now I'm looking at yours and it's just the opposite. Eight-twenty
is higher than new car sales and general office buildings, and you're
not using that, even though the PUD has a variety of uses, all of which
are more intense than those two uses you decided to use, all of which,
based on this PUD, could be put on that site. Can you explain to me
why you chose what you did?
MR. JARVI: The only explanation I can tell you is that when we
were hired to do this, it was for a car dealership versus an office, and
that's the only reason.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did some body on staff accept this on
your company's -- did you already submit this to the county and
transportation accepted it? And I'm assuming that's Nick, so he's goingp
Page 144
December 21, 2006
to probably be the next person to explain this to us. On page 14 of
your TIS, you're talking about a proportionate share payment. Are
you expecting a proportionate share payment?
MR. JARVI: This is a -- what we're talking about is the
transportation concurrency management area in this, and as part of
that, a proportionate share payment, which has now been changed to --
it's called something different in the new LDC, to -- it's not a
proportionate share as Senate Bill 360. This is part of the
transportation concurrency management area. And as part of that, if
all else fails and you cannot do a link-by-link analysis or pass a
link-by-link analysis, you can do transportation demand management
strategies and pay a proportionate share to continue in concurrency. So
this is all to do with transportation and concurrency management
areas.
At this point in time, we are not anticipating taking advantage of
that because we think that we're going to be okay from a link-by-link
basis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That leads me into my next question on
the following page. You state that according to Collier County staff, a
northwest TCMA is currently operating at 100 percent of the lane
miles at or below capacity. Do you know what that percentage is? Do
you know how close we are?
MR. JARVI: It's actually -- the northwest, I think, is a 100 or in
the high 90s. Yeah, this is the northwest. Is that -- I think it's -- it's in
the 90s, if it's not a 100 percent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the south section of the county, there
was an area in 41 and 951, and if you recall, there was some problems
with development proceeding in that area. And as it got closer to
capacity -- and then what happened is we stopped de minimis impacts
until that issue got resolved because we were so close to the maximum
threshold. How is this any different than that?
MR. JARVI: This proposal, if this was an SDP, which we'd be
Page 145
December 21, 2006
going through concurrency, which is what held that up, this would be
-- this would qualify for concurrency. It takes -- there are -- there is a
reserve capacity presently available on Pine Ridge Road that is higher
than the car dealership would take. So there is reserve capacity
available today. So you wouldn't have the same situation as the
Wal * Mart, and then we -- further on as I said before, with Golden
Gate Parkway interchange coming onboard in a few months, that will
provide and even greater reserve capacity as trips are diverted from
Pine Ridge Road to Golden Gate Parkway so we'll actually get better
in the fairly near term.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think I'll have some questions
of Nick to follow up on yours. Before you leave; Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, not so much that, but I
wanted to -- before we do something else. I just wanted to bring -- not
speaking on behalf ofCoUier County -- I'm sorry, the EDC, Economic
Development Council -- but rather looking at the document. We've
focused on the word median when I think this program, if you'll notice
on their documents they refer to average wage. And I think that's
what they're referencing here, average wage as opposed to a median
baseline. So I don't know if that sheds any more light it or doesn't do
or does do anything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't shed any light on it for me.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know where you were going
with it, I believe, but I do think that this program is based on that and
it's -- and I know a comment was made recently by commissioners
who indicated that they thought that there wasn't enough money in
there, but it was based on average. It is a good increment above. So
that's my only thought. Just to bring that in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of county -- of the
applicant?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick, do you have a few
Page 146
December 21,2006
moments you could spare? Since you've been sitting there so patiently
for so long.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida,
Transportation. Would you like me just to give you a brief overview __
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- or would you like just to ask
questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're always good at brief overviews.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Thank you. Currently there's
five applications on Pine Ridge Road that we've turned down for not
just concurrency but operational impacts. Ben's project being one of
them. We've talked about different improvements down
Whippoorwill, the connection to Livingston. That was done as a
private developer contribution agreement about a month and a half
ago in front of the board, which I brought forward.
They have about a year to do the permits, and we anticipate
maybe about a year to do construction. They said they'll have their
permits in, and about six to eight months completed. So we're looking
at 12 to 18 months before that connection is done. With Ben's project
-- and for disclosure, I've owned a Nissan truck for 10 years, and I've
purchased a Nissan truck from Naples Nissan. Nice guy, and I've
worked with him. And I've got to tell you, when we looked at his
project, I had to tell him in way happy face that I can't let this go
because the intersection is failing, and there are issues.
Consistency-wise, Mr. Jarvi is correct, we anticipate with the
opening of the interchange at the parkway that capacity will come
back on Pine Ridge Road. We have not reduced the trips through the
SCOOT system, even though we've done a preliminary study and
received a 6 percent reduction and delay on that roadway for that
project.
That said, we met with Ben and his attorney and Mr. Hancock,
we put an extreme condition on his application. And I cringed a little
Page 147
December 21, 2006
bit when you talked about the Whippoorwill connection because I
really forced Ben into a spot with this PUD.
In section 0 of the transportation section -- make sure I'm saying
it right. Or N, prior to the issuance of a development order, updated
traffic analysis will be performed by the developer for the intersection
of Whippoorwill Lane and Pine Ridge Road. So before he gets his
site development plan approved, he's got to do an updated analysis.
Mr. Jarvi has submitted a draft. That draft shows quite a bit of
conflicts at that, long-term; and short-term, there are things that we
can do. So we're looking at that.
As we continued on, in 0 of this -- and let's see. In P,
improvements to the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and
Whippoorwill, which shall be completed prior to the first CO being
issued to the subject property. What we've told Ben is, we know that
all the problems at the intersection are not yours, but the fact of the
matter is, it needs to be fixed, and we're not going to do it piecemeal,
one, the turn lane here improvement, one west -- left bound --
westbound left turn lane improved slightly, one eastbound, and have
construction in an intersection in multiple phases. So we need to do it
in fairly big chunks.
So those conditions that we placed on him says he's got to do the
traffic study out of his pocket, and he has to do an overall
improvement of that intersection out of his pocket, and we'll reimburse
him in impact fees for anything that's above and beyond what's his fair
share. But he's got to fix the problem before he gets to go.
As part of that, we looked at the Whippoorwill connection. We
thought it was more than fair to say, if you're going to do these
improvements at this intensity, the westbound lefts, make those
longer, the eastbound lefts on Pine Ridge, make those longer, provide
dual left lanes coming out of Whippoorwill, donate the right-of-way,
and you do all this before you get your first CO, was a pretty severe
restriction we put on this application. The Cayo Whippoorwill
Page 148
"~_"'_O-"""~____>>""""""'~~'M'.,.._".,..__~.,..,,_.~~.,_..._.~..".,'_"
December 21, 2006
application you mentioned earlier is doing absolutely no
improvements. Their fair share may amount to 30-to 40,000 between
the two connections. So they're not being proactive. They're waiting
for someone to go forward.
What we've sent -- done to Naples Nissan, or this application, is said,
you need to fix it, and you don't get a CO until you fix it. Your fix is
way beyond what you're causing but it needs to be done. So I wanted
to put that on the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Nick, many times we've
questioned the use of ITE standards in regards to the intensity of the
project. This PUD has a lot more opportunities than an auto
dealership. They could leave here today, pull that SDP and put in a
grocery store. They could put in a retail store. They could put in the
retail that they previously testified to. We have repeatedly brought
these issues up in the analysis of the traffic impact statements.
We have been told they're supposed to do the statements to the
worst-case scenario. Do you believe that this TIS is done to the
worst-case scenario?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Probably not, sir. But to that effect,
the application -- what Tim mentioned was this that was started in 'OS,
this process as you go forward and what you've asked us to do. I think
Brooks Village was one of the first ones we actually started looking at
worst-case scenario.
We caught that in time as it started to go through the process.
Something like this, if it came in today, we would look at that. We'd
say, what are you proposing, call that scenario B. You submitted a car
dealership. And then give us worst-case scenario, C and A being
existing conditions. Tell us what it looks like.
I can tell you, Commissioners, that even if you went worst case --
and I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, the fixes we've
asked them to do are way beyond the impacts of his worst case. The
left turn lanes coming out of Whippoorwill -- and we spoke to the
Page 149
December 21,2006
deviation Mr. -- Commissioner Kolflat mentioned.
We actually met when Heidi Williams was working here, and
with Mike Sawyer, and there was some comfort level with that
deviation. I don't know where that diverged. But that buffer is
towards a gas station. And Mr. Hancock is correct, that's a significant
amount of land we've asked -- requested as a donation to do that
project. So we felt reducing that buffer by 10 feet and then giving up
12 feet of land was a pretty fair tradeoff with that. So we supported
that reduction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, you had sent to me at my request
a schematic of a -- turning lane movements that was pretty detailed.
And I don't know if you remember -- if you have it with you. It's this
one here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The improvements that are
requested in the PUD, do they match what's on here?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. That's the broader study.
Now, I will tell you that the improvements that are mentioned in the
PUD that we work with now include dual lefts coming out of the
intersection of Whippoorwill heading northbound, maxing out the left
turn lane heading eastbound into Racetrac, maxed -- well, not maxing
-- well, yes, on the eastbound left maxing it out. On the westbound
left, adding sufficient storage to accommodate that traffic. What you
see there, Commissioners, is what I'm going to propose to -- maybe to
this board and the Board of County Commissioners, to stay. That fix
will require some sort ofMSTU.
And I'm holding back, like I said, about five projects right now
until I can figure out how to do that. But I can't do that in the existing
right-of-way.
So what we've proposed now is way beyond what Naples Nissan
is doing. And when I say way, in order of magnitude of SOO percent
beyond what their impacts are in some of these movements.
Page 150
December 21, 2006
So I can tell you, if we do those improvements, we'll be way
ahead of the game in the short-term.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of Nick
while he's up here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I better understand your transportation
issues, Nick. Thank you for helping out with that today. I honestly
don't have a problem with the improvements that they're willing to
make. I think that's a good thing. I'm still concerned about the timing
that they wish to provide versus that connection to Livingston,
because Pine Ridge Road is not a very good road right now. It's no
different than the other proj ects in this county that are on congested
roadways. So thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, did you have a presentation, or
a discussion, or whatever you want?
MR. DeRUNTZ: I just wanted -- Mike DeRuntz, Principal
Planner with Collier County in the Zoning and Land Development
Review Department.
Just for the record you have a copy of the staff report. And in the
staff report we've identified with the proposed changes and
agreements by the developer and transportation, that it's consistent
with the Growth Management Plan, and --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I need to put something on the record
for Transportation.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Okay, go ahead.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I apologize, Commissioners. On the
final document -- and it's the last transportation commitment -- 4.6P,
the last sentence read, should the developer be required to improve the
intersection, projects that contribute to the intersection traffic will be
required by county staff to reimburse the property owner for the
intersection analysis design and construction based on a fair share
Page 151
December 21, 2006
formula determined at the time of development order.
We'd like to strike that out. We don't have a mechanism to
collect money from another developer, another applicant, and pay
back this developer. What we can do is we can collect money from a
developer into the county funds and then reimburse Mr. Freeland
through impact fee credits, so we'd like to strike that out.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question on that, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Nick so what you're
saying is that when you were making them do 500 percent above what
-- the impact they have, the intent is that they'll be repaid for that?
That's different.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. He will pay for his
percentage of the impacts and he'll get impact fee credits for what he's
doing above that, and what we would do is we would collect the other
projects that are coming in to pay for those impacts as well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, in essence, he gets back the
499 percent that he didn't have to do?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, not necessarily.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right but the intent is the same?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The intent would be, he's doing the
project. We're not funding it. We don't have the funds for it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But there are five other projects that
are on hold right now, and we told them they have to pay their fair
share, too, so they would pay into that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's different.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that is different. Thank you for--
I appreciate the clarification. It does shed a different light it.
Michael?
MR. DeRUNTZ: I would also like to state that we've -- staff has
reviewed this and has -- and has, in the findings have -- have
Page 152
December 21, 2006
recommended that it is compatible with the adjoining properties and
we are recommending approval. We did state that we are
recommending that -- a denial of deviation number one, which had to
do with the request for the reduction in the buffer requirements along
Whippoorwill Lane. The -- putting the stormwater in that 20-foot area
can be done. It's not necessarily a given that it's going to be going into
that area, and you know, that area's for green space, and that is what
buffering is about.
And they are going to be replacing a lot of impervious area at
that intersection, and you know, staff is -- is recommending that the
minimum of 20 feet be maintained.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray or --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had notified me earlier she
wanted to speak.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: yeah, Mike?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You have a copy of the
strike-through and underline document, the PUD document?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yeah. Okay. Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: On page 9.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: At the top it talks about the project
development plan.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And there's a list of acreage.
Knowing the transportation issues, why are you recommending a more
intense use of the property going from nine developable acres to
12.58? This is becoming catching, unfortunately. Say that three times
fast. I mean, I'm just sort of at a loss as to why we would have issues
Page 153
December 21, 2006
and yet we would think it appropriate to intensify the use on the
property .
MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, it isn't in an activity center, and
commercial -- and what they are requesting meets what the Growth
Management Plan has identified for that area. And we -- this is where
commercial activities are supposed to be directed, and it's
accomplishing that goal.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Michael?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't want to interrupt you.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no problem. With regard to
deviation number one, which you have recommended disapproval,
given the information that we received -- I'm sure you knew it anyway
-- that 10- foot or 20- foot buffer is really within 10 feet, does that
change your view at all in any way, given that that's a de facto
condition, that it's always in the 10 feet?
MR. DeRUNTZ: It's not always in the stormwater management
there, but as I stated, that there is a lot of impervious areas, there's a lot
of hard scape, you know, with all the cars. And, you know, as I
identified it as rationale in my -- in the staff report, this isn't in an
activity area. And as such, there were certain criteria that was
incorporated into the -- this activity area, and one of those was the --
that we wanted to have -- you know, a sense of, you know,
community, and character and having that sense of open space and
green through this, these activity areas coming into our community.
And as this interchange activity area is, as compo planning and
the Growth Management Plan identified that 20- foot buffering along
those arterial and collector roadways, it wasn't an important factor.
And we were just trying to carry that forward.
Page 154
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm trying to square it out
in my mind with, one, we've identified it, it's an acceptable use.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's an intense use.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And we're asking the folks to
provide valuable land which reduces their capacity to utilize the
balance of their land to some degree.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And does it -- inasmuch as --
and you've said that that's not always -- that the plants are not always
within the 10- foot space --
MR. DeRUNTZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- and you mentioned water.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. It seemed -- I just
wondered, were you aware -- I guess you were aware of the
implications of it, and still you decide that that should be the case and
yet we're willing to have an A buffer adjoin -- adjoining or adjacent,
rather, to other locations, and that threw me.
And you also said that they would not necessarily be putting
water into the area of the preserve, but, in fact, the testimony was what
they would be putting water into. And I just got a nod from Mr.
Hancock.
MR. DeRUNTZ: That was mentioning that in that -- they
testified that in that 20- foot buffer along Whippoorwill, that those
areas are commonly used as water management areas. And I was
stating for the record, that's not necessarily, you know, a given that
that's a water management area. We have used that as that in the past.
And it is up to the Planning Commission if, you know, if they
feel that there is justification based upon the facts that have been
submitted and testified today that this deviation is justified, that -- you
Page 155
December 21, 2006
know, that is your privilege and -- to go forward and -- as a
community project that, you know, this would help things out. So--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I guess, part of what my
question to you was, was based on your statement about so much
impervious surface, which from their point of view, I surmise, they
want to direct water someplace where it can be, you know, cleansed
and so forth. And fine, I understand that we can change the view of
that.
But I thought that the deviation in consideration of what we
learned, would not be -- I gave you an opportunity to qualify it further
if you had learned anything, and you apparently have not.
MR. DeRUNTZ: No.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
MR. DeRUNTZ: And you're right, the water in their system is to
go into the -- into the -- back to the stormwater management area, and
you know, then it's going to go through that preserve area to the rear.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One of my concerns -- and it's
an interesting thought about your claim is that we have so much
impervious surface, and it is, and inasmuch as they intend to store all
of their vehicles in the front as it were. I mean, I wondered whether or
not we challenged them in the first instance about the viability of that
and -- but maybe not. So I don't know. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah. You indicated that
opacity or -- or opacity or blockage of view, for a buffer, is the
primary purpose of a buffer. In other words, with the screening effect,
that's really why we want a buffer. I don't see how the width of20 feet
to 10 feet any way affects that. That's independent of it. Isn't that
correct?
MR. DeRUNTZ: It -- not necessarily. The width of this, you
could space the trees staggered. It does not necessarily have to follow
Page 156
December 21, 2006
that the trees are in line perpendicular through there, it just says that
there's a certain spacing. And as you have this 20-foot area, that
ensures the viability of those and the health of those trees as the -- as
then -- or we would have had lO-foot all along and we'd say these
trees will be fine, but we know that's not the case.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, but run that a little more
to the left, Ray, that slide, where they show the distance between.
Yeah, you're getting there, that's it right there.
See, the spacing between the trees is 30 feet whether it's a
10- foot, 15 or 20- foot. That spacing is 30 feet, according to the
standard. But the blockage of screening is that hedge, two double
hedge row there, and they've agreed to do the double hedges. At
certain prescribed size of the plants, it will form that screen. That's
what gives us the screen. Whether that width is 10 feet, 15 feet, or 20
feet as far as the land that it's on will have no effect on the opacity of
it.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, the trees act in a concert with the bushes,
you know. There's a higher element and then the lower element,
because we're looking at these buildings as what they're
recommending, you know, 45-foot high. It's--
MR. BELLOWS: If I could make a point of clarification, too.
The type D buffer has a variable width or depth as you can see in this
part of the illustration. The wider the right-of-way width, the greater
the buffer, in this case, 20 feet. And you know, what is Collier
County -- one of the primary things that make the county the way it is
is the landscaping.
And we have really been, as a staff, trying to support the
landscaping throughout our right-of-ways. And when you eliminate
the depth of the right-of-way -- or the buffer, it will still have the
hedges and the trees, but the cars then get pushed up closer to the
right-of-way, and that affects the visual impact. And that's the reason
we had a problem with supporting that deviation.
Page 157
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I support the concept,
Ray. That's not the point. But I cannot see how the width of that land
there has any affect on the opacity or what you're trying to do as far as
the screening.
MR. BELLOWS: It's not just opacity. It's when you reduce it,
then the cars are being brought closer up to the roadway. And makes
it also more -- a little more difficult to maintain the vegetation on the
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So you're talking about a
five- foot change in setback or a 10- foot change in setback?
MR. BELLOWS: Partially, yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: As far as the adjoining property.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, one quick thing though.
Their SDP, which he testified that's what it is, shows it about 20 feet
away from that buffer anyway. So he is in excess of what he would
be, his parking lot, if he had a -- he could be up against that buffer.
So, in essence, if that SDP is their SDP, they're doing something well
in excess of putting it up against the edge of the buffer. Enough said,
believe me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We've -- out of two hours, we
spent an hour talking about buffers, and I think we know the situation;
staff wants this, the applicant wants that. I think we all can figure that
out. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just have two questions
for Mr. Hancock. The EAC requested that you use pervious surfaces.
Did your client agree to that?
MR. HANCOCK: No, we didn't. And we've looked into it, and
the cost to benefit just -- to be honest, it's not there. The impervious
concrete or impervious asphalt tends to plug almost immediately the
moment you get debris. So the additional cost doesn't really increase
or decrease your runoff any significant amount. So it was just an
additional cost without any really benefit. We did look into it per the
Page 158
December 21, 2006
EAC's request though and were unable to find anything of merit there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I wanted to ask you to comment on
the increase in acreage and the decrease in water management area --
MR. HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and easement.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. I thank you for the opportunity
on that. The previous PUD master plan contained more internal
roadways than what this master plan does. The primary difference
between the two master plans is that while we show a perpetual use
easement going, you know, across the property in this location, the
previous PUD master plan -- the previous PUD master plan showed an
internal roadway coming across the project about here. It also showed
a T roadway going to the south and this way, so there was more
right-of-way.
While this plan does open up conceivably more acreage for
development, there's no cap on the maximum amount of development
under the existing PUD, so the actual end use here, assuming it is an
automotive dealership -- and Mr. Freeland has spent significant sums
of money through the SDP process. This is not a ruse by any means to
go one way and switch to the other.
The net result actually will be less square footage development
than a typical retail center or an office complex could have under the
existing zoning, and that's the best answer I can give you, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is that why we're losing water
management area as well?
MR. HANCOCK: The previous -- the previous site plan
incorporated a lake instead of dry detention. The lake was sized to
accomplish two things, water management and fill. In this case -- and
quite honestly the land was a lot more expensive when Mr. Freeland
bought it than when the previous owner bought it. The fill balance is
driving the criteria a little less than it was at that time. The value here
is in the land itself.
Page 159
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of
the --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just have one final.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Early on I posed a question with
regard to A buffer, perhaps, being brought up to a B buffer. Had you
and your client had an opportunity to give consideration to it?
MR. HANCOCK: Along the rear, along Hospice there --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
MR. HANCOCK: -- if we can place a type B buffer in that 10
feet, which is reasonable, then we'll be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be my
recommendation on a B buffer.
MR. HANCOCK: And I know nobody wants to hear about
buffers, but type D buffers occur in 10 feet all over the county, so it's
nothing new.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, this one has -- this one has
rights because it was posed earlier.
MR. HANCOCK: Understood, and that's not an incumbrance on
us, so --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was ajoke. That was a
joke.
MR. HANCOCK: The only other clarification I offer is, Mr.
Casalanguida indicated that the improvements to the
Whippoorwill/Pine Ridge intersection would be subject to impact fee
credits. The portion that is not resulting from the traffic of Naples
Nissan of those improvements would be subject to impact fee credits.
The donation of right-of-way is not. And that's several hundred
thousands of dollars of value. So I don't wish that to be dismissed out
of hand that we're going to get impact fee credits for the value of that
land. We are not.
Page 160
December 21, 2006
But Mr. Freeland will have to up front the money for the design
and improvements to that intersection and then receive those impact
fee credits back as development allows.
So that -- unless I'm miss peaking, Mr. Casalanguida, if that's an
adequate clarification. He's indicating that it is. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, do we have any public
speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we will close the
public hearing and entertain a motion. And Mr. Adelstein, did you
want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. I move that AR-7818 be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval subject to staff recommendations.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Commissioner
Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Schiffer.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would hope that we could
revise that to reflect the removal of deviation number one for, I
believe that the case has been made that the implications to the
developer are highly negative and to -- in no particular additional gain
to the county by causing them to move their setback further back, and
so I would hope that that particular deviation would not be included.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if -- I guess we need
to look at staffs --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Staff recommendation was that
deviation number one be included.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To not. Well, hang on a second, Bob. I
want to make sure this is as clear as it can be. Staff recommended
Page 161
December 21, 2006
denial for deviation number one. Are you agreeing with staff or
disagreeing with staff?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm disagreeing with staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're recommending approval for
deviation number one?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would. I'm recommending that
-- you've got me going now. What I am trying to suggest, that if the
motion maker change -- is if the deviation recommendation is that
they be denied the opportunity -- let's see. It's a deviation, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, let's try to make this simple.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you in favor of staffs
recommendation of denying deviation number one or are you against
denying deviation number one, meaning you're in favor of leaving
deviation number one in place? You want to give the applicant
deviation number one or you want to side with staff?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought I said in
the first instance, but thank you. Yes, I'm in favor of the petitioner's
request that the deviation not be accepted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. The petitioner's request
that it not be accepted? The petitioner wants deviation to be accepted.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. You're absolutely
right. It's late, and I apologize profusely for my ignorance. Yes, I'm
trying to say that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you want to -- you want to
amend the motion to include approval of deviations number one and
two.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought I said.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And before -- and let's discuss that point
before we go into amending the motion.
Page 162
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's what I'm going to do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I would urge the petitioner -- the
motion maker to accept the suggestions that Mr. Murray made.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Whoa.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the final conclusion of Mr.
Murray?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As the seconder, I second that
assuming that we were accepting deviation number one for approval
as part of the motion. Is that what the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval as part of the motion? You
mean you're in favor of the applicant's position on deviation number
one?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the motion maker accept
that?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll accept that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're done with deviation
number one.
Are there any other issues for discussion? Because I am -- I
already stated my position earlier. It's the same position I had, that the
majority of this board had when we did Cayo Whippoorwill, that that
section to Livingston Road, that connection is vital not necessarily for
this project, but for the other people that have to get in and out of
Whippoorwill that this project will impact. Therefore, unless that
project agrees to the phasing, which they have indicated they will not,
I cannot support the motion because I find it inconsistent due to traffic
issues involving rezone findings one, six, seven, 11, 12 and 17, and
under findings for the PUD, numbers one, three, four, six and seven,
and all those are due to the issue on the traffic. So that will be my
position.
Any other discussion?
Page 163
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just wanted to say, Mark, the
reason I'm not as concerned about it is this applicant's coming forward
at great expense to do improvements to that intersection that benefits
the whole county. I mean, obviously it was stated that he could get
reimbursed, but I'm sure it will never be what's fair. So I think he's
stepping forward to get his facility built by doing major, major
infrastructure on that comer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Would you please restate the
motion as we're going to vote on it? Because I'm confused now as to
what you presented.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't present it. Mr. Adelstein
indicated he was recommending approval for the motion and then we
had the stipulation that it included approval of deviation number one
over staffs objection to deviation number one. And Mr. Schiffer
seconded that. Deviation number two was already -- as well
approved, recommended for approval. Okay? So the motion is for
approval and deviations one and two for approval. Everybody clear
on that?
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your hand and saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four in favor.
All those against the motion, same --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
Page 164
December 21, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Raises hand.)
Two, three, four against. Tied motion, 4-4. And I understand that
we can go forward with a tie vote?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, we can, but it's not a
recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. I have no need to
change it at this point. Does anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the way it will go. Thank
you all. And we will take a 15-minute break, or actually 16 minutes,
and be back here at three clock. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody please take your seats and
refrain from any further discussion, please.
As if today wasn't enough fun, Mr. Murray has decided to make
it even more fun in that he is now -- was wishing to reconsider his
vote at the last vote. So because this is a panel under different rules,
the county attorney has had to go up to talk with the other county
attorney to see if, in fact, there is a possibility of a reconsideration
during a tie vote. That issue has been debated at other levels of
government only to find out you can't reconsider a tie vote.
We will get a response soon, and in the meantime we will
continue that vote till after the next hearing on the Pine Air Lakes. So
we'll go through Pine Air Lakes, and then after that, we will get into
this reconsideration, if one is even allowed to be warranted.
ITEM #8E - DOA-2005-AR-8543
ITEM #8F - PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550
Item #8E
PETITION: DOA-2005-AR-8543
Page 165
December 21, 2006
MR. STRAIN: Okay. With that, we have petition
DOA-2005-AR-8543, which is the Pine Air Lakes development order,
and petition PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550, which is a companion petition
for Pine Air Lakes planned unit development, PUD.
I've read them both because I -- unless I'm told I can't, I'd like to see us
discuss this concurrently and then take separate votes on each
document as we finish.
So first off, will all those wishing to speak on behalf of this
petition please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of
the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like I'm the only one, and I talked
to Mr. Y ovanovich -- I had two, actually -- Mr. Y ovanovich, and we
discussed -- the traffic and the phasing has been the subject of every
project today, and the second one, as I was leaving this morning, my
wife said, you better let them put a Starbucks in.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: She's a wise woman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I guess that's lobbying if there ever is
one. If you guys don't come up with a Starbucks, I'm in trouble.
Okay. With that, would the applicant want to make their presentation,
please.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner, and now the chairman's wife.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Better be careful.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm kidding. With me today are Jason
Wagner, who's the representative of the property owner; Caron
Bishop; Ted Treesh, who can answer any transportation related
questions; and Russ Weyer, from Fishkind. I'll put on the visualizer --
I'm sure upside down. I'll let Ray help me. The Pine Air Lakes
project, I'm sure everybody's familiar with. I refer to it as the Costco
Page 166
December 21, 2006
shopping center for free advertising for them. It is located on Airport
Road north of Pine Ridge Road. Naples Boulevard is the bypass road
that most people use to avoid the intersection at Pine Ridge and
Airport, and it was constructed for that purpose when the original D RI
and PUD were approved.
The current zoning is a PUD. It contains 707,000 square feet of
retail, and 250,000 square feet of office, for a total development of
957,000 square feet.
We have learned as this center has developed over time, that
there is a greater demand for retail use than there is for office use in
this area, and we're requesting to amend the PUD to convert
approximately 175,000 square feet of the already approved office to
retail and to increase the retail slightly. So we're requesting a million
square feet of retail and 75,000 square feet of office in this PUD and
DRI amendment.
I've put on the visualizer the master plan of the -- not the master plan,
but that's kind of what we envision right now as the users of the
project, and that that is -- you can see, I believe who we have the
existing users of the Costco, the Lowe's, the bank, and Sembler's
project is on the south side of Naples Boulevard.
You have Costco, you've got Best Buy, and then we have a
couple of others that are under construction that we've labeled on
there. We're pretty far along the process with Kohl's, and that is
actually going to be the subject of something I'll discuss in a little bit.
That's the site where the potential interconnect or a future interconnect
for the industrial park to the north will come through the Kohl's site.
And I'll put an exhibit up there that's going to be attached as Exhibit C
to the PUD document in a minute.
We met with the Smart Growth Committee, and the Start Growth
Committee wanted to make sure we did have interconnection between
our project and the project to the north, and if possible, the projects to
the west.
Page 167
December 21, 2006
And I'll get into -- the primary concern that we've heard through
the years is transportation related, and we have several commitments
in the PUD document to address transportation. And I'll take you
through those commitments that are in the PUD document.
We will be paying for two traffic lights on Naples Boulevard.
One of the traffic lights will be at the movie theater and Lowe's
entrance, and that will actually be where the future interconnect will
come out -- and I'll show you that in a moment -- and there will be
another interconnect to this area right here. That obviously -- that
light probably will not come in for a while because it won't warrant a
light there at this point, but the light for the Lowe's and movie theater,
we would envision, would be installed fairly quickly.
We will be adding a third left turn lane on Naples Boulevard
heading north onto Airport Road. We have committed to doing that
within one year of the PUD amendment approval. We will contribute
$50,000 to the SCOOT system within one year of the PUD
amendment approval.
We will construct a bus shelter within one year of PUD
amendment approval. We will contribute $40,000 for four permanent
traffic count stations within one year of PUD approval.
We will install landscaping up to the sum of $400,000 in the Naples
Boulevard right-of-way within one year of PUD approval.
And finally, we will -- we will work with our neighbors to the
north, and that's the Dodge dealership, to construct an interconnection
across the Dodge dealership property, across what was shown to you
on the previous exhibit as the Kohl's parcel that will essentially __
which will essentially take you through the industrial park across the
Naples Dodge property onto our property here, across what you __
there's already a road behind all the other -- Costco and the Best Buy
and the Lowe's. It will connect to that road and then come down the
boundary line between the Lowe's and the Kohl's site into this
intersection right here on Naples Boulevard, and that's where the
Page 168
December 21, 2006
traffic light will be. So that would be the interconnect.
Now, this exhibit -- and I've written it clearly on the exhibit. It's
conceptual right now. We're going to work with your transportation
department to do a better -- get the final design of what that
interconnection will look like. But -- I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Richard, I didn't mean to interrupt
you but I didn't want to see anybody having to wait today for another
two hours if they didn't have to.
Margie, your resolution to the reconsideration; did it go or not
go?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. We have the answer. It can't
be reconsidered because the language said, the motion must be made
by one who votes with the prevailing side and there's no prevailing
side.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's the same as the BCC language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I thank you for your patience in
waiting.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: He actually represents the Dodge
dealership. So if you have any questions regarding that
interconnection actually happening, he's here to assure everybody that
that interconnection will, in fact, occur.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So he's the dealership guy, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, apparently he's got that
market cornered up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you were going to say car
salesman type, but --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, yeah. I -- probably still viewed a
little bit higher than attorneys, so I don't want to say anything.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And you're right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So that's the interconnect. We wanted to
Page 169
December 21, 2006
-- that's the Exhibit C that is supposed to be attached to the PUD
document. We wanted to make it clear that it's conceptual, that the
final design would be subject to SDP approval with your
transportation department, and more importantly, we wanted to make
it clear that we don't have to come back and amend the PUD if there's
a change to what the actual interconnection looks like.
So that's how we envision addressing the transportation related
impacts of the project. We also addressed affordable housing. We
actually looked retroactively for a portion of the project. So we are
making a contribution of $206,424 for affordable housing, and that's
based upon the retail that is yet to be permitted plus the additional
retail that we're requesting as part of this PUD amendment.
So that's where that figure comes from at SO cents per square
foot, and you'll see in the PUD document that we'll pay that at 50
cents a square foot as we come in with each building permit.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Did you say retroactive?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Partially retroactive to a part of the
project. For those -- for those portions of the project that are in
permitting right now or are already constructed, we will not be paying
the fee, but for the portion of the project in the 707,000 that's already
approved that's not yet permitted, yes, we are paying that 50 cents a
square foot. So when I say partially retroactive, that's what I meant by
that. The RPC has reviewed our development order and has
recommended approval. Staff has reviewed both the PUD and the
amendment to the development order, and they're recommending
approval. And at this time we are asking that the Planning
Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners
approval.
That's my presentation on the matter. We spent a lot of time with
your transportation staff to hopefully adequately address the
Page 170
.,., '-__""__~_-''''''''_' --, ... - - _"...-....h'.""""__~.~,.__..,
December 21, 2006
transportation related impacts for the project. And with that, we'll
open ourselves up to any questions you might have regarding either
the PUD or the development order.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, one thing, it appears
what's happening here is we're backing out all of the office space from
this project.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. Not all of it. About 75,000
square feet will stay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then there's another clause
in there that you can take even out more and you have a ratio --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right now we have approximately
30,000 square feet of office either already constructed or in the
permitting, so there will be 40,000 square feet of office for sure. So
that -- approximately 35,000, Mr. Schiffer, square feet could come out
of that with that conversion factor.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So is that a good idea;
do you think? I mean maybe market for you. But in terms of mixed
use, isn't it better for us to have a place to go and do multiple things?
Because it's losing its mixed use.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually we think -- if you look at
this project, by -- the uses that are already there, we envision that you
probably don't need to leave this development for virtually any unmet
needs regarding -- so you'll be able to -- almost one-stop shopping
within the development.
Now, in your -- in your packet, you have, I believe, the master
plan that shows you how each of the developments themselves are
interconnected. So there's basically two frontage road systems within
this project as well.
And those frontage roads are on either side of Naples Boulevard,
so you won't have to -- you'll be able to go on the south side of Naples
Boulevard. You'll be able to go internally amongst all of the projects
Page 171
December 21, 2006
without having to go on Naples Boulevard, and on the north you'll be
able to do the same.
Now, obviously when you want to get on the south side, you're
going to have to cross Naples Boulevard, but we're setting this up so
there's interconnectivity within the various projects.
And I wanted to point out -- because I heard this in an earlier
presentation -- each of these individual sites meet their own parking
requirements, so there's no -- there's no sharing of parking for -- off
site to meet the parking requirements. So each one is analyzed stand
alone for the parking requirements.
So I hope -- from the mixed use standpoint, we think it stays but
we just don't, frankly, think there's a lot of market for a lot of office
uses out there right now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you -- you said that you're
going to put a traffic light in front of the Hollywood theater. I came
here, my wife wanted a traffic light in front of Costco, by the way.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- are we supposed to
disclose those wishes, Mark? I guess.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine went even further. Everything he
just said about the interconnection, I heard the same thing this
.
mornIng.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, right. So maybe we
should have sent the wives in on this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, so--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is hard enough.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern is that --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I won't even tell you what my wife said.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern is that these
interconnection roads aren't quite yet built. In other words, the Costco
light is a problem. But would there be a way that the developer could
Page 1 72
December 21, 2006
put the road in down to that southern area where -- which is the future
development? There is like a road system that's developing like you
described --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- to the north and to the south
of Naples, but that road system isn't complete yet, and I think that may
be the short-term concern over the traffic.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I believe part of it's being built
right now. There's some -- I'll call it strip retail for lack of a better
word -- that's going in right now, and I believe part of the frontage
road is being built as part of that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In that Kohl's area?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where am I? Right here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I know that you -- I
don't know if you still have to now, but recently you had to come back
out to go from Costco to Lowe's, for example, unless you know the
shortcut through the back.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You do, but if we built this -- and are we
building that as part of -- we're building that right now. So you won't
have to. You'll be able to go from Lowe's to over to, I'll call it Costco
Road.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there will be a light there
soon? That will be the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There will be a light here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And so somebody
concerned could go to that light if --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. When the -- yes, instead of
trying to make a left out here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which I'm sure is the concern.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now my wife will let me in the
house. Looking at the land use summary, it shows that the open space
Page 1 73
December 21, 2006
is roughly 22 percent. Aren't we supposed to, with PUDs, be 30
percent for a commercial PUD?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe this PUD we're not asking to
make any changes and those are the development standards that were
in place originally. I'm not -- Mr. Schiffer, I don't know if it's 15
percent or 30 percent, but that's the development standards that have
been in place for -- at least since 1994.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but we are changing
those today, aren't we?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you don't have to. We're not asking
to change the percentage of open space.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think because this is a partially
built out project -- and I don't know if all of it's been platted or not --
you might run into difficulty trying to apply a different standard now
because of, you know, where the project is. They might not have room
for it, in other words.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't know --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me -- Mr. Schiffer, and we'll --
maybe the text of the PUD on my page 3, section 1.11, it does say that
the minimum open space will be 30 percent or 44.7 acres.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we'll have to meet that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So these calculations,
which don't meet it, have to be --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Will have to be adjusted.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I'm done. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll try not to be confused or
confuse anybody else anymore.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We beg of you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at page 9 and 10,
and my questions are going to really pertain to the issue that was
Page 174
December 21, 2006
raised in the staff report about the RPC's concern for transportation
and housing. And I -- the first thing I noted was on the demographic
information on part three, you use 2.78. And I think a fairly standard
number I've been seeing now again and again, especially in the AUIR,
is 2.4, and so I don't know what the impact of that would be.
But I go further now, when I go over to page 10, and the first --
let's see -- one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine items, nine
retail salaries, which represent 553 or 88.1 percent are the average
wage -- is really below the average wage.
And then if we go further on, we talk about a 10-mile or 20-mile
radius, whatever it is, and we find out there's a huge number of spaces,
both homes and apartments available. And I have to be honest with
you, I don't know what I can -- or that I should even go after it, but it
seems to be illogical. It seems to be -- and I know that's Mr. Weyer's
area, so -- and I don't mean to attack anybody, but I looked at it, and I
said, I don't -- we don't have a crisis if this is true.
MR. WEYER: Well, Mr. Murray, for the record, Russ Weyer
from Fishkind & Associates. These numbers were calculated using the
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council's Methodology. That
is the methodology that is recognized by the state DCA, currently not
recognized by the local regional planning Council.
But in order -- when we had -- we had calculated those numbers,
the East Central Florida Methodology calculates, the demand -- the
demand based on the number of jobs generated on the site, and they
have a formula that you can go through that. We calculate the number
of employees by income using the Standard Industrial Classification
code, or the SIC code, and then from there they determine the head of
households. Well, let me step back for a second. On that income, we
use the SIC codes, and they have related incomes to those codes.
Okay. That's where those codes have come from.
They are disproportionate to our median income. You're used to
hearing that median income, but the median income has a number of
Page 175
December 21, 2006
other pieces that go into it and that's why it is a little bit higher. We
are a very affluent community.
The -- from that point, we determine the heads of household by
the East Coast -- or East Central Florida Methodology, and then we
determine the single worker versus multi-worker households, and then
we add additional income factor to the multi-worker households, and
that's where we come up with those numbers. That's on the demand
side. That's where we get our salaries.
On the supply side, if you actually delve down into the numbers a
little bit, it shows there that we do have a shortage of the single-family
homes, but a larger number of rental homes available, and they
combine those two to take a look at it. And the single-family homes,
we use -- they really ask us to use public -- public sector data, which is
where we use the property appraiser data for that. We use the most
recent 12 months of data, which we review to remove unusual
transactions. You know, we want to make sure that they're arms
length and also the ones that are very low and extremely high when
we reduced it further to the market area itself.
And owner-occupied sales to -- we -- to extract the market
potentials so we take a look at those sales over the last 12 months to
say those are proportional, the amount of houses -- this is the way the
East Central Florida Methodology does it. That would be available --
or not necessarily available at this point, but they could be available at
that point.
And then what really bumps it up is the rental side. And the way
they calculate the rental side, they use the 2000 Census to get the
vacant rental units to understand the ratio of vacant rental units to the
overall housing population.
So in this case the ratio in this county is 1.72 percent of all the
households are vacant rental based on the 2000 Census. Now, we
don't have the 2005 update yet. That may change. Then we remove--
we took that, and we reduced it down to the 88,000 households that
Page 176
December 21, 2006
are in this 10-mile or 20-minute range. There's 88,000. You do the
1.75 percent, you come with roughly 2,300 units available. Then we
reduced that by another 33 percent because of the rental -- or the
condos that were being -- or the apartments that were being converted
to condominiums, so we reduced that down by a third, which has been
the ratio of the condominium conversion of apartments, which came
up with the 1,600 units.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I appreciate all the
gymnastics that you have to go through in order to achieve what you
want. But where I have a problem is, for instance, using the page 10
of your document. The median -- you have the low, 8,500, and you
have the median at 11,325. 153 retail jobs are falling in that category.
And if those people are being paid those wages, they don't even come
near to being able to occupy any of those places that we purport to
have available for them.
And I was just trying to square this whole thing in my mind.
Look, I recognize that this is a composition and you're doing an
exercise mathematically and I understand that you're maybe even
relegated to be -- to having to use data bases that are not applicable
here, although I would hope that somehow you could modify them,
and I thought your computer calculations would be able to do that.
My concern is, like the RPC, it doesn't seem to square, and I
don't have your technical skill or your abilities with your computer,
and so forth, to go in digging. But just reading over and highlighting
the various items that I see, I'm having a hard time appreciating it, and
there are others here who are smarter than I and who can undoubtedly
work it out.
But I've listened to what you've said and I know you, and I trust
you, but I -- I really don't understand these figures as being
appropriate, I really don't.
MR. WEYER: I understand that. And Mr. Murray, there are a
couple of things to understand with this. First of all, the study was
Page 1 77
December 21, 2006
done over a year ago, so we have another year's worth of data which
really should be applied to this.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wouldn't disagree.
MR. WEYER: And the second thing to truly get down into the
heart of that, you would need to do a survey of actually existing
employees that are there, and I also would do a survey of the existing
apartments that are out there. Those two pieces of data. We are
talking about data. We would need to have that data.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, see, this is what worries
me -- and I'm not going to take much more time on this because I'm
sure there are other people with better questions than this -- but, quite
frankly, we purport to have a crisis for affordable housing, and we
speak about wages and we talk about, you know, how we can put
people in homes, but the way these figures run, we're not going to be
able to do that.
Within 10 miles, 20 minutes, I don't believe that there are
sufficient numbers of units available for people in the income
categories that are demonstrated here, and I can say that absent any
technical knowledge because, in spite of the fact that I read it here, it
doesn't square for me. So I apologize if -- I don't mean to take issue
with you personally, but --
MR. WEYER: Nope, I understand. You're not taking issue
personally, I understand that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
MR. WEYER: It's the methodology.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Can you tell me how
many square feet needs for one parking space of retail?
MR. WEYER: That's an engineering question.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I want to know what's for
retail and also for office. I'm trying to get a comparison of the two. I
think -- I think the one is 300 and the other is 200 square foot. One
Page 1 78
December 21, 2006
parking space --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, what's the parking requirement per --
you want to know the parking requirement?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Well, it -- I'm being whispered in
the ear. It will depend on the use, but it averages between one space
per 200 square feet to one space per 300 square feet --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Which is the--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- for retail.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Which is the most restrictive as
far as parking, the retail or the office?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The retail.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, again, that could -- probably will --
I would -- I think historically medical office is the most intensive
parking requirements. And I think that's one per 350. So, I mean, it
could depend on the use. Again--
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Am I wrong, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Are you saying -- you're saying
that when we convert --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: One per three?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: When we convert --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, one of you at a time, so--
let's not walk over everyone.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's Tor's turn.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will depend, again, on the use, and
we'll do that as each site plan comes through. The LDC has very
specific parking standards, and if we bring that use in, it will be
calculated on that use.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, what I'm trying to
ascertain is if you convert from office space to retail space, what is the
Page 1 79
December 21, 2006
impact on the parking requirements that go with that transfer?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a conversion ratio in the
document; 420 square feet of office will work to 100 square feet of
retail.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's from a transportation -- is your
-- is your question transportation related or is your question just
space?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Parking requirements per the
LDC.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well-- and I don't want to -- it really -- it
won't matter because when I bring a site development plan in and I
say I want to do X square feet of office, my site's got to be big enough
to handle the parking requirement for whatever that office is. So
there's really not a ratio of one-to-one, two-to-one. It will, again,
depend upon the use, so we're going to be bound by the size of our site
and what amount of square footage we can put on there for any use.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I'm trying to ascertain
what happens when you make that conversion from office to retail as
far as parking requirements.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It could go down; it could go up. It will
depend on what the use is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me just say what I
know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It might help. The retail would
be one per 200 office, one per 300. There is medical office, which is
1-to-250. But the point Rich is making is that the parking lot and the
building will be designed to match whatever it is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I mean, the issue of parking
related to structure is taken care of in the SDP stage. It doesn't -- it
has no impact really on what we're doing.
Page 180
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they have the ability to
build over parking garages here, so parking's -- they'll be able to
provide parking.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Do you have any idea what
Coastland Mall, their area is retail space wise?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I really don't know.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I don't either. I was just curious
whether --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm trying to make a
comparison, because I go up there a lot and that parking is always a
problem to me, and I was afraid with more retail, it might aggravate
the problem, as opposed to office space.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll -- again, we'll have to meet the
county's requirements and we're not sharing -- like I said, we're not
sharing parking from parcel to parcel. I mean, each individual parcel
is meeting their parking requirement.
So Costco is not using Best Buy's parking. They're each stand-alone
for calculating the required space. They could share the spaces, but
for calculating the required number of spaces, we're meeting them
individually.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of Richard?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It can't be that easy, Rich; sorry.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You notice I didn't really quickly run
away.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know. In your development
commits you have some recreation improvements required, and to
date you've provided a fountain and a courtyard constructed along
Airport Road Lake. I'm trying figure out what up there do you think
meets a recreation improvement along Airport Road Lake. I know the
Page 181
December 21,2006
lake. I know there's a sidewalk out by Airport Road with a couple
benches on it. Is that the recreation area?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, could you tell me which page
you're reading from?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Your monitoring report, item 2E.
I just need to know if you're planning to do any more improvements to
meet your commitment for recreation improvements, that's all.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, if staff believes we've not met the
requirements, we'll have to do additional improvements. If staff
agrees that we've met the requirements, I think we're going to stop
there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't know if this was a
continuation or just the only reference there was in there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just looking real quickly on that.
Well, I'll have someone look at the PUD monitoring report while you
have -- if you have other questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. In the Fishkind report, they talk
about 628 jobs being created by the retail that is yet to be built in the
office that is yet to be built. That's an estimate. Russ, it's on your
pages.
MR. WEYER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many homes would be needed to
house 628 people?
MR. WEYER: Again, the calculation in there is in the report as
well, and I'll get into it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I'm suggesting is that
they're talking about 78 homes originally. I think you guys wrote a
letter --
MR. WEYER: Originally the demand -- Mark, that was off the
original-- just the new square footage that they were requesting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So--
MR. WEYER: That's the difference.
Page 182
December 21, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it wasn't the unbuilt square
footage?
MR. WEYER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was just the new square footage?
MR. WEYER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WEYER: That's the difference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also, I notice you have a letter that
went to Cormac dated May 12, 2006, and that the letter was signed by
Cormac agreeing to a $78,000, basically, payment based on that per
unit calculation.
MR. WEYER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: His letter was overturned by RPC,
which is a good move. But in order for Cormac to sign this as a
commitment by the -- that you had to meet and as a future sign-off
against impact fees, do you recall if you had to make a presentation
before the Board of County Commissioners to get this approved?
MR. WEYER: We did not have to make a presentation to that.
Although if you notice in what he did sign, it says, that's based -- that's
subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just was surprised that a staff
member could sign off on a value that had such a large discrepancy
between what was submitted by an applicant and the RPC, especially
one in charge of the housing division of the county. It was interesting.
Mr. Y ovanovich, how many square feet do you think you have on
site? Because I have a letter from PMS of Naples dated February
24, 2005, that provides the amount constructed, the amount under
permit, and the amount in -- permitted but not yet built. And it totals
667,000 square feet. And I believe in our discussions you believe you
had more than that, so I'd rather figure out how you got to your
number.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me -- we have a spreadsheet.
Page 183
December 21, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to -- we'll compare that
number . You're saying --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Who gave you that number, CDES; is
that what you said?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, PMS of Naples, Inc.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, PMS. I thought you said EMS. I'm
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, PMS. We'll get to EMS issues in a
minute. It's dated February 24, 2005. So it's a little bit old, but I just
need to make sure -- and I know that we're going to be getting into the
phasing of the project--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and it's going to be conditional on the
amount of you -- what you have in the ground.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll let you know. It may be -- that
data, I'm sure, is a little bit old, but we'll get you the current number
on our books.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your transportation issues--
and I'm going to just take these randomly because that's how they are
presented in our package, so we'll just have to hit and miss. They talk
about improvements that you're intending to make, but I do not see an
improvement to the stacking lane on Airport Road northbound going
into Naples Boulevard. And maybe Nick needs to address the length
that's needed to accommodate that stacking lane, because right now it
over stacks into Airport Road and causes congestion moving north.
Are you -- well, I'll let Nick address that, but I wanted to make
you aware that's an issue that we didn't discuss and that needs to be
looked at. Nick's moving his way -- Nick? He's right behind you. I
might as well ask him the question while he's up here. Nick, could
you address that stacking lane on Airport Road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, Commissioner, I could. I've
Page 184
December 21, 2006
spoken -- for the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation.
Field observation, and even in the report, it talks about the delays
being long. And yes, we've talked to the applicant about lengthening
that turn lane and storage and actually maxing it out until it's back to
back with the opposing left -- southbound left turn lane. So I think
that will be done. I think you could probably put the same
requirement that you have done throughout the PUD, within one year,
that they'll do that improvement as well, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Jason, don't cringe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, also in the -- while you're up here.
In the transportation section of the document, they ask if the board --
they state that the Board of County Commissioners would be required
by the APF to establish an ASI around the road segments if there are
any that are needed. Do you know of any ASls established by the
board, or have there been any, areas of significant influence?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: In the past I believe there has, sir, but
nothing around this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing around the project? Okay. The
deficiencies -- or I shouldn't say the deficiencies -- Nick?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, still Nick?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. The impacts of the project,
one of the comments was, for purposes of this development order, the
DR! shall be deemed to have a substantial impact upon a deficient
road segment if its traffic impacts exceed 5 percent of the level of
service D, peak hour, peak season capacity of the roadway.
Well, every segment in that area is at level of service E. So
wouldn't that mean they're already beyond the level -- the 5 percent of
the level of service D?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, I believe it would, if that's the
case.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that came from the RPC.
Page 185
December 21,2006
How are we -- are we not addressing that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, some other things I could
probably bring up as far as the project's concerned. When they did the
analysis on the project -- and this may not directly answer your
question, but I should put it on the record as well, too.
The 2006 AUIR that's coming forward shows a decrease in traffic on
Airport Road due to the fact that Livingston's open. I want to put that
the record.
I don't know why they're doing different than we would do in a
normal concurrency analysis, why they're going 5 percent, which is a
higher threshold, as opposed to 3 percent that we do. But we did our
normal analysis that's required by our requirements when I looked at
the project, 3, 3, 5, level of service exceeding failure on any of the
segments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when RPC recommends
something and it involves transportation, does your department then
just not read it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. I've spoken to Dan Trescott
about this project, and he did defer to us. And he said if we were
comfortable with the traffic impacts -- we went through the mitigation
list of what they were going to do, and he felt comfortable with what
we had done. And I think -- I believe they recommended approval
based on our approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have the recommendations, and
their recommendations include what I read to you, which is why I'm
wondering why they're using 5 percent ofD, which we're looking at 3
percent of E, aren't we, or --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Three percent of the adopted level of
service standard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is E.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Which is E.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you were to look at a D to E,
Page 186
December 21, 2006
you've got to be a higher percentage just to drop that level of service
down, so they would already be problematic by what the RPC seems
to be saying. I'm just trying to understand it. I don't know why they
would have said that.
Did you have something?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We did coordinate with them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to ask Nick,
improvements to Naples Boulevard going down to Pine Ridge -- it's
not part of their property, but are we able to make intersection
improvements there at Naples Boulevard and Pine Ridge?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can -- we can look at that when
SDPs come in. I think I made a -- I briefly looked at that. I think the
critical movements were at the Airport and Pine Ridge -- Airport and
Naples Boulevard intersection. I don't think we -- I think we were
right-of-way constrained at the southern intersection, and they hold --
own the property at that location.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. I guarantee you there's a
major problem coming down Naples Boulevard heading toward Pine
Ridge taking that right-hand turn. You need another lane there or a
lengthened lane because it is always stacked. It's a real -- I mean, it's a
real issue. It's a real problem.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I will make a note to look at that when
they submit their SDP for the Kohl's.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your PUD document, Richard, and on
-- Nick, I think that's -- oh, no. I've got some more transportation, but
allow me to go in order, if I could --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because there's just too much in this
folder. Richard, there's a reference to a floodplain hurricane
evacuation. And it says, the proposed retail commercial and office
development contains a large amount of common area, that it could be
Page 187
December 21, 2006
used as refuge in the event of a hurricane. This would constitute a use
of regional benefit. And it's actually an amendment to your
development order. How have you addressed that issue?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe -- doesn't it say that that
requirement's going away because it's a retail use and they're really --
there no longer are --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess I didn't see that. That's probably
why I'm asking that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe that my recollection is that that's
being deleted from the development order because at one time there
was a hotel use, and maybe that is what they were discussing, but it's
all retail now so there's really no -- there's no area being set aside for
hurricane related issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me read it again. The proposed
retail commercial and office development contains a large amount of
common area that could be used as a refuge in the event of a
hurricane. It looks like they've understood --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can you tell me what page you're reading
from, please?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5 of your -- I have so much
paperwork on these two issues -- of your section 1 amendments to the
development order. It's an inch and a half back into the stack of
documents we received.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they crossed out the following:
According to an email from Dan Trescott dated 3/24/06, this is no
longer appropriate. They actually crossed that out as though they
were trying to put this back in, so now I'm trying to understand what it
is you're supposed to be --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If I may, it wouldn't be appropriate
Page 188
December 21, 2006
to refer to a letter from the Regional Planning Council really, I don't
think, in a development order, and that was never in the original
development order to begin with. I think it has strike-through
language there because at one time it was in the proposed amendment,
and then they took it out of the proposed amendment, and that's the
confusion. But there was never any reference in the document as it
presently exists to a letter from Mr. Trescott, nor should it be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Margie, I'm reading from the
amendment to the development order.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I know, because one of the
iterations I saw, that language was in there, and Ms. Deselem and I -- I
questioned, why would you put language like that in a development
order?
So I think it shows as a strike-through as changes from one
proposed iteration to another proposed iteration, but that was never in
the development order as it now exists, is what I'm trying to explain,
that it's a strike-through, because it's a change from one iteration to the
next.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The purpose I was trying to
make is another explanation, that in response to Mr. Y ovanovich's
concern that this was something that was taken out of the development
order, I'm trying to show him that apparently someone thought that it
should be in the development order by the mere fact they included
some language and struck others referring to his email. I'm not saying
the emaillanguage should be in there.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm saying that's evidence that this is in
there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, that's a typo. When -- the note
from Mr. Trescott is not -- that was just a note. The section is
supposed to come out about the emergency management. Okay?
That should have been a strike-through as being deleted, not just
Page 189
December 21, 2006
simply deleting the note. I understand what you're saying.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That paragraph itselfwas supposed to --
paragraph 4, I think you're reading from, correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I am.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is supposed to be deleted. That is
supposed to be struck through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The fact that it is a typo, I mean,
if it is a typo, one concern I would have then is that, depending on
how this goes forward from here today, that before it gets to the BCC,
someone gets together with Dan Summers --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll verify it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and gets this squared away.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that is an important issue if it
does apply, and I hate to see it drop through the cracks.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will-- we will confirm that that's not
necessary for this particular project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You requested a deviation; staff
recommended denial. Do you have any discussion on that? And let's
hope it's not -- let's not get into buffers. We could be here till
midnight.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think what I -- I hope I'm not speaking
for Mr. Casalanguida, but I think what we've agreed to is to
incorporate into our PUD document the recently adopted LDC
amendment that essentially says that if we do the interconnection and
we lose parking spaces because of that interconnection, we don't have
to replace them. That's what I was requesting the deviation for. And
that's what the LDC has recently been amended to say.
My concern is, is the evolution of the LDC, that at some point
that provision could come out of the LDC, which would mean I have
-- if I built office space or retail space and the interconnection occurs
Page 190
December 21, 2006
on the west side of the property in the future, then we lose 10 spaces --
let's just say we lose 10 spaces because of that interconnection. The
person who built the building then has two choices. Try find another
place on the project -- property to find those 10 spaces if they can do
that. If they can't do that, then they've got to kick some tenants out
and use some less space -- and have less retail space for a building
they've already constructed.
So what we're trying to do is make sure that if the interconnection
occurs and it's on an already improved site, we would not -- and we
lose some parking spaces, we would not be punished for allowing that
interconnection to occur.
That's all I was asking for in the deviation. Mr. Casalanguida tells
me that's what his LDC amendment says. I would just like to have
that in the PUD that's further assurance in the future that if there's a
change in the LDC, we don't somehow get hurt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did see the language as well in the
PUD summarized somewhat.
Ray, if it is in the PUD but staffs recommending denial of this
deviation, what does that mean? I mean, staff left it in the PUD and --
MR. BELLOWS: It would come out if the Planning Commission
and board chose not to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I -- if that is the change to the
LDC that, in fact, is going through, it would seem unfair to have
someone first abide by the LDC, and then if the LDC changes, have
them have to suffer as a result of that. It seems that it would be a
nonconforming use by right or something like that once they have
conformed.
So I'm not too concerned about it at that point. Does staff have
an alarming issue over that, or is it -- are they losing any sleep over it?
MR. BELLOWS: I'd like--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't want to be a nonconforming use,
because, you know, nonconforming uses can go away by inactivity. I
Page 191
December 21, 2006
don't want to fit into that category. I want to be a permitted use, and
that's what I want to make sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you that. I'm just trying to
understand the severity of the issue if it -- under any -- by staffs
comments.
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal
Planner.
We have a concern based on the unknowns of it. If, in fact, the LDC is
adopted to make the change, he can make benefit of it just like
anybody else.
Right now the areas that we're talking about, that interconnection,
there is no existing use. There's a proposed project going to come in,
Kohl's; it is not submitted for an SDP, so we don't know what the
needs would be.
But if at some time in the future they need that particular LDC
exception, then they could take advantage of it. But to provide a
deviation request, I think, at this point is premature. And what we put
in staff version of the PUD document just basically says that they can
use whatever is adopted in the LDC to address that situation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's something that's going to be
adopted in the LDC or is close to being adopted, then it isn't a
deviation, is it?
MS. DESELEM: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. I think then that basically
summarizes it. Thank you. Richard, I think that's all I have.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You wanted me to get back to you on
some numbers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I did. I didn't know when would
be -- I don't know if you want us to hear from the rest, but Ms. Caron's
got a comment, and then whenever you're ready for the numbers is
okay with me.
Ms. Caron?
Page 192
December 21, 2006
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The total number built and in permitting
at this point --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- on the retail side, 616,641 square feet,
on the office side, 29,489 square feet, for a total of 647,906 square
feet. What's left is retail of 90,359 square feet and office of 220,511
square feet, for a total left under the existing of 309,094 square feet.
And if I can -- on the hurricane issue, Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: When this project originally went
through, it was envisioned that it would be a second mall in Collier
County so that it would, in fact, have been a large common area like in
Coastland, but now it has not developed that way, so that requirement
is no longer applicable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just, please --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll confirm that with Mr. Summers,
but I just wanted to let you know the history of where that came from
and why it's changed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a question, then I'd like
to get back to your numbers.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm looking at a letter or a memo
from the Landon Companies and an attached -- and an attachment.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And if you look -- Ray, if you can
scoot that back a little bit. Okay. To the east is a lake there currently.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Do you see the lake over here?
Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, there. Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, Ray.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought you were pointing to the lake
behind Costco.
Page 193
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, to the east.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I gotcha. I just saw the --
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's Airport.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I saw -- the arrow was pointing in
another area. I'm with you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So the lake.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Gotcha.
COMMISSIONER CARON: On this it says that it could be
future outparcels there; that lake could go away. Is that lake intended
to go away?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have no plans right now for that lake
to go away. And if it were at some point --
COMMISSIONER CARON: So you won't mind that being
stipulated that the lake will remain?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe were to -- as we did, where the
Sembler project is, if we were to fill in that lake, we would have to
accommodate water management somewhere else on the project.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I don't want to say -- I don't want to --
maybe a portion of the lake will be -- at some point, but we'd have to
make up for that lost water volume somewhere else on the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you filled the lake in, would you
exceed the square footage you're asking for today?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We're not asking to increase the
square footage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you have to abide by buffers
along the frontage of the roadway?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I'm just --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Wouldn't intend.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This plan could have shown that lake
interior and Lowe's on Airport Road if you wanted to.
Page 194
December 21,2006
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. It was conceptual when it was
done that way, that if --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to understand--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what that would have an impact on,
what kind of impact.
Back to the numbers. You have 647,906 square feet either built
or in process; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: In permitting, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What are you anticipating your
needs for the first phase? Because I'm heading in the same direction
that I, as a board member, have headed in the entire day, that the
second phase of this project needs to be tied to completion of
improvements, not dates.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that in mind, where were you
planning to go in your reasoning for that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what we would like to -- well, you
know, obviously we would like it all, but I recognize that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can try that if you'd like.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- there's going to be phasing. Last time I
tried to get it all, I busted my face. So I don't want to do that again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't bring that up, but I was
wondering what happened to you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I lost a fight with a rake.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was Nick.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Although it might happen some day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'd look worse.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where we would -- where we would like
to be from the retail standpoint, I believe, is at the same impact we
have today, the 707- plus the 250-, and then anything left over,
anything above that, would basically be in the second phase. That
Page 195
December 21,2006
would equate to roughly 775,000 square feet of retail and 30,000
square feet of office, would be in the first phase.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, because you said 707- plus the
250-. That's a million something. You're only asking for a million 75.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no. What I'm saying is -- so we're
saying 775- of retail and 30,000 square feet of office, so that would
leave --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means you want 800,000 square
feet permittable in the first phase.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, which is -- yeah, which was less
than the 957- that's in the PUD today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in turn for that, Nick gets all the
toys and bells and whistles.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd like to talk to you about one of the
bells and whistles that I was distracted on when the -- apparently Nick
obligated us to do some improvements at Airport Road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the stacking lane for the left
turn?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The stacking lane. We would like --
we'll do it, okay, but we would like to have that, instead of it having to
be done the first year, have that be done the second year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second year?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The second year from -- within two years
of approval of the PUD amendment. The others, the time frames that
you said, we'd have to meet those and they'd have to be in place before
we get the difference in retail and office square footage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're looking at 800,000
maximum under phase one.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would be 805- actually.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight hundred thousand, maximum
phase one, and the balance at the time of completion of all the
roadway improvements including the northbound stacking lane, but
Page 196
December 21, 2006
that has to be done within two years of the approval of the PUD?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes; yes, sir. And now that could affect
my ability to get that Starbucks in there, you know, that 80S-.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're pushing for a denial.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That 80S- --
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's already there; don't worry
about it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is it opened?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't seen that. Boy, I accomplished
-- I can go home and have a dinner tonight. Whoa.
Okay. I don't have any other questions of you, Richard. Does
anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess the next person is staff.
Michael-- or Kay, whoever's -- Kay's lucky for this one, huh?
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon, again. For the record, Kay
Deselem. I'm a Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and
Land Development Review. You have a multitude of documents to
review. You have a staff report for the PUD amendment, you have a
staff report for the DR! development order amendment, and you have
several versions of the PUD document. You have two strike-through
versions, one being the one proposed by the applicant, one being the
one proposed by staff. And you have two clean versions, same way,
one by the applicant and one by staff.
As already kind of alluded to, the only difference basically in the
two documents is the deviation number one. Staff is not
recommending approval of deviation number one, instead asking that
the petitioner be required to rely upon the language that I understand
has gone before the board twice now, and adoption hearings are
scheduled. Both times it went to the board, it was recommended for
approval. So Nick can address that more because that is his,
quote-unquote, amendment.
Page 197
December 21, 2006
And with the DR!, you have a draft development order
amendment. To my knowledge, there are no bones of contention. We
are in agreement on that.
So I don't have anything other than that. Everything's on the
record. You have staffs recommendation of approval with the
exception of deviation one. We are recommending that it be found
consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay, I did notice I had four
copies of the PUD, and I started reading them and I'm thinking -- I
was trying to compare the pages to figure out -- it was very time
.
consumIng.
Do -- could we look at a possibly better way to present that in the
future? And if it is only because of a change in deviation language,
maybe bold that and say, this is where you and the applicant, in a
footnote or something, differ, because that -- a lot of trees killed and a
lot of reading spent trying to figure that out.
MS. DESELEM: I'd be more than happy to entertain something
different, because that's difficult for us as well. We did address it in
the staff report --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. DESELEM: -- but I wanted to err on the side of too much
information rather than not enough. But if you'd rather not see that
much that--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. I--
MS. DESELEM: -- makes me very happy as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like information. It's the redundancy
that becomes problematic.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. I agree.
We can figure out a more efficient way to present a minor change like
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: I wanted to be fair to the applicant by
Page 198
December 21,2006
providing their version as well, not trying to sway you one way or
another without giving you adequate information of their side.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions
from the plan -- Mr. Schiffer, did you have something?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay -- and it's kind of just to
talk about planning a little bit. The concern I have is essentially this
boils down to adding 300,000 square feet -- it's really 297- or 93 -- but
commercial space, retail space, and taking away 150,000 feet of
office.
Is it a good idea for this PUD to be backed down? It started out a third
of the square footage was going to be office. Then it went down the
next time around 24 percent of it's office. Now it's going down to 7
percent.
Is that good planning to totally take that large an area and make it
one use, a use that would be happening, other than the movie theater,
simultaneously?
MS. DESELEM: Staff recognizes that this is an activity center
and it's designed to have, you know, a mix of uses; however, the
Growth Management Plan nor the LDC state what that mix has to be.
And --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it does state intent. And is
it the intent that this is a solely retail -- because when you think of it,
the quadrant to the south is solely retail, the quadrant to the -- on the
other side of the street, the southeast, solely retail. Northeast has some
offices. But the concern I have is, is this why there's such traffic
problems up there is because it is an attraction of solely retail spaces?
MS. DESELEM: As far as the traffic, Nick can respond to that
better than I, perhaps. But we looked at it in light of what's consistent
with the Growth Management Plan, and it's their right within the
confines of the LDC requirements to ask for the change.
And I don't see an overriding planning issue that would preclude
staff from recommending approval of the change. They're recognizing
Page 199
December 21, 2006
that there's been a marketing change as far as what they thought was a
market years ago when this was approve. Maybe not the case
anymore. Now it's more of a retail market rather than office. And
those uses do tend to relocate in different areas. They're not always
complementary. Sometimes they are.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I've been in parts
of the country where it really works out well when they're together. I
mean, just take, for example, this one has a large parking lot for the
movie theater that is probably vacant except when the movies start to
crank up in late afternoon.
So in other words, I'm not sure -- you know, our forefathers
wanted a third of this to be office and we keep backing it down,
backing it down. Now it's just one huge shopping center. And they
have a right to ask for it, but we have a right to maybe better plan. So
MS. DESELEM: Yeah. At this point, I mean, I don't see an
overriding planning issue that would preclude us from our
recommendation of approval. I guess it's down to a point of view as to
whether you think it's appropriate there or not or whether you think
office would be a better use as opposed to retail. They seem to have
met all the tests for traffic, which is normally the consideration of a
retail use. And they are mitigating with their traffic concerns.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sometimes, Brad, destination is
different. I mean, I know if I go to Coastland Mall, I'm not going there
to check into an office, but if I go to an office park near the hospital, I
know I'm -- I mean, that's how I would look at it. I didn't see this as a
concern myself.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there are examples of
planning where you'll have an office tower and you'll have shops at
the base of it, and it essentially keeps people from driving around
town. I mean, it's got more than one reason to be there, and there's a
Page 200
December 21, 2006
synergy that you can creatively design. This place is -- doesn't have
that at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my concern is, did the
people who approved it initially imagine that? But maybe not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can tell you, this is a pretty popular
spot to shop. I've been there almost every other day since
Thanksgiving.
Margie, did you have a comment?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I did, because I just would like
direction for me to work with staff to fix the language a little bit, and
then we -- on the affordable housing part, the last sentence, I was at --
I think I know what it means, but it doesn't say it as clearly as it could.
It says if more than one building permit is involved, then the money
shall be prorated on a 50 cent square footage basis, and a portion
collected at each building permit. That is somewhat ambiguous.
I think what they mean is they're going to pay 50 cents a square
foot for the building they're getting the building permit for and that
they will only pay that amount for the building that the permit is
issued for. I think that's what it means, but I'd just like to ask for
direction or just clear that up a little bit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. I mean, I think that's
something we can add to any kind of stipulation.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Margie.
Are there any other questions of the staff at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, did anybody have
any questions of transportation in regards to having transportation
speak? Go ahead, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, you had mentioned
about the northbound left turn lanes being built within two years, that
Page 201
December 21,2006
was Rich's recommendation. Ifwe have a preference, we would like
that done within the first year and then the eastbound lefts coming out
done within the second year. Main line priority, I guess. If you're
going to get stuck in traffic, I'd rather have you stuck coming out of
Naples Boulevard than approaching that northbound left.
I've asked the applicant if that's okay? And obviously, he feels
that's okay. It restricts one of their tenants because of one of the issues
they're having internally. They've asked for 5,000 more square feet,
so that 805- number in order to do that -- I didn't think it would be a
problem, but I wanted to bring it up to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're fixated on 805- instead of
800- ?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I guess one of the outparcels would be
-- help them offset some of the issues that would go with that turn
lane. So for 5,000 square feet, you know, if the commission finds
that reasonable, we'd like to protect the main line first.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick. As far as the other
stipulations and everything and the other traffic improvements, Nick,
if I'm understanding the conversation I had with you a couple days
ago, it says a net benefit to traffic area, especially if it's phased the
way we're talking about --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, if their connection's made and
the SCOOT system's in -- you know, we've also seen a reduction on
Airport Road now. There is a net benefit to the traffic by doing this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's a big concern. Thank you.
Are there any other questions of staff or any -- or the applicant at this
time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any public speakers,
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you realize we've been through five
Page 202
December 21, 2006
or six pretty heavy projects today and there hasn't been a single public
speaker?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: People have better things to do,
I guess.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I mean, it's just amazing, because
I think --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're at Starbucks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I can see the reaction if this isn't
agreeable with everybody.
Okay. Well, hearing no -- there are no public speakers and
having had all the testimony, we will close the public hearing and
entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR- --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's two motions. We need the
petition -- the DOA petition first and the PUDZ petition second. So
basically, that's the one we've got to go with first.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. DOA-200S-AR-8543,
be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval subject to staff recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Tuff, motion made by
Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I'm going to be voting
against the motion because I see that this is a big intensification in the
need for affordable housing and transportation. And they've offered a
bunch of mitigations, but to me, this is already a problem area for
traffic and housing for the workers that are going to be needing to
come into the area as it is. To me, the mitigation that they're offering
is not adequate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer?
Page 203
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm going to be voting against it,
too. The PUD system is to create more creative development. This is
kind of dumbing down a project, so I'm going to be voting against it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I will also be voting against it. I--
quite frankly, I don't have some of the same issues that Mr. Schiffer
has with them changing the retail versus the commercial, but I have a
big problem increasing the intensity of this project overall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I will be voting in favor of the
motion if it can be stip -- with a few stipulations, because of the
phasing of the project, the overall impact to the traffic in the area will
be positive, not negative. And as far as the uses on the project, I have
-- I don't think that a practical use of office in that location would
benefit. It's more of a destination for shopping, which is what I think
most people do when they go there.
So -- but I would like to have the motion maker to consider the
following stipulations to the development order, and that is, the first
phase will be a maximum of 805,000 square feet of usable space, the
balance will be not allowed to go forward until the improvements for
the road system, all the improvements to the road system are in -- are
completed, and that the applicant -- or the legal staff will review the
documents and clean up any legal language that's needed; that the
stacking lane for the northbound Airport Road left will be increased to
meet the needs of the transportation department; that the eastbound
lanes on Naples Boulevard coming out will be completed within one
year, or within -- within two years, the stacking lane northbound
Airport will be one year. And those are the three things for the
development order. There's more to the PUD, but that's for the
development order.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That is acceptable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I had a question on the -- when you said
Page 204
December 21, 2006
balance was conditioned upon all of the improvements --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- being done, I thought that meant all of
the improvements except for the now -- what's going to be the
northbound turn lane, because that's two years from now. Everything
else will be done within a year, and we thought the balance would be
available then, the interconnect and the others. It was the turn lane
going north that would --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only items that -- of improvements
that have time frames on them right now is the northbound stacking
lane within two years and the eastbound lanes within one year. The
rest of your roadway improvements would be at the time you needed
any square footage above 805,000.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. So let me ask the question this
way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Let's get it right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe come in -- we get the interconnect
and everything else done a year from now but we don't have the
northbound turn lane on Naples Boulevard that's going to let you go
north on Airport, because that's not done for two years, does that mean
we don't get any of the balance of phase two?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what -- Nick said he needs the
eastbound lanes coming out within one year.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, he's talking about the -- no, he was
talking about the -- he was talking about the stacking lanes on Airport
he wants within a year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the stacking lanes on Airport I had
said one year and he said he doesn't need them for two years. Let's get
clarification.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no. The other way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other way around?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it's the other way around.
Page 205
December 21, 2006
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's the other way around.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Airport Road would be a priority. The
improvements on Airport first.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the improvements on Airport
you need within one year --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the stacking lanes eastbound
going onto Airport--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- would be two years.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, the east -- the additional
eastbound left.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the intent.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But not to tie our second phase of square
footage to that eastbound turning north --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure we would.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- turn lane.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure we would. Why wouldn't we?
That's part of the roadway improvements that are needed to make this
project at least commensurate with at least a justifiable public good.
And if that can't be done, then I can tell you right now, you've got a
majority against you. You might get out of this with a tie. It's up to
you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's your motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the motion is as stated. Is
there -- does the motion maker accept that?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff, you do?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments?
Page 206
December 21, 2006
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll call for a vote by a raise of hands
and aye.
All those in favor of the motion as stated with the stipulation,
signify by saying aye and raising your hand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4-4, tie vote on the development order.
No reconsideration. We already went through that.
Is there a motion on the petition for the PUD?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah, I make that motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff, you make a recommendation
for the PUD, for approval or denial?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: For approval.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Commissioner
Tuff, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein.
The discussion? Anybody have any discussion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'd like to discuss -- I
mean, I'm going to be voting against this for the same reason. We're
spending all this time trying to fix the roads, and we're not realizing
that the problem is bad planning in the whole area, so I'll be voting no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll be voting yes because we're
spending all this time to make the roads better and for good planning
in the area.
Page 207
December 21, 2006
And the stipulations that apply to the first one applied to the
second with the addition of the second that we would be using staffs
version of the PUD document, which then denies the deviation
request.
Does the motion maker -- Mr. Tuff, you accept that standard?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Mr. Adelstein, do you
accept that?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The same way, all those in favor of the
motion, signify by raising their hand and saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, it's a tie-tie day.
You've walked out of here with a tie on both of them. Thank you.
Item #9A
OLD BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're moving ahead. Next item
on the agenda is the old -- is 9A. It's old business. Discussion on
proposed schedule for the FY-'07 LDC amendment cycle. We're
Page 208
December 21, 2006
going to get, I guess, a chart handed out to us with dates on it?
MR. SCHMITT: Did we include a copy of this list in your
packet?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. See if we can get a copy made. I
apologize. I thought that was in your book, in the cover of your book.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you circle the ones on there that
apply to us? And I don't care about the packets. I'm more concerned
about the meeting dates.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. What -- what we have here -- and I'm
going to give you a copy of this. This is a -- the proposed LDC
amendment for 2007 cycle, and this will be the amendment cycle.
We're beginning to gather the information now. This will not include
any -- or will not include the majority. It may include some -- but the
majority of the LDC amendments associated with the EAR, evaluation
on appraisal report GMP amendment cycle. Those will be coming
after this cycle.
But your dates -- Planning Commission meeting, Wednesday
July 25th; second meeting, August 8th. So it will be a 5 :05 meeting
followed then -- and then on August 8th at 11 or -- correction, 8:30;
and then meetings three and four, August 22nd and 29th. Those are
the proposed dates. We're looking at four meetings for you. I don't
know if this cycle will take four meetings, but that's what we are
scheduling just in case. The -- my concern -- in this past cycle,
because of the --I'll call it as things began -- Ray, if you can back out
a little bit from that maybe it will be a little bit easier.
Especially in this last cycle, as we went through this last cycle of
LDC amendments and you began to provide your input, some of the
items we sent back to other boards because of the -- how much it had
changed. And meaning specifically going back to the Development
Services Advisory Committee, frankly, as you well know, that's the
industry who have to deal with this, and then some EAC type of
Page 209
December 21, 2006
evaluation -- of the -- Environmental Advisory Council, some of the
amendments impacted them as well, and we sent them back for their
. .
revIew agaIn.
And also, there were other amendments specifically with --
dealing with the canopies and with the fire stations and those issues as
we went through the cycle that changed materially as they went
through and we sent some of them back. I don't know if you have
any thoughts as to how -- if you want to change how we do this. As
you see, we go -- they come up from staff, we review them, they go to
the DSAC, they go to the EAC, and then they come to you, and I think
you would like to see them after they go through those committees.
Is there -- do you have any thoughts on possibly doing that
different this cycle? I'm comfortable the way I have it scheduled here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know for this board, we are
probably the next level prior to the BCC that has the need. We're the
land planning agency for Collier County.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think at the least we need to see it
after the other boards do.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I certainly wouldn't want to
endorse something to the board that is changed by another
subcommittee afterwards.
MR. SCHMITT: And you would not do that. The reason I bring
it up is, if I did something, I would try and get a meeting earlier to you
all to see if you have anything that you wanted to comment on before
we took it to those other -- those other review committees. But
frankly, I'm fine with what I have here, and if there's something that
does change, we may have to bring it back to the DSAC, again, for
their review.
But -- and I only say that because in the five years I've been here,
this cycle was probably the most -- it changed the most as we went
Page 210
December 21, 2006
through the -- through the various public hearings. We had some
amendments that changed significantly from what they started out to
be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I might make -- maybe I
could make a suggestion on that score. The packets go out to these
earlier committees to the EAC and the DSAC back in March. There's
no reason we couldn't also get our copy --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- at that time. That way if there
were any issues that we thought, you know, might -- we might want to
discuss earlier, we certainly could do that. I mean, certainly bring
comments to staff is what I'm saying.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, that -- we could certainly do that, and
that's fine, with the understanding --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I don't know if that's what
you're looking for or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, guys.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Sorry.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I think that's kind of what I'm looking
for is to see if you have any real concerns, because all I'm trying to do
is preclude having to keep on going back -- having something done
here and then go back to the other committees. It just seems like we
did that this cycle, and I didn't do it much in the last several cycles
we've run. But I could certainly get you a copy. If there's something
you think that concerns you, you can certainly contact Catherine.
The -- but the issue is right, as Commissioner Strain pointed out,
you are the final approval authority and the board that actually, as a
local planning agency, actually makes the recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners, that it's consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have to comment that I think that
Page 211
December 21,2006
this board only sent one item back to anyone, and that was on the
storm water and preserves, correct?
MR. SCHMITT: No. There were others that we had --
COMMISSIONER CARON: That you might have taken back to
other groups, but we did not request that they go back to other groups.
MR. SCHMITT: No, you did not.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That was the only one that we
requested.
MR. SCHMITT: No. There were other committees that
requested items to go back to them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We changed stuff at some point--
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that required -- I mean, as a courtesy.
Some of the --
COMMISSIONER CARON: To go back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it changes so much, it would have
been good to go back, I think that's what happened.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe, considering what we said is
that we really don't have a good way of tracking people's comments
through the whole process --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I've even brought it up here in
the board, and I've got the nod to do it, but I think it might not be a
bad idea early, beginning of the year, to get one person from each
board. It doesn't have to be the commissioners, because -- and we can
come up with a way to do it. I can show you and I kind of even
proposed a couple of years -- a way to track the language so that we
can see staffs comments on changes as it comes through, too.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because essentially these all
Page 212
December 21, 2006
start out with staff.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then as they're reviewed,
you know, I may want to see the original staff version and I may not
be happy with DSAC's change and, you know, stuff like that. So I do
think that maybe what you should do is try to get one person from
each of the board -- this board's actually given me the nod to represent
them already -- to come up with a way to format these so that it's not a
confusing thing and we do see the legacy of what happened.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, and talking with Susan about this in this
past cycle, and Catherine, what we will do on the cover sheet and also
in the amendments, attempt to keep the original version and then note
each of the comments, probably in more detail as it goes through the
various committees on what they change.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But pull a quick little meeting
with a couple people. I mean, like I said, I've brought it up here that I
felt that there was a problem, and because I brought it up, I was
nominated to go fix it, so -- but I'd like to fix it.
So, you know, in January, set up a meeting, and I'll be there, and
let's just discuss a procedure to do that.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The total elapsed time is just a
tiny bit over one month. In between that period we also have
meetings of the regular commission.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it creates, I think, a real
problem for trying to do it as clearly as we can with the time available
to us; some work, some get involved in a lot of things.
I think Commissioner Caron's comment is the same that I would
have made; if you're able to give this to the DSAC or the EAC, it
would seem reasonable that we should get the packets, and even as
Page 213
December 21, 2006
there may be changes by the EAC or the DSAC, we still are in a better
position that way than we would be by this compression. I think
history has showed what, what, you have a month, but in truth, what
was this last cycle? Several months at least, right?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The slippage -- with the slippage
from the time you intended to the time we finally resolved? I think it
was several -- it felt like several months; maybe it wasn't.
MR. SCHMITT: Oh, the cycle was almost about nine months
long.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Several months was -- I
played it short. My point being that this is optimistic at best, I think.
So I would opt -- if you're going to have packets, I would opt that we
have packets early.
MR. SCHMITT: If I could ask just for your concurrence on this
schedule, at least the way it's presented, and we'll move forward with
it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see no problem with it. I'm fine. How
about the rest of you? You okay?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll adjust to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Joe. Appreciate it.
MR. SCHMITT: And we'll make sure we get the packets early,
and we're going to discipline our staff -- because what happens during
the cycle as well is people attempt to try and get things in while the
cycle's going. And I've got to put a stop to that. That's what's got to
be stopped. And say, I'm sorry, you'll have to wait till the train leaves
next cycle.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're preaching to the choir.
MR. SCHMITT: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Thank you.
Page 214
December 21, 2006
Item #10
NEW BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any new business? First there is
one item? I'd like to thank all the staff for the kindness they provided
to us today, especially Michael, and his notes to us in regards to
Christmas and merry Christmas to all of staff. And we certainly
appreciate the efforts everybody went to this past year, and together
we got it somewhat accomplished. So thank all of you very much and
merry Christmas and happy holidays.
Michael?
MR. SCHMITT: And I thank your efforts, and we will start off
in the new year kicking -- kicking and running again. Thank you.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Two quick things under new business here I'd
like to bring to your attention. Previously we -- the Planning
Commission had moved to hold one meeting for the Copeland
rezoning, and we are at this stage where we're going to have that --
bring it up before the Planning Commission. And I was hoping that we
could schedule that January the 18th. You have a Planning
Commission meeting already scheduled that day, and -- but if we have
only one meeting -- because this is initiated by the county, it has to
have an evening meeting. So we'd have to have this, you know, come
into session at 5:05.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, I know we spoke about this,
and the 18th is a regular meeting day. Does anybody know the
intensity of our agenda that day so far?
MR. DeRUNTZ: I think there was -- there was four items, plus
the Copeland item.
MR. SCHMITT: And I received word from Dan Summers
regarding the emergency evacuation trying to do it on the 4th. He
cannot do it, so it will be scheduled for the 18th.
Page 215
December 21, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we try to do the
Copeland thing on a night in between, either the 11 th, which is
another Thursday, or the 25th, which is a Thursday.
MR. DeRUNTZ: It would have to be probably the 25th, if you
want to do it on the evening because of advertising limitations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you said that it had to be evening,
so --
MR. DeRUNTZ: Right. But I mean, today -- we have to get in
tomorrow for the 18th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I would -- I would think
because we don't know how long the 18th would be, rather than stack
it up from 8:30 in the morning to potentially, who knows how late at
night, why don't we just do it in a clean day -- clean week when we
have nothing, like, say, the 25th would be the --
MR. DeRUNTZ: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- fourth Thursday.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 25th, I can't make the 25th
because there's a fire code commission meeting in Jacksonville.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's actually down in
Copeland, is it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this will be here.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, it will be here?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that would be the -- would make it
a little easier. How about the rest of you?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll be fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we can get a quorum, so
let's do it the 25th then.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Very good. Thank you very much. The other
thing I wanted to bring to the Planning Commission's attention is that
the county is working on reviewing and updating our Floodplain
Management Plan, and our schedule for our review and to get this
Page 216
December 21, 2006
before the Board of County Commissioners is a May date so we could
get it to the CRS and FEMA by June, so that would mean that there
would be an April hearing with the Planning Commission for the
Floodplain Management Plan.
And we will be getting a draft of that to you as soon as it, you
know, gets into final shape. And I just wanted to inform you that this
will be coming forward before you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you give us as much notice as
possible on that April date?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: We'll try and schedule that as a normal, regular
agenda item. But you as the local planning authority, will be -- are
deemed the agent to review that plan before it goes forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sounds good, thank you.
Any other business that we have? Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: We did not discuss the housing
element because our meeting, we didn't have a court reporter there.
Has that been rescheduled?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. That -- my understanding, that will be
scheduled as part of the regular meeting January 7th.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, January 4th --
MR. SCHMITT: January 4th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at 8:30 in the morning. It's the first
thing on the agenda.
MR. SCHMITT: First item on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to confirm that, that
that was still on. Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We all set?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Merry Christmas.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to adjourn?
Page 217
December 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and to all a good night.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To all a good night. Motion made to
adjourn?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff?
Okay. Meeting is adjourned, thank you.
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:26 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK STRAIN, CHAIRPERSON
Page 218