CCPC Minutes 01/18/2007 R
January 18, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
January 18,2007
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
ALSO PRESENT:
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Joseph Schmitt, Community Development & Environmental 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, JANUARY 18,2007, IN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRA TION 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 VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 7,2006, REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - Not Available At This Time
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: PUDA-2006-AR-10030, Sembler Family Partnership #42, L TD, represented by Bob Mulhere, of
R W 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)
CONTINUED FROM 12/21/06
B. Petition: BD-2006-AR-I0645, Halden Deppert, represented by Turrell and Associates, is requesting a 26-
foot boat dock extension from the allowed 20 feet for a total protrusion of 46 feet into the waterway. The
subject property is located at 159 Windward Cay, Port of the Islands Subdivision, Lot 51, Section 9,
Township 52S, Range 28E, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ashley Blair)
1
C. Petition: CU-2006-AR-10550, Collier County Department of Facilities Management, represented by
Heidi Williams, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., is requesting a conditional use in the Estates zoning
district to allow a Safety Service Facility that will be limited to an Emergency Medical Services for a project
to be known as the EMS Station #73. The subject property, consisting of 2.23 acres, is located at 790
Logan Blvd. North, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Nancy Gundlach)
D. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-7820, Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, represented by Laura Spurgeon,
of Johnson Engineering, is requesting a rezone from the Agricultural - Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO)
zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district consisting of an
affordable housing residential neighborhood of 400 single-family, zero lot line, two-family or duplex
dwelling units in a project to be known as Kaicasa RPUD. The subject property, consisting of 100 acres, is
located along the north side of State Road 29, east of Village Oaks Elementary School, and
approximately 2 miles east of the intersection of State Road 29 and County Road 846. (Coordinator:
Melissa Zone)
E. Petition: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9403, Toll Brothers, Inc., represented by Walter Fluegel, AICP, of Heidt &
Associates; and Richard Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., request a PUD to RPUD
rezone. The approved zoning classification is Recreational Theme Park known as King Richards. The
proposed use of the property is multi-family residential (133 multi-family units) to be known as Princess
Park RPUD. The subject property, consisting of 11.3:!: acres, which is located at 6780 Airport-Pulling
Road North, in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Melissa Zone)
F. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-681O, Livingston Greens, LLC, represented by George L. Varnadoe of Cheffy,
Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP, requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to
the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district by submitting a PUD document and
Master Plan for Hamilton Greens, which will consist of 88 residential units on 29.68 acres. The subject
property is located on the east side of Livingston Road, approximately 3/4 of a mile north of Vanderbilt
Beach Road, in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Carolina Valera) CONTINUED FROM 1/4/07
9. OLD BUSINESS
A. Brad Shiffer concerning the setback defmition.
10. NEW BUSINESS
A. Presentation by Dan Summers Concerning an Evacuation Study
B. Request of CCPC to approve 05 GMP Amendment Cycle to begin on March 5, 2007, omitting the 2/20107
date previously scheduled, to also approve another March date for continuation of same to be held at
CD&ES, and approval of April 2, and April 3, 2007 should the hearings need to continue further. Dates to
choose from for March continuation are as follows: 3/13,3/15,3/22 or 3/29, 2007.
11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
13. ADJOURN
11I8/07CCPC AgendaIRBlhr/mklsp
2
January 18, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. If you'll
please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Good morning and
welcome to the January 18th meeting of the Collier County Planning
Commission.
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY CLERK
We have a rather lengthy agenda today, and we'll start with the
roll call by our secretary.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent.
Ms. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Present.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Item #3
Page 2
January 18, 2007
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
Addenda to the agenda. One of the items on our 10(A),
presentation by Dan Summers concerning an evacuation study. The
presentation will be postponed until the February meeting. But today
during the chairman's report, Mr. Summers will distribute a product
that we need to review for that presentation that will occur in
February. That will be one change to the agenda.
And Mr. Schiffer, your 9(A), old business, that's still to stay?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray, did you have
something you wanted to add?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The agenda is too large for us to
do that today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
Next item is planning commission absences. Now Ray, you
know, we got these nice pieces of paper that told all the meetings of
the planning commission, yet I recall last week an issue involving a
January 25th meeting of the planning commission that was scheduled,
but it wasn't even on that sheet. And that was the Copeland issue that
we were going to hear in the evening.
That issue now has been postponed till, I believe, February 1 st.
But had we not had that conversation that occurred last week in
regards to its postponement, and it not being on this schedule, it would
have been a problem.
So I'd like to point it out just so maybe you could double check
Page 3
January 18,2007
our dates and make sure everything is on there that needs to be on
there.
MR. BELLOWS: I'll definitely do that. And I recommended
some additional changes for the next calendars, that they put the date
last revised so we'll all know that we're working from the latest and
greatest. We'll make sure that that is on there.
I see the ones I worked on that have the specific petition numbers
on there, that it is listed on that one, but it should be one the ones
we're giving out to you guys.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since this is the one that we're
scheduling ourselves to.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Luckily, since -- go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Copeland is rescheduled to
February?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it's scheduled to February 1st. And
that was specifically due to a conflict with the use of this room. The
Board of County Commissioners on the day that we were scheduled to
hear Copeland will be working on the AUIR and more than likely it
will run past the time we'd be allowed to start. So that's the reason for
the change to February 1st.
Ray, according to the schedule then, I see nothing between now
and February 1st for us; is that correct?
MR. BELLOWS: I'll double check here--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, that's why I'm asking.
MR. BELLOWS: I'll be very careful this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ray, when are the new
calendars coming out?
MR. BELLOWS: I will get them out to you right after this
meeting. I'll have them e-mailed or mailed to you.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you.
Page 4
January 18,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you can do it--
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, after I check--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but if you mail them, that will be
39 cents, compared to DHL. DHL, I keep getting these one pieces of
paper by DHL. That seems like a very costly way --
MR. BELLOWS: It would be. I think those things -- we only do
that if it's a land use item and we want to make sure you get it in time.
But something like this, I can e-mail it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our next meeting is February 1st.
MR. BELLOWS: Let's see. Today is the 18th, and I don't see
any others until -- there's a BCC, the rest of the BCC, and that would
be the 1 st.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're speaking for all
departments, right?
MR. BELLOWS: They should be noting their meetings with us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After the last couple of mess-ups in
schedules, I'm going to be very clear.
MR. BELLOWS: I will have Heather and Sharon double check
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as February 1st, is there anybody
on this board today that knows they won't be here for that meeting?
(N 0 response.)
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 7, 2007, REGULAR
MEETING
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, we'll have a quorum for that.
Approval of minutes from December 7th, 2006 regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Page 5
January 18,2007
Adelstein to approve those minutes. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Tuff.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Item #6
BCC REPORT RECAPS
Ray we have a BCC report? Not available at this time, so there
isn't any, I'm assuming?
MR. BELLOWS: At the last board meeting they heard Petition
RZ-06-10150. That's the rezone for the Scenic Woods. Board of
County Commissioners approved that by a vote of 4-1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. I have two items.
Page 6
January 18,2007
First one, Mr. Summers is here. I would certainly appreciate it if,
Dan, you could distribute your document.
MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good
morning. Thank you for the opportunity. Just, I'm not going to take
your time today with a presentation related to the hurricane evacuation
study.
As you know, we did a limited, what we call an abbreviated
hurricane evacuation restudy to sort of bridge the gap on some
evacuation decision timing issues that I needed between the state's last
study, which was done in 2000. And state and FEMA are going to do
a new study starting in 2007 and eight. So I wanted something to
bridge the gap.
I'll make a presentation to you at the next meeting. I think the
scope of work and what's out there is pretty well illustrated in that
report. It was very helpful for us as sort of a bridge to gap between
those two study efforts.
There are some limitations in that, so we'll talk a little bit about
that. But it was really an EOC, emergency operations center
decision-making tool that I needed to maintain some concurrency in
evacuation recommendations to the county board. So I'll brief you
further at a later date.
Thank you for the flexibility in the scheduling, and I'm glad to
get those to you for an advanced read.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Dan.
And just to be sure, Ray, in our next meeting, how booked up is
the next meeting? I'm thinking of trying to give you an estimated time
if that works for you.
MR. BELLOWS: Only one item.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we start the day off
then with this and then second items can follow. That way his
department can answer questions, do the presentation, be done with it
and we'll go on with the rest of the day.
Page 7
January 18,2007
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Second item I wanted to discuss is you all today received a little
packet when you came in, the same one that was e-mailed to all of us
a couple of days ago. That's the mitigation fee ordinance that's being
suggested for the linkage fee for affordable housing. It's quite an eye
opener.
I certainly encourage every member of the planning commission
to read it. The values in here are interesting, to say the least. The
study is attached on how those values were arrived at.
(At which time, Commissioner Midney enters the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we're going to be
reviewing this or not. And I would suggest to staff that if we're not
going to review it, you might want to mention that to the Board of
County Commissioners in case they would like us to review it. It
would be something that would certainly have a planning effort
involved in it, so -- Ray, is that something you could see happen?
MR. BELLOWS: Could you repeat that, please?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The linkage fee ordinance, I don't know
if we're in the loop to review that. I'd like to find out from the Board
of County Commissioners if we are or not.
MR. BELLOWS: Okay. I'll double check.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe let us know at one of our future
meetings.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
With that, that ends the chairman's report and we'll move right
into advertised public hearings.
The first petition is for -- ah, Mr. Midney. You know, we should
have taken bets on the timing of Mr. Midney. We ought to do this
from now on. Next time we'll do it. Thank you, Paul.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: They stole my parking place.
Page 8
January 18, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you had it, the one that says county
man -- oh, yeah.
Item #8A
PETITION: PUDA-2006-AR-I0030
Okay, the first petition that we're going to hear today is
PUDA-2006-AR-I0030, the Sembler Family Partnership Number 42,
Ltd., which is the Hammock Park Commerce Center PUD, on the
corner of 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock. This was a continuation
from December 21 st to today.
All those wishing to address -- or speak today, please rise to be
sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the planning
commission?
I haven't had any meetings on this proj ect from the 21 st to now,
but I think I did -- Bruce, did you and I meet on this and talk about it?
MR. ANDERSON: Before the 21st hearing, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought so. There's been so many
things going on I wasn't sure which one. So that will really help you
in knowing I forgot everything you might have told me.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, that's also true
for myself, I had met with Bruce earlier, but haven't since.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No other disclosures?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, it's all yours.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
With me today is Bob Mulhere and Emilio Robau ofRW A, Inc.,
Reed Jarvi, a principal with Vanasse Daylor, and Joe Filippelli, the
vice president of South Florida Development for the Sembler
Page 9
January 18, 2007
Company.
Just to summarize what we went through before, this is a PUD
amendment that was required by the Board of County Commissioners
as part of the PUD extension and sunset procedures. They ordered the
PUD amendment simply to bring the PUD up to current Land
Development Code standards and references.
You may recall at our last hearing that Ms. Amber Overby of the
Sembler Company related to you the number of public outreach
efforts that the Sembler Company had made with surrounding
neighborhoods.
This property is just over 20 acres. It's located in the commercial
activity center boundaries at Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier
Boulevard. The current zoning allows 200,000 square feet of
commercial uses. This PUD amendment voluntarily reduces that
allowed square footage by 20 percent, from 200,000 to 160,000.
Weare requesting one additional change to the PUD. I believe it
may be reflected in the updated PUD document, and that is to allow
more than the current 50,000 square feet to also be used for office
uses, not just retail. And that's because of the proximity to the new
HMA Hospital.
A companion item that is not technically before you today is a
draft developer contribution agreement. You have an old copy that
was previously provided to you and prepared by the county attorney's
office.
I was in discussions with Mr. Casalanguida up until Monday of
this week on the basic terms of that developer contribution agreement,
and I will share with you the agreement on the main points.
The rest of the DCA is the typical boilerplate that the county
inserts.
Basically the developer contribution agreement would provide
for a phasing of the project's certificates of occupancy, with Phase 1
limited to 45,000 square feet of commercial uses that would be
Page 10
January 18, 2007
allowed upon approval of the PUD amendment with a square footage
reduction. And Phase 2 would be the remaining 115,000 square feet,
and no COs would be allowed for the Phase 2 portion of the project
before January 1, 2009.
The agreement that was reached in principle would require
Sembler to convey right-of-way to the county prior to any certificate
of occupancy for the first building in Phase 1.
Also, during Phase 1 construction the north side two lanes of
Rattlesnake Hammock would have a drainage culvert constructed free
of charge by Sembler. There would be no road impact fee credits.
Under this developer contribution agreement, which would probably
also be mirrored in the PUD, Sembler is providing the county with an
estimated $1,600,000 of right-of-way and drainage improvements.
The other members of the proj ect team are here to answer your
questions, and I'm going to ask Mr. Mulhere to come up and give a
presentation on the PUD master plan and answer any questions that
you might have on changes between the existing PUD ordinance and
the proposed one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhere
with R W A, representing the applicant on this petition.
We did have, I think, a chance to go over the site plan previously.
As you can see from the monitor, the preserve area is located to the
north, sort of central in the project.
The site plan depicts the future right-of-way improvements of
Rattlesnake Hammock extension, and the FP &L easement that runs
through the eastern portion of the project.
I did have an opportunity to speak with Marjorie Student prior--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You're not picking up, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: It's not on? Is that better? Bend over.
I did have an opportunity to speak with Marjorie Student prior to
this meeting, and she had some -- she was -- had some minor
Page 11
January 18, 2007
corrections that I will share with you. I've got those noted here, and
I'll go over them. They're not very substantive. But perhaps I could
entertain your questions first.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any problem with that.
Questions from the commission?
Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at Page 14 of 18 of
the document that's dated -- well, what is it dated? The one that's
dated revision -- CCPC Revision 12/21. Is that the appropriate one
that we're working on?
MR. MULHERE: Is it the -- you're looking at the strike-through,
underline?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, not through the -- not, not
the strike-through.
MR. MULHERE: 12/21, yes, I got it.
And I'm sorry, what page?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 14 of 18.
And then correlate that if you would to the developer agreement.
My question is simple. It's more probably just verification.
Under K, it calls for conveyance of a marketable title free of
liens, encumbrances, exceptions or qualifications. But in the recital on
the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, since there was a newer version
issued, and some of us haven't got that, could you just tell us the
reference you're referring to in the document? Not the page, but like
the section of the -- like 3.5 --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Let me apologize for that
MR. MULHERE: 5.5.K.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Transportation.
Page 12
January 18,2007
MR. MULHERE: 5.5.K.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm trying to do is perhaps
not a big thing, but -- and also in the developer agreement, which is --
looks brand new to us, we didn't have it the last time, under Page 3,
item two, developer shall convey the subject parcel to the county in
fee simple, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances except oil, gas
and mineral reservations.
And I don't know whether that's more a legal question than it is.
But I'm thinking that K and that are not exactly a match. And I don't
know what the implications are of that.
MR. MULHERE: I think that you are correct that K should
contain the same language as is set forth in the developer --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: DCA.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, the DCA. And as you may be aware,
the subsurface mineral rights are not -- they're not subj ect to that, so --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I just wanted to be clear
that they are --
MR. MULHERE: So I'm making a note to make sure that -- use
of that phrase is added to K.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that would be my question
in that regard. I think the rest of it is, I think, pretty clear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Good morning, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question about the
office component. We're adding 50,000 square feet?
MR. MULHERE: No, we had originally had a condition that
restricted the amount of office to 50,000 square feet. And I'm glad
you raised that issue. So if we turn to page -- well, there's a table.
Page -- or Section 3.2. C, there is a footnote that should not be there, it
should be struck through.
Page 13
January 18, 2007
If you agree that we shouldn't have the restriction on office, and
our thought on that is that given the proximity to the hospital, it made
sense not to have the restriction on office square footage.
So the footnote reads up to 50,000 square feet of office may be
converted from the total 160,000 square feet. We would strike
through that footnote and you could have retail or office.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So the 50 is included in the
160.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you could have a total of
210 square feet?
MR. MULHERE: No, 160,000.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bob, I have a few.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't want to disappoint you.
MR. MULHERE: No. You know, it's a new year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I was writing something for
stipulations when the comment may have just been made. Your
reference in the PUD on Section 3.2.C, which is Page 12 of the
strike-out version.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To conversion of office square feet, it's
converted on a one-to-one ratio?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. Which would -- you know, obviously
the more office, the better from a traffic perspective.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I just wanted to make sure.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
Page 14
January 18, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've had other projects come in here
that are looking for different conversions.
On Page 20 of the strike-through, and it would be Section 5.5,
transportation, item L, and it talks about the developer's contribution
of the fair share towards the bridge necessary.
I just want to make sure that that contribution is enough to
complete the bridge for the needs that you're going to use to service
that project. Meaning if your fair share contribution doesn't provide a
completed bridge for you to use your proj ect, don't turn to the county
to ask for the completion of that for your project.
MR. MULHERE: No, I think what typically happens, Mr.
Strain, and I could be corrected, if there's anybody here from
transportation if I'm incorrect --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought I saw Don Scott wander
in. I was disappointed that Nick's not here, since he's communicated
with you mostly on this. And I was hoping that maybe someone could
call someone from transportation and ask them to have representation
here. Ray?
MR. MULHERE: What I was going to say was if we need the
bridge, that is where the first proj ect through we need the bridge, we
build it. I'll defer to Don as to how the fair share after that situation,
somebody else comes in later accessing the bridge, they have to pay a
fair share, how that works.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planner. And I wasn't
sworn In.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want the question?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, in the PUD they have the
following language: Developer shall pay fair share towards the cost of
all the necessary bridge improvements required as a part of
Page 15
January 18, 2007
improvements east ofCR-951 over the Henderson Creek canal onto
Rattlesnake Hammock Road extension.
My concern with that is what if the fair share contribution isn't
enough to pay for the portion of the bridge that they need to access
their project? Will the taxpayers be expecting to pick up the rest of the
tab?
MR. SCOTT: Well, you know, we've dealt with this in some
areas where someone's coming in and we're trying to get something
done. And one of the issues that we've been dealing with is they pay
for the whole thing and then they get paid back when other people
come in later on. That's kind of what we've been hitting on in some
other areas. Because obviously they don't all come in at the same
time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm trying to get at is the language
-- I just want to make sure that we're not putting the taxpayers in a
position where they're going to have to belly up to the table and pay
for something for this private development's benefit at a stage that isn't
scheduled on our road transportation system.
So I'm not too concerned about how it gets changed, but I think
the language change if it's needed needs to be made clear. Do you feel
it's clear enough the way it's written?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, because we've dealt with it anywhere from
10 percent to 100 percent, depending on who's coming in at a certain
time and how we can handle it to get something done. Because if it's
not something that's for us, it's still going to be -- it's going to still be
their responsibility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. That was that issue.
Mr. Mulhere, on the next page, it's 5.9, item G, talks about the
developer conducting additional groundwater testing. I don't know of
any Land Development Code requirement for that. Are you aware of
one?
MR. MULHERE: I am not aware of one that came up as a result
Page 16
January 18, 2007
of the Environmental Advisory Council hearing. We -- I might defer
to Emilio, if you have further questions. But to my knowledge there is
no evidence through these studies that have been done to date. It had
to do with the shooting range, which isn't on this property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I don't understand why
non-experts have the ability to institute this kind of an imposition
when it may not be warranted.
Did you do due diligence on the property?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you do a Phase 1 audit of the
property?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did the Phase 1 audit indicate any
concerns of this nature?
MR. MULHERE: I don't think it did, but --
MR. ROBAU: Just talking to the client, this is part of a larger
piece that they own, and an EIS Phase 1 audit was done on the larger
piece. And on this piece it was then revised pursuant to the EAC
recommendations. And specific for this piece, no, they didn't find
anything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any objections to that
being struck?
MR. MULHERE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back on the next page, which
would be the following page, item H.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In designing the site, the developer shall
where feasible minimize the overall amount of paved impervious
surfaces.
This where feasible, you could tell me one foot is feasible for you
Page 1 7
January 18, 2007
or a million square foot is feasible for you and there's no way to
arbitrate that. Again, it's one of those ambiguous statements that does
nothing but get us in trouble.
Is there -- I mean, I just don't see the value of it. Is there any
reason why anybody knows it should be there?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would recommend we strike H as well.
On the site plan, Bob, which is attached to the back of the
strike-through version.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have two bridges. I know we
discussed one bridge as a fair share component. I didn't see any
discussion of the northern bridge. Do you feel-- I mean, you don't
think you're coming back to the county for any contribution there, I
hope.
MR. MULHERE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Trying to see if I have anymore
-- oh, you are handling the developers agreement?
MR. MULHERE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of Mr.
Mulhere?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none--
MR. MULHERE: I do have those -- you want me to go over
those minor corrections for the record?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: We could dispose of that.
One comment was that there's a few locations in the PUD where
the term current planning manager is used. We will correct that to the
current title for Susan Murray-Istenes.
And there was a -- on -- within section --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait, wait. Before you -- you're going
Page 18
January 18, 2007
to correct it from the planning manager to the proper title?
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the past we've always used county
manager or his designee --
MR. MULHERE: That would be fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- why would you want to change that --
MR. MULHERE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did Ms. Student recommend that
original language change?
MR. MULHERE: No, that was within the original PUD, and we
did not change it from the current planning manager.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because staffs always been
consistent, and we've always talked about it at these meetings, it's
always the county manager or designee.
MR. MULHERE: That makes sense. That makes sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
The other change is on -- I'll go through the strike-through,
underlined version so we're all on the same page, so to speak.
Section 3.4.B. The standard language that should be used for that
should read: Any other use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing uses may be permitted, subject to the LDC as amended.
And we will correct that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
MR. MULHERE: And within transportation --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's also on J, the same one.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, let me just get to that. J. Oh, yes, yeah,
I understand. We'll correct that in each location, yes. Understood.
Under transportation, five point -- Section 5.5. Paragraph A
reads: The developer shall provide a fair share of payment toward the
capital improvements at the intersection of County Road 951 and
Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
Ms. Student pointed out there was no specificity relative to when
Page 19
January 18, 2007
that should occur, and we would add the language, within 90 days of
request by Collier County.
And paragraph C, a minor change. If you look at the very last
phrase starting with shall be provided with the first application for
development order. That should read, with the application for first
development order.
I don't -- it's just a grammatical.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah, it's kind of ambiguous the
other way, because with this -- you know, there's like one application
per development order, so --
MR. MULHERE: And there -- Marjorie also has provided me
with some other minor changes, I don't think we need to go over them.
They deal with capitalization and punctuation.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And format.
MR. MULHERE: And format.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any problems with the
changes that legal has recommended?
(No response.)
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Bob.
Before we go to the staff report, we might as well finish up the
applicant's issues. Margie?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm sorry. Bob, on L -- I had the
same thing about the fair share and the bridge on transportation. Is
that going to be pursuant to the DCA or --
MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's what we had talked about, and I
guess I need to put that on the record.
Yeah, we'll make that consistent with the language in the DCA.
That's Lunder 5.5.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically, the DCA language is going to
be mirrored into the --
MR. MULHERE: Correct. Which we mentioned earlier.
Page 20
January 18, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
I don't know who's in charge of the DCA, but I have some
questions on that. I'm sure others may have as well.
MR. ANDERSON: I am for the applicant. That's a shared
responsibility with county staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce, when you spoke earlier,
you talked about timing. And I believe it's 45,000 square feet in Phase
1 unrestricted, basically, for improvements, completion of
improvements.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I would not say unrestricted. We still
have to meet the county's ordinance requirements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that to me goes without saying.
But your Phase 2, setting it to a time frame in '09, in other
proj ects -- and this is an issue that this board has questioned in the
past, and it's not going to be any different for yours -- we have
requested that the developer tag the completion or the institution of
those other processes when the roadway is completed. And that
means the six-laning of951.
I don't have any faith that it's going to be done by whatever date
you plug in here. It may take longer, it may be shorter. But I would
feel more comfortable if it was closer to that date, the completion of
the six-laning of951, not an arbitrary date picked by your firm.
Do you have any problem with that?
MR. ANDERSON: I understand that you may impose whatever
stipulations you wish, particularly in that regard. That date was not
picked arbitrarily. It was carefully negotiated with the transportation
department. And we would respectfully request that that agreement be
implemented as drafted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to know your
position on it.
In the fourth whereas clause, it says, whereas developer is willing
to convey to the county upon the final approval of developer's Phase 1
Page 21
January 18, 2007
site development plan.
This is the acres that they're talking about.
Would you have any objection to conveying that upon the
approval of the PUD?
MR. ANDERSON: The reason that's in there is because that's
going to be part of the design of Phase 1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what does the boundaries of the
land have to do with the design of Phase I? The land's the land.
Where the design lies is irrelevant. You're going to lie within the
lands that you're talking about, right?
So whether you contribute those when the PUD's approved or
whether -- see, you could hold off and submit your SDP to the last
moment of sunsetting of this project or not at all, or some new
developer can come in and toy around with this project if they wanted
to.
I just want to make sure that if these concessions are granted that
the county gets the land right away and doesn't have to worry about it
in the future, dependent on somebody else's performance.
MR. JARVI: For the record, Reed Jarvi, transportation engineer
with Vanasse Daylor.
I think the answer to this is really that the design of the road and
the two lanes of the bridge will be done with Phase 1 design, and so
the exact right-of-way is not known at this time. It is anticipated to be
approximately what we have talked about. But it could change, you
know, feet here and there. And it probably wouldn't be appropriate to
convey the right-of-way until we actually know what it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm probably going to have to ask our
staff to talk about it in terms of that issue.
Why don't I finish up with my questions of you and the panel's
questions of you, Bruce. And then -- yeah, I certainly have DCA
questions that I know Nick or someone will have to respond to.
In the second to the last whereas, you're talking about a value of
Page 22
January 18, 2007
$750,000 for the Phase 1 construction of the bridge component. And
you're talking about it as a culvert.
In the prior document we talked about the costing of the bridge
and your fair share value. I'm just wondering, does this DCA plug
your fair share value then at $750,000?
MR. ANDERSON: No, it just gives an estimate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because 750, to be honest with
you, for a two-lane bridge is a considerable amount of money. You
could do a very -- you could do a four-lane bridge for $750,000,
especially a flat deck. So for a culvert, that certainly is enough money
to get the job done, I would think, unless the county does it, and then I
think you may have to charge more for it.
MR. ANDERSON: One other item, Mr. Chairman, related to the
conveyance, is that there are some title issues that we need to clear up.
And that gives us sufficient time upon approval of the PUD. That's
hopefully pretty quick.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll ask Nick to verify all that and we'll
be all set.
Page 2 of 8, the whereas on the top: This agreement is structured
to ensure that adequate public facilities are available to serve the
development concurrent with the impacts.
Okay, that strikes pretty close to my question about delaying the
second phase until the road impacts -- until the road's complete. Your
whereas even says you're more or less doing that.
If you were to complete the second phase prior to the six -laning
of 951, that whereas would be, I think, inaccurate. So I kind of
wanted to point that out, because I strongly think you need to get that
phasing tied to the road completion.
On Page 3 of 8, number five: Effective simultaneously with the
conveyance with subj ect parcels as set forth above --
MR. ANDERSON: That's incorrect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Page 23
January 18, 2007
MR. ANDERSON: As I stated, as part of the deal points there
are no road impact fee credits.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 5, number nine, you
have a blank. And I'm really thinking you really want to match what
you're talking about in paragraph two for timing there. Just interested
that it was blank. Is it because you are believing it's negotiable?
Apparently so. Your silence answers my question. I appreciate
it.
MR. ANDERSON : Well, this is the county's draft and it's a
redraft of mine, and I don't specifically recall whose idea that was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know DCAs go to the Board of
County Commissioners for approval. But a DCA has a big impact on
the concurrency in the area, which has a big impact on planning
parameters, which this particular board is particularly interested in.
So at some point we need to know how firm this DCA is as far as
acceptability to both you and the staff.
And if you're telling us that this is staffs draft and not yours, are
you in disagreement with this draft in any areas in particular?
MR. ANDERSON: Those items that I mentioned as the deal
points that are different than what are contained in here, those have
been negotiated with staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And those deal points are going
to be added to this document?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. That draft will be modified to
reflect those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything else beyond those deal
points you're in disagreement with with the staffs draft of this?
MR. ANDERSON: No. The only thing might be is if we have
any trouble clearing up any of the title issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Bruce, in the recitals, just
to be clear on something, I noted that you speak of -- about the middle
Page 24
January 18, 2007
of it -- it says in two phases, approximately 45,000 square feet of retail
space.
Do you think for consistency you want to introduce the office
into that area? Because you're taking, as it were, an option on that?
Retail and/or office.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray, that would be a good
catch.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. That was
it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on the DCA from
the applicant at this point?
(No response.)
MR. ANDERSON: And we would make that change to both
references to retail square footage in there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's a good idea.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bruce.
I think we need to ask Nick some of his issues on transportation,
if that's okay.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida,
planning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope the road system made you late.
(Laughter. )
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, printing out the seven versions of
the business points made me delayed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't hear Bruce talk about the
business at points of this, or did you?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Most of them I've done. I have
e-mails going back and forth with Bruce and I regarding these issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with his
points?
Page 25
January 18,2007
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not -- we're still to the point we're
having timing issues and monetary issues, and when they're going to
pay and convey. I think it's more of what's reasonable.
If I can take a moment and clear up some of the position where
the county is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think your speaker is not picking you
up there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: One of the concerns we have with the
project in front of their development, as well as Davis's funding -- as
you know with the AUIR coming up, we're discussing the funding
issues that come forward, so we'd asked about prepaying the impact
fees.
Understandably, they have a commercial development. Asking
them to prepay 50 percent of the impact fees at zoning or within
zoning helps fund that project. At one time in the discussion it was
100 percent, what can they afford to pay and can we get this proj ect
funded. Right now it's at 50 percent, we're comfortable with that.
Phase 1 at 45,000 square feet is reasonable. They need to get
some development on the ground to be able to fund things like this.
The timing issue: We had discussed 15 months, 21 months. And
I said most likely I would imagine both commissions are going to tie
into the completion of the road project. We made them aware of that.
Regardless of what we put in the DCA.
Convey the right-of-way: We don't need the right-of-way east of
951 for 180 days. So if you want to put a time certain within 180 days
approval of this PUD, that's sufficient for us to do a preliminary
conceptual design and clear up the right-of-way concerns.
No impact fee credits: We both agree on that.
With the bridge improvements in front of the development to tie
into the opposite side of Rattlesnake, you could say it's fair share, but
if they're the only ones there and that intersection needs to modify,
that fair share could be 100 percent. So there's a little bit of a
Page 26
January 18, 2007
clarification that needs to go back and forth on that.
We have a DRI that's coming in behind them, and obviously
that's one of their main access points as well, too.
So the county is not paying for that bridge. It's maybe an
argument of who will pay for it, but it won't be the county.
I think that clears up the questions that I have with hearing
Bruce's comments, and I'll be glad to answer any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When is your time table for the
six-laning of 951?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: To be bid?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, let's say talk about -- yeah, the
whole time table right to completion.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. They're doing -- they're
finishing up their review of 100 percent plans for bid. They'd like to
go to bid in the next three months. And it's a median widening, so we
anticipate it's roughly a 24-month project. And that's from south of
Davis to 41.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the time frames that were suggested
by the applicant couldn't be -- you're going to be under construction
on 951.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll be under construction on 951
through 2009, I would imagine, to be safe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And your -- is that in the
five-year plan and all the monies are there allocated for that road
widening?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is. And I always have the caveat
that when you put it out for bid, if that bid comes in higher than what's
in our budget for it, we could have issues with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of
transportation?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Nick.
Page 27
January 18, 2007
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the staff -- if the applicant is
finished -- Bruce, are you finished? Any other experts or people you
want to bring up?
MR. ANDERSON: No. They're available for any questions that
you may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
We'll ask for the staff report next.
MS. ZONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Melissa Zone,
principal planner with department of zoning and land development.
This project was rezoned on November 20, 2008 (sic) from
agricultural to PUD, Hammock Park Commerce. The rezoning
allowed this, even though it's in an activity center, to be full retail and
office space. The applicant through permitting -- so the applicant now
has bought the property from the original owners.
Through that process the PUD started to expire. They came
before the Board of County Commissioners on June 7th, 2006, and the
Commissioners denied the PUD extension.
They had a lengthy discussion during that hearing and came up
with the 160,000 square foot of commercial retail space as opposed to
the originally-approved 200,000 square feet.
Through the discussion, the board directed the applicant to come
back, amend the PUD to make the changes that were discussed during
that BCC hearing.
Mr. Anderson and Mr. Mulhere explained most of the project,
and they did it correctly.
And if you have questions for staff, I'd be happy to answer or
accommodate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have only one observation, that
Page 28
January 18, 2007
in the proposed ordinance there's a typo, Sempler versus Sembler that
you might take. That's the only thing.
MS. ZONE: Thank you, Commissioner. We will make sure to
verify all of the corrections.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments from staff or
questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing
and entertain a motion.
Mr. Tuff?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: I move we approve passing PUD
2006-AR-I00030.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to pull your mic. closer.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Move we approve. And we have a
few stipulation that hopefully you have written down.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, approval. And I'll read the
stipulations.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: I only have a few here written,
scattered.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I need to hear them.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You'll hear them. Mr. Adelstein made
the second. Motion was made by Mr. Tuff.
I made notes on stipulations during the discussion. I'll read them
all. And if they're satisfactory with everybody and the motion maker
and the second agree, we can add them to the motion.
First thing is that the language in the DCA will be mirrored in the
PUD.
Page 29
January 18,2007
That Phase 1 of 45,000 square feet will be allowed to go forward.
N ow Phase 2 will be allowed to go forward upon the completion of
951.
Strike Section 5.9.G and H of the PUD.
Provide the corrected issues, as noted by the legal department.
The conveyance of the right-of-way east of 951 will occur within
180 days after the PUD is approved.
Anybody have any objections, concerns or additional comments
to those stipulations?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question on the Phase
2. When can it start? Is it C of Os, or is it certificate of occupancy or
is it permits at the completion of the road?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the impacts are going to be
greatest at the time the facility is completed. But I don't think the -- I
don't think they have a way of holding up COso So I think it's going to
have to be tied to building permit issuance.
Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: If the applicant agrees to restrict them, the
timing of the issuance and condition of a certificate of occupancy, that
would be binding, particularly when it's reflected in the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: And that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would be COs, then. Okay?
Bob, did you have something more?
MR. MULHERE: I did have one. I'm not sure, maybe you
mentioned it. The striking through of the one footnote that still
references the restriction on the 50,000 square foot of office, which I
added on the floor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, it says office and retail. I don't
see a problem with that.
Okay, stipulations, everybody comfortable with them?
(No response.)
Page 30
January 18, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any -- does the motion maker
accept the stipulations, including the last one added by Mr. Mulhere --
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Striking the footnote in reference to the
office.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: I do.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein accepts it. So the first
and the second have accepted it.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a question. Do we have to
make any note at all about the title issues that may be outstanding?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's why we gave them 180 days
to transfer the property. That should clear it up, from what Nick was
saYing.
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 9-0. Thank you.
Mr. Adelstein is going to depart from us for a short period of
Page 31
January 18, 2007
time.
(At which time, Commissioner Adelstein leaves the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have six applications today,
and I know there's members of the public here for a variety of
applications. And just so you might know how long you're going to
be waiting, or at least what order you're going to be heard in, the next
project that we will hear is a boat dock extension in Winward Cay at
Port of the Islands.
The next one after that will be an EMS station involving Collier
County at the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Logan.
The one after that will be for a Habitat for Humanity project in
Immokalee.
The next after that will be the Toll Brothers Princess Park, King
Richard PUD.
And the last one today will be the Livingston Greens -- I think it's
also called the Hamilton Greens on Livingston Road.
So for whatever one of those you're here for, we're going to be
working our way through the agenda today in that particular order,
because that's the order it was advertised in. And at the rate we're
going, we're probably going to be here for quite a few hours.
Item #8B
PETITION: BD-2006-AR-I0645
Next item up for today is Petition BD-2006-AR-I0645, Halden
Deppert, represented by Turrell and Associates. 159 Windward Cay,
Port of the Islands subdivision.
All those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition, please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any disclosures on the part
Page 32
January 18, 2007
of the planning commission?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I've spoken to Mr. Rogers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any others?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, the applicant may
proceed with their presentation, please.
MR. ROGERS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Jeff Rogers, representing Turrell & Associates and our
client, Halden Deppert.
As you know, we are here today requesting a boat dock extension
for Port of the Islands, Windward Cay. We are requesting a 26-foot
extension from the allowed 20 foot into a manmade waterway that is
approximately 220 feet wide -- 225 feet wide, as shown -- if I can
attach here an aerial -- as shown on this aerial.
This is the proposed lot and the dock layout with our provided
setbacks.
As you know, we are requesting a protrusion of 46 feet from the
mean high water line. And our setbacks are 20 feet and 33 feet, with
Collier County's requested setbacks being 15 feet if your property is
greater than 60 feet of shoreline.
With the design we are congruent with our surrounding docks,
for the most part. Some have U-shaped docks. We are a finger pier,
basically coming straight out, keeping our impacts as minimal as
possible with our design.
We have mangrove -- we have a mangrove shoreline, but due to
water depths and the size of vessel that Pete Deppert is proposing to
purchase and store there, we needed to go out further than the 20 foot.
I have water depths here. I don't know if you're able to see them.
If I could zoom in.
With the proposed vessel being 30 feet, you'd say it takes three
Page 33
January 18,2007
feet of water to float the vessel and then another foot for the proposed
lift in order to float it. So at mean low water we would need roughly
four feet of water, which with design we are right at that area.
Along the shoreline it's just too shallow and we wanted to keep,
like I said, our impacts to the vegetation as minimal as possible. And
our overwater structure, as well, as minimal as possible in order to,
you know, keep our impacts less.
We have received state and federal permits and SDGP and
exemption from the state for this one, and we'd like to move forward
and see if you have any questions in regards to this dock layout.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of the applicant
on the part of -- Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Could you go back to the
other overlay that you just put in before? Just as a matter of interest,
can you explain to me how you ascertained the line of the -- the
riparian line that's on there? The property line appears to be just
vertical. But when you come to the edge of the waterway, you angle
off. I'm curious what establishes that angle.
MR. ROGERS: Well, as you know, you have to take your
riparian line to the center of the waterway. With the lot to our south
of the proposed lot here being on an angle, his riparian lines are also
on an angle, as shown on the eastern riparian line. We've angled it
more towards the center, as shown there, because of the angle of the
property owner to our east. His riparian lines are also angled.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is there any standard or code
that defines that, for a person to establish what that line should be?
MR. ROGERS: You know, basically what we do is our certified
surveyor puts the riparian lines on his survey, and we obviously
follow up on that and double check.
In regards to following a certain format, you know, from my
understanding is you take from the property line to the center of the
waterway, which we have here. And like I said, with the neighbor to
Page 34
January 18,2007
the east of us, his riparian lines, if we were to go straight out from our
property line on the eastern side, we would be blocking his riparian
line to the center of the waterway. So in order for each property
owner to have riparian lines to the center of the waterway, we had to
angle the eastern riparian line in order to provide ingress-egress for the
neighbor to the east.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, on this particular petition
there would be no adverse effect even if it was a more acute angle
then was shown there because of where the location of the pier is. I'm
just curious from a status -- we review a lot of these and look at the
basis for where the riparian line is. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, the diagram you have on here, I just
noticed this, if you look to the dock to the east, you have a finger
going out from the shoreline, then you have a cross-hatched area
which normally represents a lift on the left side of the dock. Yet that
diagram on the plane you show in front of us shows everything on the
right side of the dock.
And if you were to draw a riparian line most likely from the
property line between the two houses and the uplands outward, it
would seem that that dock is problematic.
MR. ROGERS: Yes, it is. I can tell you that I know for a fact
that the contractor built that dock wrong. He built it, it was supposed
to be on the other side as shown. But the contractor for some reason
built it opposite.
In regards to your question, the setback rule for setbacks at the
back of a manmade canal are seven and a half for manmade
waterways and lots at the end of a manmade canal. It's not 15, as
normally stated within the Collier County rules. But setbacks for him
would be 7.5.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And if you were to come straight
out between the property line of those two houses to draw some kind
of convoluted riparian line, he's going to be over it, practically any
Page 35
January 18, 2007
way you would want to look at it.
MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is there some kind of code
enforcement review of this or planning review of this, or how would it
have gotten CO'd on the wrong side of the dock?
MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure it was COld properly. So we have
to check on that. And I can discuss it with our code enforcement staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think it needs to be. Because if
he's violating somebody else's property rights --
MR. ROGERS: I know we permitted that dock. Excuse me. We
permitted that dock, Turrell & Associates did, not myself. And we
know for a fact that it was built wrong.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you provide a final certification as
to the dock's layout and location, like a final survey?
MR. ROGERS: Do we? We haven't. It wasn't required, so we
didn't do that on that one. I believe Rocky Scofield did that dock, and
he discussed it with me and said it could be an issue, you know, it
could be brought up at this hearing, and -- you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you for that information.
Is there any other questions on this issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Okay, thank you. We'll ask staff
for a report now.
MR. BELLOWS: This is Ashley's first presentation before the
planning commission. She's all prepared, though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to give you the hard questions
today then.
MS. BLAIR: I'll try to answer them.
For the record, Ashley Blair, planner with the department of
zoning and land development review.
This petition meets all five or six primary criteria and all
secondary criteria, according to the Land Development Code and,
Page 36
January 18, 2007
therefore, staff does recommend approval.
I will check on that dock to the east and get back to you by
e-mail, if that's okay with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MS. BLAIR: And if you have any other questions, I'd like to try
and answer them now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ashley, since you're new,
we can give you this assignment. We've asked this question before
about how to measure the riparian rights. Would you do us a favor
and research that and get back to us?
MS. BLAIR: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because they somehow seem to
be arbitrary. They somehow seem to be convenient for this project.
I mean, if that riparian line's supposed to go straight out, maybe
the dock is in the right position on the other side. So just for like a
homework assignment, could you really study for us how to do that
and report back to us?
MS. BLAIR: I'll do my best to do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Ashley?
I do. Joe and Ray, this is a pretty simple dock procedure here.
And there isn't a lot of questions from this board, questions that really
aren't as relevant to this as just the procedure altogether.
And we get a lot of these and it's costly to the public and it's time
consuming. And they may not rise to the level of a need to be in a
public forum.
Is there some way of looking at the Land Development Code so
that maybe we can look at more practical application when docks
come in, on issues that are just basically more administrative than
needing a public hearing? Is that a possibility?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, absolutely. For the record, Joe Schmitt,
Page 37
January 18, 2007
your administrator for community development, environmental
services division.
It would require a change in the Land Development Code, which
would make this administrative in nature. There would be certain
requirements. If those requirements are met, it could be done
administratively.
What I hear you asking then, are you looking for us -- would you
like us to come back maybe in a future LDC cycle to make this more
administrative in nature?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For certain thresholds. I think the level
of threshold that we have now, it seems to be more stringent than it
needs to. We have dock examples coming forward. This isn't one of
them. There's been plenty in the past. Some of them rightfully so.
But the threshold seems to be so tight that we get into discussions on
really simple issues that shouldn't rise to the level of a public
presentation and a time consumption on that part.
I mean, I'm just speaking for my thoughts. I'd certainly entertain
others.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think this is essentially
a variance, and this is the only public forum. This is a chance for the
neighbors to have a concern over their things, so I definitely think this
is a necessary hearing.
Whether they're simple or not, that's great. But --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is there some substantive
comment on --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The comment that is why we're
here is really to hear the public on this.
MR. SCHMITT: Basically if it meets the criteria, if there's no
dock extension, it's strictly administrative. The only reason it comes
to you is because for whatever reason the site conditions require a
dock extension, which basically has exceeded the intrusion into the
Page 38
January 18, 2007
waterway, and that requires the public hearing.
So if you're looking for some kind of an administrative process to
relax those rules, we can certainly look at that and come back and
discuss it with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I agree with Mr. Schiffer, I
think this is the public hearing. It is a variance, regardless, and it
needs to come before the public.
In this particular instance, you don't have anybody objecting to it.
But as you know, in the past we've had issues where the public has
been here to speak either for or against.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern was for the ones that are as
simple as this. Ifwe -- the reason it's coming before us is because
someone arbitrarily said 20 feet's the limit. So if you go a little bit
longer because you've got shallow conditions, you're forcing a
member, the homeowners into a rather costly experience that maybe
in a lot of cases thresholds would be unnecessary. That's the only
concern I had. It just seems like a waste of time and money.
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, but Mark, on the other
hand, there's no other vehicle for the public to express dissatisfaction
with a facility that's going in that might impact their view or other use
of their land for the facilities. And although this is a rather minor one
we're faced with today that could have been handled administratively,
I think it still affords the opportunity for the public to express --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not being picked up.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- for the public to express their
opposition or support of the petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, actually what you said supports
my argument. But okay, I'm not going to push it. I just thought it was
-- go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Are you suggesting maybe
Page 39
January 18, 2007
changing the 20 feet to 30 feet or 25 feet?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think--
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That would eliminate some --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if they're simple conditions and
they're not intruding on obviously any negativity in their alignment
with docks around them like this one is, it just seems like a cost that
the public doesn't need to bear. And I didn't see the need for it.
But if I'm -- if that's not what the majority of us would like to see,
then I'm not here to push it any further. I just was throwing it on the
table for discussion. And maybe we should come back and discuss it
at a future time and get further input in it. But I'll let it drop for now.
It seemed like a huge waste of time on this one.
Are there any other comments from -- questions of the staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, now, all the objecting public
that feel this is intruding upon them, can you tell me how many we
have.
MR. BELLOWS: No one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public
hearing.
Are there any -- is there amotion?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion for
approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to approve.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion seconded by Commissioner
Tuff, motion made by Commissioner Vigliotti.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
Page 40
January 18, 2007
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you.
Item #8C
PETITION: CU-2006-AR-I0550
The next petition for today is CU-2006-AR-I0550, Collier
County Department of Facilities Management for an EMS Station No.
73 at Logan Boulevard North. And I believe that intersects with
Vanderbilt Beach Road.
All those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition, please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any disclosures on the part of
the planning commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll move forward
with a presentation by the applicant.
MS. WILLIAMS: Sorry, we're just getting set up here.
Good morning, Commissioners. Sorry for the delay. For the
record, my name is Heidi Williams. I'm a senior planner with Q.
Grady Minor and Associates, here to represent Collier County
Page 41
January 18, 2007
Facilities Management for a conditional use petition for an EMS
station.
With me today are Chief Jeff Page and Artie Bay with the EMS,
Collier County EMS, Ron Hovell with facilities management, and
Michael Delate, an engineer with Q. Grady Minor and Associates.
The subject property is located on the southeast corner of
Vanderbilt Beach Road and Logan Boulevard. It is 2.3 -- I'm sorry,
2.23 acres in size. It is currently vacant, but a portion of the site is
disturbed from the construction of a single-family home that has been
removed from the site. So the remaining vegetation is some Cypress,
disturbed area, Brazilian pepper, which is exotic, and pine flatwoods.
On the board behind me I have an aerial of the site and I can put
up a conceptual site plan. This should be in your packet of materials,
but if you'd like I can also put one onto the visualizer and be more
close up.
(Commissioner Adelstein enters the room.)
MS. WILLIAMS: Laying out this site we took several factors
into consideration. One, this site was identified as viable option for
EMS. It serves a need for the county. There are many calls in this
general area where EMS exceeds their target response time of eight
minutes, and that is obviously unacceptable in service to the residents
of the county.
This site was considered for wetland impacts. We wanted to
avoid those. And we wanted to utilize any of the disturbed area that
was possible.
The site is -- can support a 5,OOO-square-foot EMS station that
would house one ambulance and staff on 24-hour shifts. It would
have a kitchen, bunk rooms, all the things that are necessary for a
24-hour shift.
There are four criteria, as you know, to consider for conditional
uses. They are listed there. And I'm going to go through each point.
Staff has found that this petition is consistent with the Growth
Page 42
January 18, 2007
Management Plan. The property is located in the Estates, and
therefore has to be consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
This petition falls under the provisions for essential service
conditional uses.
The Land Development Code further defines EMS stations as a
public safety facility, and it also requires conditional use approval.
All of the structures built on-site are anticipated to meet every
aspect of the Land Development Code. Setback, height, landscape
requirements, water management, everything will be consistent with
the requirements of the Land Development Code.
Ingress and egress to the property is provided on Logan
Boulevard. There is an opportunity there to go north to Vanderbilt
Beach Road, which allows east and west movement, as well as a
southbound turn from the site.
There is internal circulation on-site and pedestrian access will be
provided.
Effect on neighboring properties regarding noise, glare, economic
and odor impacts. It is anticipated that there will be no impacts from
economic or odor considerations.
Anyon-site lighting will be directed to shine onto the facility
itself and not external to the project.
We've also located the station as far west as possible, and in the
aerial you are able to see that the neighboring property is away from
the station where we've proposed that it be located. So glare should be
minimal to any -- there should be no impact from glare to the
neighboring properties.
Noise is probably the biggest concern for this petition. And it is
our assertion that noise will be minimal, it will be discrete in nature.
Certain times of day there will be responses necessary.
This station is anticipated to have five emergency response calls
per day. And breaking that down, some would be at night and some
would be during the day.
Page 43
January 18, 2007
EMS anticipates that some of their calls would be responded to
from another location. While they were on one call they may get a
second call and they would respond from -- away from the site. It is
also EMS policy that sirens are only used at night when absolutely
necessary. So therefore we do feel that noise will not be a major
factor. It will exist, but it will not be a negative on neighboring
properties.
We also do note that there are many stations around the county
that are in residential neighborhoods, and EMS does not field very
many complaints from those.
Regarding compatibility with the adjacent properties: When you
look at the aerial, this location is a very transitional part of the Estates.
The northeast quadrant of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road
and Logan is a community called Island Walk. It is an urban
community, suburb, for all intents and purposes. The southwest side,
there is a strip of Estates lots and then there is the Vineyards. The
northwest and southeast corners are Estates. So this is truly a
crossroads in our county.
Vanderbilt Beach Road is being widened to a six-lane arterial.
Logan Boulevard is anticipated to be widened. This intersection itself
will be widened to accommodate Vanderbilt Beach Road expansion.
East of the property is a Collier County sewage pumping station,
and there is one single-family home south of the site. That home,
again, is located fairly far east on that lot, and our station is proposed
to be fairly far west on the lot.
There is anticipated further growth in the area. Increased traffic
on Vanderbilt Beach Road and other considerations make us feel that
this is an adequate site and is compatible with the adjacent area.
We appreciate very much the fact that county staff has
recommended approval of this conditional use petition. They have
added seven stipulations. And with your permission, we'd like to
discuss three of those today.
Page 44
January 18,2007
The first one is stipulation three, and it states that the applicant
shall coordinate with the transportation department staff to install an
egress point from the site to Vanderbilt Beach Road at the time of
SDP review.
EMS does not feel the need to have a second access, based on
call volume and based on the full turning movement that is available
onto Logan Boulevard. They feel that this is really an excessive
requirement, and would request that we discuss it here today whether
or not you feel that that is necessary.
Again, there is proposed potentially five calls per day. And that
access is shown on our conceptual plan. If you choose to retain that
requirement, it is covered. But should you agree that that may just add
cost to the proj ect, we request that it be removed.
The next one we would like to discuss is stipulation four: The
applicant shall coordinate with transportation operations to install a
preemptive signal system to ensure the safe and timely egress from the
site during emergencies at the time of SDP review.
We had a little bit of a miscommunication, so the rest of the text
on this slide you could probably ignore.
Originally we were under the impression that the existing signal
at the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Logan, that this
request applied to that signal. And there is a budget for providing
those and EMS is certainly happy to have a controllable signal at that
intersection. In fact, EMS feels that that is all that should be required.
Transportation staff, I'm sure they'll want to answer for
themselves, but has requested a second signal at the access point. So
there would be one at the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and
Logan and then one just south of that on Logan where the access for
the EMS station is located.
That is a significant cost factor to this project. It actually could
add 180 to $200,000 to the overall project cost. And EMS is expert,
they are experts in what they do, and they do not feel that it is
Page 45
January 18, 2007
necessary in that location. And again, we would request that there be
discussion on that stipulation.
And the final one that we would want to discuss is stipulation
seven regarding the requested wall along the southern property line.
We certainly do agree that the neighboring single-family home needs
to be buffered from the EMS station.
The normal Land Development Code requirement is a 15- foot
wide Type B buffer. And that gives applicants a choice of providing a
wall or a hedge.
In this case any wall that is provided east of our disturbed area
has the potential of providing a wetland impact. That requires
additional permitting review and cost, as well as time to construction.
And what we would propose instead of a wall for 267 feet is to
provide a wall along the retaining wall for the impacted area. And if I
could step away from the mic for a moment, I'll show you where we
would propose this wall to be.
The drive isle that's shown on our conceptual site plan is the
extent of the pavement and will be -- there will be a retaining wall
constructed there. And we would propose that that retaining wall be
built up as a landscape wall. It would curve toward the building and
would prevent most of the visual impact of that building.
We would certainly then provide the required hedge option for
the landscaped buffer the remainder of the distance. We feel that that
will visually shield the neighbor and, as we discussed before, the
sound impact -- noise impacts should be minimal anyway. This
should adequately address any concerns. And again, we would
appreciate having some discussion on that point.
With that, I am -- I'd just like to say in summary that this petition
has been found to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan
and the Land Development Code. We feel it's a compatible use in the
neighborhood and in this location. And it is certainly necessary to
serve the residents of Collier County. And I thank you for your time.
Page 46
January 18,2007
I'd like to reserve some time to answer your questions.
We do have, again, Chief Page and Artie Bay with EMS, Ron
Hovell with facilities management and Michael Delate to answer any
other questions you may have. And we'd just like an opportunity to
respond to any concerns that may be raised. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Heidi, I almost said, does
anybody have any questions of staff.
MS. WILLIAMS: I was concerned about introducing myself as
staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But now that you're over on the dark
side, we have to ask, are there any questions of the applicant from the
planning commission?
Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Heidi, what's the width of this
site?
MS. WILLIAMS: This site is nearly a standard Estates lot. And
I'll just pull out the survey and answer that question accurately.
Michael Delate's telling me it's approximately 160 feet along
Logan.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the next question is, the --
your exhibit on the master site plan, the conceptual site plan, you
show a large clear area. Are you really going to clear that much of the
site? I mean, unfortunately the sewer station to the east of you spared
no trees. Scorched earth on that side.
MS. WILLIAMS: That's actually a very good question and
thank you for bringing that up.
The conceptual plan does show a required preserve area. It is far
above and beyond the 10 percent that is required by staff.
But we did want to show that that vegetation would be retained
and maintained as a preserve area. The rest of the site is a wetland.
We don't have an exact line at this time, but we have an estimate of
where that line is. The FLUCCS map that you have should be a pretty
Page 47
January 18,2007
good indication. We do not anticipate clearing the rest of the site. We
want it to remain as natural as possible. But there are some exotics in
that location, and we would not be able to use that as required
preserve.
So we don't anticipate clearing beyond -- much beyond what is
shown on the conceptual plan -- shown as the EMS station, paving
area.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why is there that large
center gap being cleared?
MS. WILLIAMS: It's actually not going to be cleared. It's just
not required preserve. It will be retained as vegetation, and we could
add a note on the conceptual plan, if that makes you more
comfortable.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. There is a house shown
there just on the south boundary, close to it. How long will this
retaining wall go? Will this wall go past that house, and if so, how
far?
MS. WILLIAMS: Staff is recommending that the wall go
beyond the house. And I'd like to put up a closer angle aerial and
answer that question with that on display.
You can see on this aerial where the previous home was. It's
been cleared, there's some driveway accesses. Our station would
largely be in that area, a little bit beyond that. And the house is well
east of that.
The wall we propose would be to the limit of construction so that
we avoid the wetland impacts. It would wrap around on the conceptual
plan the southern driveway up to the building, our EMS station
building. The remainder of that would be a landscaped hedge.
And that's also so that we -- we had the note on our -- we have a
note on our conceptual plan that environmental requested that any
Page 48
January 18, 2007
wall that would be provided would be 10 feet from the required
preserve. We don't want to block the native area from merging with
the natural areas that are to the east and the south. So our wall would
be proposed to be just to the edge of our building.
And there is no overlap between our building and the
single- family home. Our building will have a view of their driveway.
Actually, vegetation and driveway.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Did I understand there is to be
one egress and ingress off Logan Boulevard, not Vanderbilt Road?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, you need to bring your
speaker closer to you.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. My question was, there's
only to be one egress and ingress and that's Logan Boulevard?
MS. WILLIAMS: We will have one full access point onto Logan
Boulevard. And staff has requested a second egress only onto
Vanderbilt Beach Road. It would be an eastbound only egress.
We would prefer not to construct that for cost reasons. Certainly
that's up to you and staff, your recommendation and the board.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's one of the stipulations?
MS. WILLIAMS: That is one of the staffs stipulations, that
there be a second egress.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Distance. Hi. The distance
from the intersection where there is a signal to the point of ingress,
egress, is approximately how many feet?
MS. WILLIAMS: Well, the whole site is 160 feet. And our
access point is located 15 feet from the southern property line. So if
you wanted a center line to center line, I don't think I'd have an exact
figure. But it would be 150 feet, approximately.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 150, is that what you would say?
Because I'm trying to understand the need for two signal controls.
Page 49
January 18, 2007
Now, today we referenced five calls, but we're not planning for
today, we're planning for tomorrow. And I guess the density of
population is a factor.
In your conversations, determine why -- and if you have both
signals, will you still be able to control both signals?
MS. WILLIAMS: I would defer most of that question to
transportation when staff comes up here. However, I would like to say
that our call volume may increase, but the response distance -- the
reason this station is requested in this location is because the response
time exceeds an acceptable amount of time right now.
The number of calls in this general area may increase or may not.
We have a fairly built-out -- Island Walk is built out. The
neighborhoods and subdivisions surrounding that are still under
construction. So it is possible call volume would increase in the
future.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It may have more to do with age
than density. Over time people might need the resource, so I think
that's a factor.
MS. WILLIAMS: That is a possibility.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, then I will reserve the
balance of the questions that are associated with this. So used to
seeing you for staff, I have a tendency to ask that question.
MS. WILLIAMS: Sorry for the confusion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I thank you for your
answers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Heidi, the staff report says
that there will be two vehicle bays, and you're saying it will just be
one.
MS. WILLIAMS: The architectural design originally
accommodated two vehicle bays. And it is anticipated there will be
only one ambulance in that location.
Page 50
January 18, 2007
I would actually -- Ron Hovell is telling me the design is being
modified to accommodate just the one bay. There were some
concerns that this facility would be expanded --
CHIEF PAGE: No, it's two bays.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay, there was concern that this facility--
during the neighborhood information meeting there was concern that
this facility would be approved as an EMS station and then later
expanded to accommodate fire trucks as well.
To address that concern, I've been corrected, there is a redesign
to lower the height of the doors so that fire vehicles would not be
possible in that facility.
So it is anticipated there will be one ambulance there now.
During storm events, hurricane storm events or other emergency
situations, there can be sort of a fluctuation or a shifting of where
ambulances are located. But the normal condition will be one vehicle
on-site for normal response.
Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: A little more off the subject, I
guess, or right on it. Let's look at this: These actions could really be a
matter of life and death. I've been there. And fortunately they were
there inside 10 minutes. We've got to look at the thing as yes, a lot of
people might not be as comfortable with some noise, but a lot of
people can live through it because of it. And I can't think of any other
way we can put it.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some questions, but mine will
take longer than four minutes. So let's take a break and we'll come
back at 10:15 for the benefit of Cherie' and Kady. Thank you.
(A brief recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, you want to do your magic
Page 51
January 18,2007
over there? Thank you.
We left off with questions of the applicant. And I was going to
ask some, but I wanted to make sure everybody else has had an
opportunity .
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have one more.
This will not be a shared location with fire. Can you tell me
where the closest fire station is?
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe the closest fire station is located -- is
either under construction or nearly complete on 951, north of
Vanderbilt Beach. It's on the west side of the road. It's not only a fire
station but administration facility. It's a rather large facility.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I know the one you're talking
about. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's another one that's going to
be coming probably before us at some time in the future that bought
some property at the corner of Oakes and Vanderbilt Beach Road,
where they intend to build a fire station. Just so you know. There
might be one right down the road. At least they're going to try for it.
MS. WILLIAMS: We had heard that the fire district had
purchased that property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in your response to Ms. Caron
about the fire department's use of this facility, are you saying you're
not intending to have fire service out of this facility?
MS. WILLIAMS: There is no coordination with any of the fire
districts to provide fire service from this site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with the
stipulation limiting the use of this property for EMS services only?
MS. WILLIAMS: No, we don't have a problem with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your discussion in the neighborhood
informational meeting with the public, you indicated you could drop
the door heights from 14 to 12. I heard some discussion now about
Page 52
January 18, 2007
putting them at a lower height in order to make sure it is only EMS
vehicles.
Is 12 feet the height that you're lowering it to?
CHIEF PAGE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Page isn't on record, so we
need to -- Chief Page, I'm sorry.
CHIEF PAGE: For the record, Jeff Page with EMS.
That's correct, we are lowering it to 12. That's the minimum
height that we need for our own units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So would you have any problems with
the stipulation indicating that the door heights would be limited to 12
feet?
CHIEF PAGE: Not at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess the rest -- I'm not sure if I
have anymore of you, Chief, but I probably have a couple more of
Heidi. Thank you, sir.
Who in the transportation department was unreasonable in
regards to the issues that you brought up today?
CHIEF PAGE: Still trying to find that out.
MS. WILLIAMS: I wouldn't say that anything was completely
unreasonable. I think we just have a different viewpoint of what's
necessary for this site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason, I can't imagine Nick being
so unreasonable to require lights close to one another and openings
close to intersections, because everywhere else he tells us he can't do
that.
So I'm certainly going to be looking forward to him explaining
how this has come about in stipulations number three and four,
because honestly, I would tend to believe that you're correct in your
assumptions on those.
MS. WILLIAMS: And actually, Commissioner Strain, we do
appreciate that. If you'd like Chief Page to address some of the
Page 53
January 18, 2007
operational aspects, he can do that for you, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just think the need for going in and out
is so obvious. You can go left or right on Logan, and you're only a
few feet from Vanderbilt where you can go left or right again. Why
have multiple lights, multiple intersections?
Usually transportation wisely sees that those cuts on their road
system only cause more problems than less and they always ask us not
to approve such things.
MS. WILLIAMS: I know they are prepared to respond.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, I have a question
on that, though. What if you came out of your place and there's cars
backed up at the light? How do you push into the intersection to get
out?
MS. WILLIAMS: Chief Page, do you want to answer that?
CHIEF PAGE: Again, for the record, Jeff Page.
Typically what happens is, and what I had initially thought they
had requested was a preemption device that would be at the signal at
Logan and Vanderbilt whereby we'd be able to turn that to green to
free up that traffic.
I have a number of sites, you know, throughout the county, and I
have none that actually have where we've incorporated in our
construction a signal arm over an intersection to stop traffic.
Typically when we pull up to the driveway with just the lights
on, that's enough for people to start slowing down, stopping traffic.
And at the point if we need to free up that intersection, if you hit a
siren or anything like that with a tap, people will either turn right,
allowing us access, because once we break into the intersection then
we're able to maneuver wherever we need to go.
But this has never been an issue at any of the existing stations
that we have and operate out of now to where we've had to have these
preemption devices.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have any this close to
Page 54
January 18,2007
the signal itself? Because I think, my concern is if it was midway
down Logan, obviously that's not a problem. But as you -- I mean, if
that intersection's full of cars, you come screaming out of your
driveway, what if people just start pulling out into Vanderbilt? You
know, we could be having cars getting broadsided and stuff, and
losing attention to what they're doing.
CHIEF PAGE: This particular shot here shows -- this station is
actually on Vanderbilt also. It's down by the Coast in Pelican Bay.
But you can see, it has an egress onto Vanderbilt. This particular site
allows us to cross the median and enter off of Vanderbilt to the back
of the station.
But again, every time this vehicle -- or the vehicles exit this
station, they're going out into Hammock Drive, I believe that is, and
that gives them more directional opportunities.
The problem that we had with transportation on this particular
site is they would not allow us to have that median opening, so we
could not even return that way to go back in. So obviously if our
better option is exiting where we can go in multiple directions, we
would always exit on Logan.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I still think that
the intersection could be jammed and you in a panic trying to clear it
could cause some trouble. But that's my opinion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, if there was a light there -- and
I'm just trying to understand it better -- if there was a light there and
say the light went red but the intersection was jammed and those
people would be sitting under the light, they would still have to move
just the same as if the vehicle came out with its lights on as well.
CHIEF PAGE: If I'm approaching from the rear traffic, it's no
different, if you under --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But are you going to have a
control? In other words, as you go into emergency mode and you do
have to come out onto Vanderbilt, you're going to change that light on
Page 55
January 18,2007
Vanderbilt to red, and green on Logan.
CHIEF PAGE: That would be our intent is to go ahead and
preempt the signal so that we can get the directional that we need.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when you come out on
Logan there will be a red light on Vanderbilt for a while, or --
CHIEF PAGE: Red light on Vanderbilt stopping that traffic and
allowing the Logan to go through.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then you can push the Logan
through it, okay. All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you still have a
question?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, actually, my question may
be for staff. I was just wondering if it was just a flashing yellow that
they wanted there, as you see at some stations.
Chief, do you know?
CHIEF PAGE: I'm not really sure what they requested.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's this mean guy Nick coming to
the podium.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
It's funny, it's ironic that we're more concerned about safety than
they are in a certain sense, I guess.
To be at the corner of that intersection, where you're carrying 45,
50, 60,000 cars a day on Vanderbilt at the corner of two major
roadways is not the ideal location for anything.
Now, you had said in the past we're trying to limit drivers. Yes,
we are. We would never, you know, condone a driveway that close to
an intersection. It's a terrible location. Preempting the signals helps.
Having a driver on Vanderbilt is an option that we suggested to
them. If there is a reason that that driveway on Logan is congested
and you cannot get out and you want to go east, I'd hate to be that guy
down the road that says we approved one driveway, you know, why
would you do that if they couldn't get out of the intersection.
Page 56
January 18,2007
It was more for us to be able to say, are you sure this is what you
want? Because we're recommending for safety for -- what we know
about intersections and what could happen, that you have another
option to get out of there.
If it's a cost -- that driveway cost, I can't imagine, if it's a single
lane egress only driveway it's 30 to $50,000 max. That's an expense.
If you're that one person that needs that ambulance, maybe that's an
expense you can live with.
As far as two signals, it's not two signals. On the sketch that you
see on the board where you see the median, a model of a curve that
they can come out and make a left out, we suggested a mast arm to the
approach on that that would stop traffic coming up at that intersection.
At the same time you're clearing out the intersection, she could make
a left out cleanly or make a right out.
Again, if they don't want to do that, that's something they could
say on the record. I just -- for my own peace of mind. I don't ever
want to get a phone call saying we didn't suggest these things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, two points. You're in the process
of widening Vanderbilt Beach Road right now.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why doesn't your department put the
accellane and turn lane in that's needed for this Vanderbilt Beach
Road section, since your department's building a road anyway and
you're not even that far yet? I drive that road every day. Why don't
you just do it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You mean the county pay for that
accellane or egress on Vanderbilt?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The transportation department. I think
the concern is Chief Page's budget versus yours. Well, this is a
transportation safety issue. It's for a county project. Why wouldn't the
transportation department just put it in if it feels that strongly about it?
And I'm going to have the same question about this additional
Page 57
January 18, 2007
mast you're talking about at the entryway on Logan. When you
expand Logan, which you're slated to do sometime down the road, and
you feel this is that much of a safety factor, why don't you incorporate
it into your expansion plans?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ifit was the Commissioners' request
that the county pay for things like that. That's not for me to decide. I
think they picked this location for whatever reason. It's an impact, I
don't want to say quote, unquote development. It's an essential service.
Usually whatever comes into a site takes care of whatever they need
to get in and out of the site.
But if the commission found that the county should pay for it, I
have no objection to that. I don't --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, somebody bought this
property for $328,000 in 2004. I'm assuming the commission must
have authorized the purchase. The commission must be authorizing to
go forward on using the property for something. And if this gets
approved, it would seem that it would be so only by the fact the
commission would approve it.
So seeing as how the commission is approving public
expenditures for this facility, what's the difference whether it's paid for
by the transportation department or EMS?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Financially that's -- you know, that's
not my call, it's a budgetary issue. I don't have a say in that, per se.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. I just was curious as to
where the dividing lines were.
I understand why -- I guess if anybody else has any questions. I
understand where you're coming from on it. But you're
recommending it as an option for the EMS, not as a requirement.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If they feel that that's not needed and
they can live without that, I want to make sure on the record we've
told them we have concerns.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
Page 58
January 18, 2007
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just want to follow up on
that.
When they come out of a given area -- and I did raise that
question earlier about the signal and the exit, and I assume there were
to be yellow lights. But in any event, can they not control all the
signals? Can you not even create a condition that allows for red for
everything?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I'm trying to really
understand. I appreciate the desire to have safety, and I recognize
you're thinking of the future. But I'm wondering whether that -- and I
agree with the Chair, it seems to me that we should, if we're thinking
that way, we ought to plan for that and we ought to put in all the
electronics that we need right now and the rest of it. But you're really
concerned with safety, are you?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd like it to be the most optimal
condition when an ambulance needs to get out of there. That's the
optimal condition, two driveways, make sure that there's a mast arm
on the northbound approach, stop traffic, plenty in advance to be able
to see that as an ambulance can fly out of there and do what it needs to
do.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So for clarity purposes, at
least for me alone anyway -- and I'm going to make a gross
assumption; I don't know this -- I'm going to assume that there's some
kind of a device like a clicker in the vehicle. Assuming now that both
of those driveways, those ingress and egress portions were in. They
would have a choice as to what they would do, which would initiate a
sequence in lights change.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They could time -- they could have a
preemptive system that would say I'm going out this way, stop, set the
signal patterns to this mode and they get out to that direction. They
could set that --
Page 59
January 18,2007
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But they would have to work
with you in regard to this. So it does come down to a joint effort,
right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, that's typical.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, your mic isn't picking up. I don't
know what happened to these mics, but they're not as sensitive. And
unfortunately I'm going to have to keep asking people to move their
mics closer.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How am I doing? Am I loud or
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're okay. But now Nick was hardly
hearable. I'm sure the court reporter may be having problems, too.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess -- I don't want to belabor
this, but what I guess is it seems reasonable that maybe the
commission, and maybe we should stipulate that, that the commission
give consideration to joint budgetary consideration or whatever is
necessary to make this fly. Because if your point's well taken, safety
is a critical factor. And if we do have the potential to do the
electronics, set these things in motion, we ought to plan for it now.
That would make good sense to me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of Nick?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. If the EMS went ahead
with their construction and completed their construction without this
entry to Vanderbilt Beach Road, and then you come along now and
transportation are expanding the road and you come to that point,
would you put that access on there as a matter of safety?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ifwe were into the design stage, we
would consider that. Right now we're in the construction stage, so it's
a contractor's road right now. They own that road.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You're in the construction stage
now?
Page 60
January 18, 2007
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. It would be a big change
right now.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question for Heidi, if
we're done with Nick.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we done with -- anybody else have
any questions of Mr. -- Nick?
Go ahead, Commissioner Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I really have a question
about stipulation seven, which -- before we go back to Heidi --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's finish with Nick first. This
isn't number seven. Okay?
Okay, now we'll-- now Heidi, Mr. Midney and I think Mr.
Murray both had questions. So Paul, why don't you start with yours.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I want to talk to county staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Any other
questions of the applicant?
Oh, Mr. Vigliotti, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Heidi, if transportation is
recommending the other ingress and egress, why are you so against it?
Just for a cost factor?
MS. WILLIAMS: Actually, transportation is requesting an
egress only, because it is very close to the intersection of Vanderbilt
Beach and Logan. So it would strictly be a right turn out. There is a
cost factor, and EMS does not feel it's necessary. They feel they've got
full turning movements at the one access point on Logan, and that's
what's been presented to me.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Would that be a deal breaker?
CHIEF PAGE: For the record, Jeff Page with EMS.
Everything that we're talking about today with these three
stipulations concerns me in the fact that I'm afraid that we're setting up
Page 61
January 18,2007
to where every one of my stations in the future are going to be
required to make the wall, the preemption devices, the signal arm, the
egress exit.
And quite frankly, I'd have to go back and change my AUIR
numbers, because I don't have 400,000 cushioned in there to
accommodate all these changes or stipulations. So it is about cost.
We had originally talked to transportation about providing not
the full egress part but actually maybe some of the driveway headed
that way so that in the future we would consider that. But 30 to
$50,000 just for a driveway, to me, when I know that my crews will
not ever go that way, it's just -- it kills me.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, is it that you can't afford
it or you'd rather allocate dollars elsewhere --
CHIEF PAGE: We can't afford it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think he's saying it's not a matter
even so much as needing affordability. He has no need for it and he's
not going to use it, so why force him to spend the money to put
something in that isn't going to be used? I think that's the crux of it.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Heidi and the
applicant before we move to staff report? Because Heidi's not staff
anymore. Hard to get used to you away from the county, Heidi.
(No response.)
MS. WILLIAMS: All right. Well, thank you very much for your
discussion. And we would like to be able to answer any other
concerns that are brought up by the public or by staff --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. WILLIAMS: -- if that's acceptable to you. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think this is Nancy's first
presentation in front of us as well as a planner.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, it is. Good morning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoever told you that the first thing
Page 62
~'e,..._~ . 11"l1'r 'f 'Ii'll -,.__,..,
January 18,2007
you should do is provide ice water to the planning commission, that
was a very nice move. We thank you for that.
MS. GUNDLACH: I'm trying really hard.
Good morning to you. And I'd like to share with you this
morning that staff is in agreement with the applicant's presentation this
morning. However, with the exception of those three points.
And I'd like to talk a little bit more about the wall and the reason
that we've required it for a distance of257 (sic) linear feet. And I'm
going to put this on the visualizer because I think a picture can be very
helpful here.
I've highlighted the adjacent residents in yellow, and then I've
highlighted what will remain after construction of the EMS site, of the
preserve. And one of the things that's important that we consider in
this conditional use is the impact to the neighbors, especially the one
who will be mostly impacted, which is the yellow highlighted house
there.
I did a site visit two weeks ago. The house is very secluded
presently. It's tucked away back in the woods. Once the EMS site is
approved, is developed, that house will be very exposed, not only to
the EMS station, but to the proposed six-laning of Vanderbilt Road
and the traffic impacts that come with that.
That's the reason we are requesting the six-foot wall for a
distance that goes 50 feet past the rear corner of the house. We're
trying to protect the neighbor to the south and try the best we can to
keep his serenity and peace.
Now, I understand that that eastern portion of the site, based on
the protected species survey, is a wetland area, although that will be
confirmed at the time of SDP by the jurisdictional authorities. So we
don't know exactly where that wetland line falls.
If it should conflict with the proposed location that staff is
requesting for the wall, then I would suggest that we replant that
preserve area per LDC Section 3.05.05, which is the requirements for
Page 63
January 18,2007
planting within a preserve, but require that it have 100 percent opacity
from zero to six feet height at the time of certificate of occupancy.
That would be staffs recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I question building a wall through
a wetland. And also to be able to plant something in a wetland that
has that guaranteed amount of opacity to six feet, I question that.
MS. GUNDLACH: The suggestion I just made was not to put
the wall into the wetland. I don't think that's something we would be
allowed to do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, one thing. So the 267
feet is essentially the dimension that would run it 50 feet past the
house?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On our plan, the preserve for
some reason is notched out in letting the buffer go through past the
houses, unlike your drawing there, you know, the drawing --
MS. GUNDLACH: They're different, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
So what's -- in the case of what they're submitting to us as their
conceptual site plan, would that make a difference, or --
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, both of these were submitted to us.
What they're showing on where you see that notched-out piece, that's
the preserve delineation there.
It is, it's shown slightly different on the black and white aerial
here. Something we don't know yet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If they notch it out, they would
be putting the wall in that buffer anyway, wouldn't they?
MS. GUNDLACH: Assuming there's no wetland there. We
don't know the exact location of the wetland line, but we will know at
the time ofSDP.
Page 64
January 18, 2007
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we will stop at the wetland,
we understand that, okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The second thing is earlier you
heard me talking with Heidi about the fact that that plan, and actually
your plan shows extensive clearing that isn't necessary for this project.
How do you -- what do you feel about that? Mainly based on
your landscape background.
MS. GUNDLACH: If they don't have to clear, that would be
best.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think they already agreed that
they would not have to clear anything.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean, it might be full of
exotics or something, there might be good reason to clear it, that's
why.
MS. GUNDLACH: Should we ask the applicant if they can
agree to that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they agreed, so -- okay,
thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Nancy?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, I was looking at this aerial, and
because I live in the Estates I know that the lots of 660 feet deep, half
of which is 330. The point that you had recommended this wall go
back to for 267 feet, being 50 feet beyond the existing home seems to
be well over half the depth of that lot.
Is that lot odd in size? Is it not 660 deep?
MS. GUNDLACH: We can tell by looking -- going back to the
survey again. And I do believe I have a copy with me right here, or if
the applicant wants to tell us what that length is.
Okay, so it is truly 660.
MR. HOVELL: To the center line.
Page 65
January 18, 2007
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. What's kind of interesting about this
is, notice how far back that house is? That's set pretty far back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's why I was thinking that
the 267 feet being 50 feet beyond the rear corner of the house may
actually be more than 267 feet. Because if the lot's 660, you're
probably three-quarters of the way back on that lot.
And I'm just wondering if the intent of your language meets the
intent of the drawing --
MS. GUNDLACH: The dimension.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or if the 267, as it does appear, is
closer to the front of those wetlands like you're arguing -- or stating
that it might need to be in the first place.
So I'm just wondering if anybody has scaled that off at all.
MS. GUNDLACH: We scaled it off of an aerial. And maybe
that's the problem.
The best I could recommend at this point is maybe just to try to
meet our intent, which is 50 feet off the rear corner of the house and
keeping out of the wetland and supplementing the wetland plantings
up to that point where the wall can't be constructed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty feet off the rear corner of the
house. Does that mean eastward or westward?
MS. GUNDLACH: Parallel to the common property line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know it's--
MS. GUNDLACH: -- so it would be running along the common
property line running from --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's put it this way: To the right or to
the left? You remind me of Rich Y ovanovich, because he can't get his
directions straight either.
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, we're going to be going from Logan
Boulevard and we're going to be heading -- if we're facing Vanderbilt,
we're going to be heading to the right, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's east. That's what I was getting at.
Page 66
January 18,2007
Okay.
So your 50 feet, is it past the back of the house?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think you need to reword
number seven. If this is to survive, then I think seven needs to be
reworded. And maybe before this meeting is over, you can supply us
with some rewording of that language as to number seven.
MS. GUNDLACH: I can do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My packet didn't have a
dimension survey in it. Is there one available? We have site plans but
nothing with site dimensions on it. Obviously you're confused going
that way. I was confused going the other way.
MS. GUNDLACH: Would you like me to -- I have a boundary
survey here. I could put it up on the visualizer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or -- okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: It's kind of hard to read because it's so little.
I was just saying it's a little bit difficult to read because the
lettering is kind of little.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, if you could just pass
it to me, I'll read it. I'll pass it down, Ray.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, the county zoning map
that's included in our packet doesn't appear to have the lot line starting
at the center of the roadway. It looks like it's starting at the edge of
the exist -- of the original right-of-way, just for clarification.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: While Mr. Schiffer is looking at
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If it turns out that there are
wetlands there in an area where the wall cannot then be built, do you
have an objection to the alternative, which is to create that curved wall
Page 67
January 18, 2007
and put that in place?
MS. GUNDLACH: The reason I object to that is the only thing
that accomplishes is screening a paved driveway. It doesn't screen a
site, it doesn't mitigate for the impacts of developing this site and
exposing that neighbor now to Vanderbilt Road.
Because we all know when we clear out the exotics, we could
have some gaping holes in that preserve area.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Replanting would not be
something -- that would be, I would imagine, costly. But if we are
going to clear cut it, which is what I surmise is going to be the case,
then what do we do to help that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, they're not going to clear cut it,
they said they wouldn't.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're not going to clear cut?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. They're going to -- they said
they wouldn't clear the areas beyond the development area of the
building. So--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, let me --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad asked that early on in the meeting.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I heard that and lost sight of it.
But I guess where I was tangled up then is in where this area here
where the wetland mayor may not be significant or what.
But my point would be -- if they're not going to clear cut it, that's
fine. Okay. But my point is if the wetland -- now the wetland is not
typically high growth, right? Or is it?
MS. GUNDLACH: I'm not sure what you mean by high growth.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of fauna --
MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, okay, like shrubbery?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that--
MS. GUNDLACH: They're going to have to select -- their
landscape architect's going to have to select a wet-footed species.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just concerned, I'm trying to
Page 68
January 18,2007
understand and then I can make a postulation on it as to whether or not
there'd be adequate cover. If the wall doesn't work, what do we do?
You know, that was a concern I had. And that's where I'm going with
it. So I hope I'm a little clear on that.
So if they're not going to clear cut it, that would be good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah, I hate to ask this question of
Heidi, but I'm not sure where else to put it. But we do have the,
hopefully, new criteria being set for how do we judge response times,
how we build facilities between the fires. You know, we have Golden
Gate just built theirs and North Naples is building theirs. And today,
based on the criteria, we use this as necessary.
And if that would change at the next A UIR, because we can
accommodate and use fire departments' responses, and things shift and
mend together, then we're building a facility we may not need is the
only concern. Today we do need it. Will we need it next year or the
year after that?
Or maybe we can have -- accommodate North Naples Fire
Department into this somehow so that maybe we can all use that site.
And I don't know how we pass that or make that happen, but my
fear is we're passing things and building things that a year from now
we may say, well, I guess our response times are changed in the way
we judge them.
MS. WILLIAMS: If I could respond, Commissioner Tuff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead.
MS. WILLIAMS: I can certainly understand that you want to
make sure we're being efficient in where we're locating facilities. And
I can assure you that EMS wants that as well.
Right now AUIR is a concurrency tool and EMS looks at their
actual real-time response rates.
Right now they have many calls where they exceed an acceptable
response time in this area. And so they do feel it is very necessary
Page 69
January 18, 2007
right now, and they feel that it will continue to be necessary in this
location.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: But what's not included in those
times, which was mentioned at that meeting was that the fire
department is there and they have EMS-certified people that are
administering the need. And then the EMS comes in and cleans up
afterwards.
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't believe they transport. So perhaps
Chief Page would like to respond to operational issues.
CHIEF PAGE: Could you repeat that last statement?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah, just that the fire department
possibly is getting there ahead of EMS and they have personnel on
hand to administer to this person that's in need, and then so when the
ambulance comes they do take him away if necessary. But in the
meantime, there is a certified person helping that person, but it's not in
your statistics of need on this.
You had -- you know, your criteria today, this meets everything.
But will it if they change that? Because they're going to implement the
fire department's response to those -- at least that's what was asked for
-- to implement their time. They're there, I'm here, we can help this
person and --
CHIEF PAGE: Well, there is no fire station that's any closer than
we are in that area.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: And I know this can't be answered
today, but I guess I just don't want it to go away.
The fire department from Golden Gate or North Naples is going
to be there, wherever this call is at. So they're showing up there, and
they have personnel possibly on their truck that can do everything that
EMS can do except transport.
CHIEF PAGE: Golden Gate does not.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Golden Gate does not?
CHIEF PAGE: They do not have an ALS engine. And this is
Page 70
January 18, 2007
Golden Gate's district, so --
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Okay, that's the question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Any other questions of--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I have a question of the
applicant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question of Nancy, I'm
sorry .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's staff.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: She's staff, right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's staff for now, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, at the neighborhood
meeting, were you there?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What was the fear of the fire
department? What was the concern there about?
MS. GUNDLACH: Fear of devaluation of property values.
Primarily I think they were concerned about the noise and the sounds,
the impact of something like this in their neighborhood.
They definitely would have preferred that it went to another
location. There was a lot of time spent on where they wish it would
be.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern there, the
stipulation that it not ever be a fire station or not allow firefighting
vehicles there, was that brought up, or is that something -- I mean,
EMS and a fire station is not that much different. Maybe two feet of
door.
MS. GUNDLACH: I don't recall that being brought up.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I think my comments about it not
being -- being limited to EMS was for this conditional use. If there's
ever a suggested change, they need to go back through the process and
Page 71
January 18, 2007
duly notify the public that they're going to have a more intense use or
additional uses there besides EMS.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't they have to do that
anyway? I mean, if we approve a 5,000-square-foot building EMS
and they wanted to add some bays and a dormitory for the firemen,
wouldn't they have to come back anyway, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think, you know, the
stipulation prohibiting it, it gives the illusion that there was a problem
here. Since they have to come back for public hearing anyway, let's
let them deal with it at that time and not, you know, put a stigma --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the stigma is well
deserved, so I have no problem putting it there. So I guess we'll deal
with that in stipulations.
Are there any other questions of the applicant or the staff at this
point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, Ray do we have any public
speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have two registered speakers. The
first is Thomas Torrella, to be followed by Stephen McCann.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to ask you if you'll come up to
one of the podiums and try to limit your discussion to five minutes,
please.
And I've got to ask also, were you sworn in by the court reporter
earlier?
You'll have to be sworn in. There's a gentleman behind you, too.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. TORRELLA: I'm Thomas Torrella and I had the fortunate
honor to live in that property for 20 years. Nobody wants to live there
and raise a family on that corner because it's noisy. And I'm
concerned that there's a lot of people out here who you don't hear fromw
Page 72
January 18,2007
that tend to approve things. They don't attend the meetings. I approve
this proj ect. The greasy wheel -- the squeaky wheel gets greased. So
I'm here to squeak that we need that EMS station.
I did run a business for 20 years while I lived there, and had three
employees. We came and went. It is a problem in the morning during
rush hour. The rest of the time it is not an issue. When you come out,
you want to go east on Vanderbilt, that's never been an issue.
However, going left on Logan to Pine Ridge, you got people that
are inconsiderate and don't want to stop and let you out.
As a citizen, that's why I'm here, we'll benefit from having the
medics stationed in our neighborhood. I moved off of 7th Avenue and
Webber. My backyard is still Vanderbilt so I'm still being impacted.
One person opposes this project that I'm aware of. Wanting that
wall. When I lived there, they wanted a wall as well.
It won't affect property values. I've watched values adjacent to
other emergency stations, and they haven't gone down. N one of them.
Show me some that have decreased in value.
I am a firefighter with the City of Naples. I am a paramedic. We
are good neighbors. Our stations are clean, they look as good as
anybody's home. And I'm a taxpayer. And I want to see my tax
dollars spent wisely. So that's why I decided to come down today.
I imagine impact fees will pay a lot of this -- for this building. I
don't know. It's the first time I've been here. I do not think that that
wall is going to make a difference. That noise on Vanderbilt,
especially when you six-lane it, is going to be a whole lot noisier.
The second signal, the only time it will be effective is if they
want to go south to Pine Ridge. But I don't know the district lines and
I don't know what they're doing. But most of the time when people
see you respond, they give you the right-of-way. And that's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.
MR. McCANN: Mr. Chairman, Steve McCann. I'm here
representing Lorraine Stevenson who resides at 630 Logan Boulevard
Page 73
January 18, 2007
North, which is a couple properties south of this site for EMS.
She's opposed to it. She fears the noise. She also, maybe not to
say it's going to depreciate or decrease the property values, but that it
will negatively affect their appreciation.
At the neighborhood meeting, as was mentioned, many of the
people were opposed to the project. I don't know if you've ever put
one of these facilities in the Estates as a conditional use. But one of
the criteria, the noise -- in the ordinance, the Land Development Code,
it discusses having to address that and the economic effect on the
neighbors of allowing the conditional use.
When I saw in the staff report that there's only five trips a day
anticipated from this location, I wondered if it was really needed. I
think probably at some point maybe there will be a lot more trips; the
impact on the neighborhood will be a lot greater.
My client and others at the meeting preferred a location closer to
951 and Vanderbilt, that they're going to be particularly aggravated I
guess when they hear the siren leave this property to go to 951 and
Vanderbilt.
I don't know if this violates any policy on locating fire stations
and EMS stations together, but they don't want to follow that policy.
They do not want a fire station in this location in addition to the EMS
site.
And as far as the egress onto Vanderbilt Road heading east, it
seems that that would do something at least to help reduce the noise.
You wouldn't have the vehicle going out onto Logan through the
traffic light to the north and then heading east. And that might be
something that would reduce the impact on the neighbors so that they
wouldn't have to hit the siren to get out of the facility.
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. Thank you for your time.
Last of the public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
Page 74
January 18, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any closing comments by the
applicant?
MS. WILLIAMS: With your permission, I'd like to just respond
to a couple things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MS. WILLIAMS: We have a conceptual plan that was -- that
Nancy highlighted, and that was an earlier rendering. The preserve
line was moved based on a review comment by environmental staff.
And the area did not change but it was shifted around a little bit so that
they could have a little different configuration anticipating a landscape
buffer.
We will reiterate, we do not intend to clear cut anything that's not
delineated as a preserve here. And I'd like to show you also an earlier
concept plan. I don't believe this was submitted to staff, because it is
an estimated wetland line. I've highlighted it here.
This is not South Florida Water Management District verified at
this time, but it is based on the FLUCCS map and based on site
conditions where we believe the wetland line will fall when it is
verified.
You can see how close that is to the impacted area. That is why
we have such a difficult time with the wall requirement. We certainly
want an adequate buffer. We do not feel that we can accommodate
267 feet without having a wetland impact. The wetland line could be
in a different location, but this is where we expect that it would be.
And if you would be able to consider this during your discussion, we'd
appreciate that.
I think that's really the extent of my comments, and we thank you
very much for your time and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, could you sort of reiterate
again for us what kind of buffering you're proposing right now?
MS. WILLIAMS: Sure. The Land Development Code requires a
Page 75
January 18, 2007
15-foot wide Type B buffer. And we intend to comply with that.
The Type B buffer provides an option of a wall or a hedge. We
would propose that the wall be provided along the retaining wall that
we propose for the site. It is at the edge of the pavement and goes up
to the building. We would propose a wall there, and then the
remainder would have all of the other vegetation that's required by
that Type B buffer.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I mean, to shield that house, what
buffering on that side of your property?
MS. WILLIAMS: It has to be a Type B buffer. And you can
either use material within the preserve, if it's adequate. And if it's not
adequate, you have to enhance that to the Type B standards. And we
would be required to do that by code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Heidi.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just a question because it
never came up. The neighbor to the south, Ray, have they ever via
writing, via neighborhood meeting, via anything, voiced an opinion on
this?
MS. GUNDLACH: Not that I know of.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: And for the record, that was Nancy, not Ray.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, while you're here, we had asked
you about the further defining number seven in regards to the wall.
But I also want to ask you about the wetland lines.
I think it was just indicated that the wetland lines are much closer
to the buildable area than we had previously thought. But those are
wetland lines established by staff. I know South Florida establishes
wetland lines, too.
How did the two coincide on this particular location; do we
know?
MS. GUNDLACH: I believe that the wetland lines are set by
Page 76
January 18, 2007
either the Army Corps of Engineers or South Florida Water
Management District.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought Heidi just indicated these were
determined by staff. Maybe I need a clarification on that.
MS. WILLIAMS: Heidi Williams, for the record.
I'm sorry, that wetland line is one that we used based on the
FLUCCS map that is based on our protected species survey and some
of the engineering information and site conditions. So it wasn't
created by staff. We had that as one of our work products. And it
would be verified by South Florida Water Management District in the
future for the site plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How close are your lines generally in
line with South Florida's?
MS. WILLIAMS: Michael Delate is an engineer in our office
and he's indicated that they're very close many times.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Nancy, did you come up with some fresh language?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah, I came up with some fresh language,
but it's going to obviously be changed by what was just disclosed
within the past five minutes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's on the fly here.
MS. GUNDLACH: I can share with you what I have. And it's
close. Here's what I have: It is intended that a six-foot high concrete
wall shall be constructed within the 15- foot buffer along the south
property line to a point that is 50 feet east of the residential house.
Then I put in parentheses, to the south.
If the wall cannot be constructed due to the presence of
jurisdictional wetlands -- that's jurisdictional wetlands -- then shrubs
shall be planted that achieve 100 percent opacity between zero and six
foot height.
And then I added, in addition, the wall shall be set back a
minimum of three feet from the edge of pavement along the drivewaye
Page 77
January 18,2007
and planted with a three-foot hedge at three feet on center.
Obviously the wetlands might impede upon that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They're not going to clear the
back of that lot or past the structure. It's all possibly wetlands.
Your wall's going to go somewhere starting around the
right-of-way of Logan. And it will go for a while, it may be 50 feet, it
may be 100, it may be 200, but at some point it will stop because of
the wetlands. And I understand that part of it.
Then you get into this additional plantings. If the entire back side
is not cleared, what are those plantings you're asking for needed above
the buffer requirements that would be standard?
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, those were going to be in lieu of the
buffer requirements. Because the buffer requirements are a little
different. A Type B buffer, you have two years to achieve 80 percent
opacity to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what I thought. But if
you've got -- the 80 percent opacity for a two-year achievement is
within a 15-year buffer -- 15- foot wide buffer; is that correct?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got 165-foot wide of uncleared
area. So why is the opacity of a 15- foot wide buffer a necessity when
you've got 165 feet that could probably accomplish the opacity that
you're looking for?
MS. GUNDLACH: If it does, then the buffer would not be
required.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how do we determine that?
MS. GUNDLACH: You don't really know that until we get
there, until they clear the site and they start constructing it.
Typically on landscape plans, they'll put a note to that effect on
the plans.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm a little puzzled, because I don't see
the need to go to the opacity within the 15- foot buffer if you've got the
Page 78
January 18, 2007
benefit of all that uncleared property. Why expend the money when
it's not needed?
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, I see what you're saying.
Then perhaps it should only be stated if -- what I'm trying to do is
I'm trying to get the opacity sooner than two years from after the
certificate of occupancy. But you do have the option.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm -- as far as the -- I think the
wall is a necessity up to the delineation lines, and after that the
standard buffer would seem to apply, because you've got the wetland
protection there for it. That's my thoughts on it. I'm not sure why we
need to go farther than that.
So anybody else have any thoughts?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Okay, anything else, Nancy, or are
we --
MS. GUNDLACH: That's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So to summarize number seven, because
we're going to have to make a motion involving these stipulations, let
me try paraphrasing it for you.
In addition to the required landscape buffer, the applicant shall
provide a continuous six-foot high wall along the south property line
for a distance that continues to the beginning of the wetland lines, as
determined by South Florida Water Management District, not to
exceed in any case 267 feet.
MS. GUNDLACH: That's very good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will that work?
MS. GUNDLACH: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, with that, if there's no other
speakers, Ray, we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion
for this conditional use. Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I would like to move that
we move Petition CU-2006-AR-I0550 to the Board of County
Page 79
January 18, 2007
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with the omission
of staff recommendations three, four and seven.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made by Mr.
Midney, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein.
And I wanted to ask the two of you for some discussion. Three
and four I think was -- we discussed that and that's a transportation
issue I think more than an EMS issue, and I fully agree that's correct.
But number seven, in lieu of the fact we've out up some --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- unclean language, would you accept
the modified language of number seven?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, that's what I meant to say.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So seven is back in but with the
last rendition of the modified language.
During the discussion we had two other issues come up that they
would add a note to the site plan showing their clearing limits, and it
would be in line with the building's buildable area and the
development area.
Is that an acceptable stipulation?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mine as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The motion maker accepts it, so
does the second.
The other two things: The door heights would be limited to what
they spoke of in the neighborhood informational meeting, which was
12 feet in height.
Is that acceptable to the motion maker and the second?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last one, and I know that Mr.
Schiffer doesn't agree with this, so I'm going to -- I saved it for last, is
Page 80
January 18, 2007
that this site be limited to use for emergency medical services only.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, the motion makers agrees
with it, Mr. Adelstein agrees with it.
Now, is there discussion on the motion with the stipulation?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And to the motion maker and
the second, look at item number two. It really clearly says that you
can't increase the use of this site without coming through the
conditional use process again. Why is the stigma that you can't have a
fire thing necessary? What is that doing?
I mean, if you didn't put that in you would have the same thing
that you have if you did put it in, with the exception that a future
board might look at that as if that was an issue. It wasn't an issue with
the neighbors, so why are we making it an issue?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But my reason for suggesting it is it
wasn't an issue with the neighbors because they didn't believe it
applies. And I think that there is a difference of intensity and uses any
time you change it. And I think it would be helpful to the public to
make it very clear that this isn't going to be anything but an EMS
station. So that anybody in the future that wants to come in and do a
similar action knows they might anticipate similar clarity. That's just
a benefit to the public.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But when the fire does want to
come in here, they'd be having the public process just like we have
now, and that's when it would be discussed or denied.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then that's when--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why are we creating, you know
-- again, the stigma isn't necessary to me.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I think because the
applicant hasn't requested that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the applicant hasn't
Page 81
January 18, 2007
requested video game rooms and everything else in the world. And
why are we not -- why do we choose that no fire is allowed when
anything that's different than what they show would have to have a
public process?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I strongly believe that that
clarification is needed. I think that in the future changes could be
made that allow essential services to be expanded. I'm not sure how it
could fit in. But this makes it very clear, if there's fire uses there they
simply got to come in for another public process.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, let me ask you this:
Could we take like a straw vote of the -- how many people on the
panel think that? I mean, I would hate to vote against this just because
of one of the conditions. So--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with that.
Who would like -- who has -- Brad does not feel that the
stipulation that this shall not be used for fire service should be added.
Who agrees with him on that?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicates.)
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've got to weigh in, only
because it's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing until I would
know and see a radius and see where fire department is and so forth.
And in theory, I can appreciate the desire to always leave a door open,
but the conditional use process is there. So I'm going to just state it
with that and remain aloof, I guess.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just go back to what we started
with.
Mr. Tuff, you agree with Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I hope you do, you're you.
Okay, that's your straw vote.
Page 82
January 18, 2007
Now, we'll call-- is there any other discussion on the motion
with the stipulations as previously recommended by the motion maker
and the second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you.
Okay. There is a form in the back of your packet -- I shouldn't
say in the back -- a few pages back involving this conditional use that
we need to fill out, each one of us, and turn it in.
Okay, the paperwork shuffle is completed.
Just so everybody knows, we usually take a break around 11 :45.
I'll try to keep to that today. Is that okay with everyone on the
commission?
Item #8D
PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-7820
Okay, the next petition is PUDZ-2005-AR-7820. It's the Habitat
for Humanity of Collier County, represented by Laura Spurgeon with
Page 83
January 18, 2007
Johnson Engineering, and it's for a mobile home overlay district. And
it's called the Kaicasa RPUD, and it's on the south side of Immokalee.
And would all those wishing to provide testimony today please
rise and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of
the planning commission.
I had a meeting with Ms. Spurgeon and -- what's your last name
-- Mr. Hagan, yesterday or the day before. We discussed some of the
issues, all of which will be rediscussed today. Mostly language
changes and issues like that.
With that, we'll move into the applicant's presentation.
MS. SPURGEON: Good morning. My name is Laura Spurgeon,
for the record. I'm a senior planner with Johnson Engineering in
Naples. I am here representing Habitat for Humanity of Collier
County.
Also with me is professional engineer Chris Hagan, ecologists
Peggy Grant and Kim Buckley. Sam Durso and Mary Ann Durso are
here from Habitat for Humanity. And also our traffic engineer is Reed
Jarvi of Vanasse Daylor.
I'll give a quick overview of the project location and the zoning
request, and then we'll be happy to address any questions that you
have.
On the monitor is the project location. As Mr. Strain described, it
is in the southeast section of the Immokalee urban area.
Habitat for Humanity is requesting a rezoning of this 100-acre
site. The site fronts State Road 29 and is located in the urban
designated area.
The site abuts Farm Workers Village and is currently
undeveloped. To the north, east and south is also undeveloped land.
I'm going to put the site aerial on now.
You can see the neighborhood. And the triangular shape is Farm
Page 84
January 18, 2007
Workers Village. And the Habitat site is the 100 acres adjoining that.
The Immokalee future land use map designates the site in the
high residential category, which entitles up to eight dwelling units per
acre. With an affordable housing density bonus, the site is eligible for
up to 16 units per acre.
The site is currently zoned rural agricultural with a mobile home
overlay. Habitat requests a residential PUD zoning with only four
units per acre. That will consist of 400 affordable housing units on the
site.
Because no bonus density is needed here, you will not see an
affordable housing bonus density agreement in your package.
However, Section 5.4 of the RPUD document spells out that there's a
commitment for 15 years, at least 15 years that these units will be
occupied by people making at or below 60 percent of the median
household income. Now I'll put up the site plan.
We do anticipate fee simple ownership in the form of two- family
or four-plex building types. The site plan shows that the
neighborhood is designed primarily with attention to the
environmental conditions of the site.
The site plan shows a preserve including 22.5 acres of wetlands,
which is about 80 percent of the existing on-site wetlands. Total
native vegetation preserve is over 30 acres, exceeding county LDC
requirements.
The design is laid out this way as a result of both the county staff
and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service staff input.
Your package included a traffic impact statement that indicates
that no level of service deficiencies result from this project. Turn
lanes are the only required improvements, which will be provided.
The water management system is designed with on-site lakes,
and it will meet all county and district requirements.
I just went to add, as you know the Immokalee area master plan
is going through an update process. There have been a series of public
Page 85
January 18, 2007
workshops. The draft documents to update the Immokalee area master
plan are dated November, 2006.
The sub-area that encompasses this proj ect is slated for more
residential development, so we're consistent with that. And there's
also proposed housing language in that Immokalee area master plan
that speaks strongly about the need for affordable housing, which is in
line with what we're proposing.
We read the staff report and we appreciate staffs
recommendation for approval, as well as the Environmental Advisory
Council's unanimous recommendation for approval.
We do concur with all of the EAC stipulations in the staff report.
However, there is one point of clarification I want to make.
On Page 4 of 6 of your staff report, the engineering and
stormwater management stipulation is listed. The staff is requesting
that base flood elevation approval be obtained from FEMA prior to
ever submitting for a development order or PPL. We do not want to
hold up just getting the application into the county, so therefore we
request that stipulation just be changed to state that base flood
elevation approval shall be obtained from FEMA and submitted prior
to approval of final development order, rather than prior to just getting
the application in to the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You realize that FEMA elevation that
dictates your house pads also dictates the storm events that set your
road, humps and sumps in regards to how the road is configured. So if
you do a PPL prior to knowing that FEMA line and staff wastes their
time reviewing it and the FEMA comes out even a half inch
difference, you're going to have impacts on your entire PPL.
I mean, I'm not trying to hurt you in regards to timing, but I don't
see what was -- from either an expense viewpoint as far as the
applicant goes for redoing things numbers of times or for reapplication
to the county. I think you'd be much wiser getting your FEMA line
known before you go into the county with all those calculations and
Page 86
January 18, 2007
design drawings.
MS. SPURGEON: I think that has been contemplated. I'm going
to have Chris Hagan get up and address exactly how we're prepared
for that.
MR. HAGAN: For the record, Chris Hagan, Johnson
Engineering.
The FEMA study that's being done right now for this vicinity is
being handled by the county through Tomasello. I'm sure you all are
familiar with that design engineer.
Weare -- in this case we believe that the FEMA elevations will
set finish floor for the buildings but won't affect the storms because
the regional hydrology is such that we wouldn't expect extreme high
events beyond the regular flooding. In other words, what I don't
believe is that there's as much of a risk for the roadway hump and
sump as there is for the finished floors.
The finished floors, generally speaking, in this area are going to
be dictated more by the storm events that the District will require than
anything FEMA or the flood insurance rate maps will set.
We've been finding pretty consistently by utilizing the control
elevations that we have and the historic information in the area, that
we'll be in excess of what FEMA will come up with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you do realize if you change your
-- if FEMA requires you to change your elevations at all, you're going
to have to redesign, go back through the process, pay the reapplication
fees, and spend a lot of money that usually Habitat is very concerned
about, I would assume, in all cases.
MR. HAGAN: Correct. But if we wait for FEMA, this FEMA
study could take another six to nine months to finish, according to my
last discussion with Tomasello. Ifwe can't even submit until that
time, that sets the whole clock back that six to eight months.
We understand the risk, and we know we're moving forward with
some risk, but we can't afford to lose that much time. I believe the
Page 87
January 18,2007
risk is minimal, and that's the way I've discussed it with my client.
We've been in touch with Tomasello so we won't be surprised when
his report comes out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you already working on your PPL
drawings?
MR. HAGAN: Yes, we are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have some time
involved in those. But if you've already started, that makes it up.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Could you just read how you'd like
that rephrased?
MR. HAGAN: We would like to just have the FEMA
requirement become a stipulation of final PPL approval, as opposed to
being done before PPL submission. FEMA in this case would be very
much like getting a Corps or a District permit where it's a final
requirement before final issuance from the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks for the clarification. I didn't
mean to interrupt your presentation.
MS. SPURGEON: No, it was at the wrap-up stage. I've covered
all the issues I wanted to. And we are available for questions. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go into questions, in our
discussion that I had with you all, typical to other comments that we
have had on this board, the ambiguous and fluffy language in the
compliance statement part of the PUD, a lot of that now has been
cleared up and you had e-mailed a corrected copy. But not everybody
here may have gotten it. I did get it.
Do you have that available for handing out?
MS. SPURGEON: No, I didn't want to -- I wanted to just
demonstrate that we understand your request, but I don't have
complete copies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have to walk through those
Page 88
January 18,2007
strike-outs and suggestions so the rest of the panel can weigh in on
them as well.
Are there any questions at this point of the applicant?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Small questions.
In the development standards here on Page 11-2, you're putting in
there how to measure building height, and I think that's exactly what's
in the code. Is it exactly what's in the code?
In other words, what I'm afraid of is that something -- you're
mentioning it --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a page reference?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, 11-2 in the PUD. It's the
development standards Table 2. It's footnote six.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got 111-2.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 111-2, I'm sorry.
MS. SPURGEON: I think it's Roman numeral 111-2.
That is correct, that that language was pulled from --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there's no change. I mean,
we can take it out, but there's no change intended there?
MS. SPURGEON: Correct, it's just for clarity.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The next question is, and you've
kind of showed in your studies that the sheet flow on this is kind of a
southeasterly. When you berm up your property, will that be pushing
water around your property?
And if so, isn't there a way that you could put some inlets at the
north and into the lake that would actually allow that to come through
your property at a lower elevation than your fill area?
MS. SPURGEON: I'll have Chris Hagan describe the stormwater
management.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pursuant to the discussion that I had
with both of you, I had asked that you bring in the stormwater design
for Farm Workers Village so you could show us how you're handling
Page 89
January 18, 2007
that. And this would dovetail with Brad's issue.
MR. HAGAN: In my briefcase I do have the staff report and
final permit for the latest revision to Farm Workers Village.
Could we have the aerial please, Ray? Thank you very much.
Farm Workers Village discharges all of its water into that central
green band that you see that kind of divides it in half. The newest
addition is that bottom triangle. And that has 100 percent retention
with discharge directly into 29. So that all the water from Farm
Workers Village is directed in this case almost due east into 29.
We have a shared berm agreement along our eastern -- or excuse
me, western boundary, our shared boundary with Farm Workers
Village. So we're actually going to share our berms. They don't have
any pipes or overland flows discharging into our subject site.
So the only water that would enter our site would be along the
very extreme northeasterly corner. And we have got -- I mean that's
very minimal. And we're berming it to route it around the exterior.
We hadn't anticipated running it through the project because it is
pretty minimal. And that's a single owner that wraps all the way
around us to the north and to the east. And we assume that they'll be
able -- they're going to come forward with some type of development
use and they'd be able to accommodate it at that time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a number.
Is mosquito control out in that area? Do we have that? Do we
know?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The answer is yes?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
Will there be an association?
Page 90
January 18, 2007
MS. SPURGEON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to safety, does Farm
Workers Village have a store?
MS. SPURGEON: There is a small convenience--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They do have a store.
MS. SPURGEON: -- store, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if anybody were to leave the
proposed development, the furthest that they would have to go is to
Farm Workers Village to pick up basic staples? Is that a fair statement
or conjuncture?
MS. SPURGEON: That's a fair statement, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I mean, it's not restricted in Farm
Workers Village to those people that live there, right?
MS. SPURGEON: Not to my understanding.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The road there is rather narrow,
if I recall correctly. And I don't remember any bicycle lanes. There
may be but I don't remember seeing any. I'm just wondering about the
safety along that corridor.
MS. SPURGEON: Are you referring to State Road 29?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
MS. SPURGEON: Correct, there are no pedestrian facilities
along State Road 29 for bike.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you give me just an
estimate of the distance from, say, the center line of that as the
triangular piece of the property, from there into the main area of
Immokalee? What would you say, two miles, three miles?
MS. SPURGEON: Measuring from -- can I--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Two miles.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Paul's got the information and
I'll accept that. He lives there. Two miles, thank you.
These are going to be a four-plex, I understand.
MS. SPURGEON: Correct. Yes. The PUD is structured to
Page 91
January 18, 2007
allow single, two-family and multi-family.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because that's a departure -- as
we know, that's a departure from the norm that has been the case.
And the ownership is fee for what, the apartment?
MS. SPURGEON: No, we anticipate fee simple ownership of
the piece of property and unit above. Essentially single --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Four-plex would be one person
on top of another, one family on top of another, right?
MS. SPURGEON: No, it's actually a vertical--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, it's a horizontal four-plex,
not vertical?
MS. SPURGEON: Right. Horizontal single-family attached
kind of format.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That gives me a better picture in
my mind, okay.
Will they have some space in the rear when they -- how much of
the lot is going to be -- a zero lot line to the house, or will they have
some space for them to sit outside, a patio or whatever?
MS. SPURGEON: There will be front yards and year yards, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There will be what?
MS. SPURGEON: Front yards and rear yards.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Front yards.
MS. SPURGEON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And not intended for parking.
That would be a yard, right? There would be -- are there garages?
MS. SPURGEON: The garages are not stipulated in this
particular PUD. And we could discuss that, if it's the desire of the
board to require --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know whether I want to
discuss that. We'll see.
But what I'm concerned about is I happened to have seen some
pictures of Victoria Falls, that I saw some things that we want to stay
Page 92
January 18, 2007
away from. Issues such as trucks parked on the lawn and other issues
where the place is not as nice as it could be.
And I'm concerned with the number of people that you're putting
in there, whether or not that we would create a problem. And that's all
conjectural.
But the drainage which Mr. Schiffer brought up also occurred to
me is that there seems to be -- we know that in the future issues
regarding water, where it's going to go, are going to become more and
more of a problem. And while I saw the documents here that show the
flow, we end up with these little lakes, but no indication that the flow
is doing anything more than going around. And I don't know that I
heard your answer to Mr. Schiffer. Was what? I'm not really clear on
what that result was.
MS. SPURGEON: Chris Hagan again is the engineer who can
address any --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be fine. I would like
to understand it. I didn't necessarily hear it before. I want to have it
clear in my mind.
Chris, is the water -- are we actually blocking that water? You
said something about a common berm or something, and I couldn't --
MR. HAGAN: Let's go with the aerial again.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Anything that will give me
visual would be good. You mentioned triangles, but you didn't point
to where they are. There's one in -- go ahead.
MR. HAGAN: Farm Workers Village, the original phase were
these --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Microphone.
MR. HAGAN: -- two parcels here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chris, you've got to use the microphone.
MR. HAGAN: Oh, I'm sorry.
These were the original phases of Farm Workers Village. And
they provide dry retention, and they discharge into what -- you can see
Page 93
January 18, 2007
this green swath through here is the outfall channel into State Road 29.
The little triangle here was the latest and last edition to the South
Florida Water Management District permit for Farm Workers Village,
which has 100 percent retention with discharge also to State Road 29.
As part of our design for Kaicasa, we've negotiated with Farm
Workers Village to share a perimeter berm here. Because of these
three basins being separate with Farm Workers Village, they each
have their own perimeter berm. What we've done is we've basically
shared it on this side. They have no flow coming onto us, we'll have
no flow going onto them. All of our flow will be directed in a
southwesterly pattern.
And the pattern that we've derived is based on pre-application
meetings with the South Florida Water Management District to keep
those existing wetlands on-site hydrated and maintain the historic
flowways.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the reason why I asked
the question about the mosquito control, because I see there's a great
deal of water on these properties, and I wouldn't want to think we've
put people where it would be very, very uncomfortable to live. And
that would be the one issue.
What's the height of the buildings we're going to put up here? 30
feet, 35, 25?
MS. SPURGEON: The development standards table describes
heights consistent with the LDC requirements.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
MS. SPURGEON: The maximum building heights of 35 feet
and two stories.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So are we going to have two
stories or are we going to have single story?
MS. SPURGEON: The entire development plan is not finalized
yet, so the flexibility is built into the PUD. If two stories is more
efficient use of the property to accommodate the remaining preserves,
Page 94
January 18, 2007
water management, things like that, there could be two story
townhouse-type units.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But they would still be
four-pI ex?
MS. SPURGEON: Yes. The form is more preferably
appropriately termed single-family attached. But four describes the
number in one building.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I understand you.
All right. And so you really don't have a plan yet. But the 400
would not change?
MS. SPURGEON: Correct, 400 is the maximum.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I might have one more.
Well, I did note that on Page 3 of 3, I know that this is the staff
report, but I'm coming from that because it does say, findings, the
RPUD document has utilized GMP requirements to ensure the
proposed development shall accommodate expansion.
Expansion to what? So if you're saying 400 is the max, are you
going to go beyond 400? That's the question I asked and you
answered. But I'm wondering what expansion we're talking about.
MS. SPURGEON: Please tell me where you're reading.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it is in the staff report, and
perhaps I can pose that to the person who wrote that report. But that's
what provoked my question about how many people. And especially
since you're indicating you may change the format of the structures.
MS. SPURGEON: Right, our PUD request is for 400 units. If
any changes ever occurred, it would have to come as a PUD
amendment. We do not anticipate that. We request 400 units as a
maximum. And considering the site conditions, that is all that can fit
on the site. We do not propose any expansion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, last question. I know you
probably have it. And just for the record, is the front, if you will, front
setback from a road or exit -- internal road to the line of the building is
Page 95
January 18, 2007
how many feet? Twenty-five?
MS. SPURGEON: The front yard setback is set at 20 feet. And
if garages are used, the requirement that the county uses is 23 feet
from the sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, but you don't plan on
necessarily putting garages in. So we have 20 feet. So if we ended up
with a lot of cars parked all over the lawns, we just have a row of
vehicles lined up all over the place. Maybe garages should be
considered.
Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, then Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This is what I've done quite
often with Dr. Durso. It is my understanding that we will get garages;
is that correct? I mean, we'll insist that we get garages.
MR. DURSO: We are not allowed to do garages unless you
require them.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I require it.
MR. DURSO: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And that the driveway be 23
feet.
MR. DURSO: That's fine. And actually, as far as the product,
you know, ideally we would continue building single-family detached
homes. We can't do that anymore; the land is too hard to get, it's too
hard to develop.
We think we've been very successful with the attached duplex
product that we already have about 100 built.
We're going to experiment in this development. And we are
forced to do four-plexes. Most likely most of them will be one-story.
We don't like building two-story because our volunteers, the average
volunteer is 78 years old.
But we'll probably build some two-story, because I think it will
look nicer. And what we might do in the two-story is have a
Page 96
January 18,2007
single-story on the outside units and the inside units, some of those be
two stories.
We've got some architects drawing plans now. We want
something that's going to look real nice there. But this would be our
chance to have both type units there, okay.
And we still might, if we could fit them, could still do a couple
attached villas in there.
The density is still only 400 units, it's four units per acre, which
is the same density we used to use when we did single-family
detached residences. But in this property there's a lot of environmental
issues, so we're only using some of the land.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, does that answer your
question?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, it did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This is going to be run as a
homeowners association condominium --
MR. DURSO: Absolutely -- no, homeowners association.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So you'll have docs, like condo
docs?
MR. DURSO: Same thing.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So you'll be able to restrict the
cars and --
MR. DURSO: We've already done that. And all--
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So there won't be a problem?
MR. DURSO: Well, there won't be a problem. The homeowners
are allowed to have two vehicles only. And I'll be glad to talk about
Victoria Falls now, but I think since Mr. Murray is the only one that
questioned it, if you want, would you rather talk later about it or do
you want to talk now about Victoria Falls?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My concern -- so I'll respond to
you. My concern was that you're trying to do a good thing, and you
Page 97
January 18, 2007
want it to be a good thing, and sometimes it may not turn out that way.
And with the density of 400, if one thinks about that, especially
in four-plex, the potential could be not something you want to see
ultimately.
And so if you wish to discuss the problems, that's fine. I was
asking in the sense of with that added density or apparent
concentration of that density, what's going to happen. Have we
considered -- have we thought it out?
MR. DURSO: Of course we've thought it out. And the answer is
the density on the whole property is still the same density as our
single- family developments, okay? We will put even more time and
effort into that product than we do in our others. But we put lots of
time and effort.
And we're very proud of Victoria Falls. And one picture taking
on one day doesn't tell the story. Our documents only allowed two
vehicles per unit. And we evict people for disobeying that law. Any --
we will take care of any problem that comes up in our subdivisions.
We've proved that. We work very, very closely with the Sheriffs
Department.
In Victoria Falls we have had nobody arrested for gang activity
in Victoria Falls and nobody arrested for drug activity in Victoria
Falls, okay? And in spite of that, we actually have thrown -- we have
bought back one home in Victoria Falls because two people were
arrested in the home who didn't actually live there, okay, and that
family is now out of that house. And that took us six weeks to do that.
We have better documents than any other developer. Our
documents say that if somebody is convicted of a felony or a
misdemeanor, we can call their mortgage.
If they're identified as having a gang member, just identified--
and the Sheriff has a whole bunch of criteria as to what a gang
member is. If a gang member is identified in one of our homes, we
can call the mortgage. Those are very, very strong documents. And
January 18,2007
we use that, okay?
We have many, many, many volunteers that go into all our
subdivisions, you know, on every day or every other day. We have
homeowners from each subdivision working for us. We have two
from Victoria Falls, we have one for Charley Estates. We plan to have
at least a couple from this subdivision working for us. We find that
works better.
Will it be difficult? Of course it will be difficult. Will it be
much better than anything else in Immokalee other than Habitat stuff?
Probably. I mean, most of these homeowners are coming from really
lousy places. We're just putting them in better places. And they're
already here. We're just trying to make a better world for them. So we
will continue to do a good job with that.
And we have tremendous documents. We are the experts on
homeowners associations for Habitat. All over the country, they come
and ask us questions on homeowners associations. And it's not easy.
It's difficult, we agree.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm very happy to hear
what you're saying, and I recognize the difficulty and your taking
people who are at most modest incomes and trying to help them. The
important thing is that we really achieve that help. And that's your
oversight function, that's your management, which is not pertinent
directly, but ultimately it becomes a question.
So I've posed the question, you've answered the question.
MR. DURSO: And there's two reasons we do it. We do it
because it's the right thing to do. But the other reason we have to do
it, we won't raise any money if we don't do it. I mean, the first person
that drives through Victoria Falls -- every October you can count the
Mercedes driving through there. Our donors drive through there as
soon as they get down here every year. And they'll do the same thing
in Immokalee. They want to see what we're doing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I just may add this last
Page 99
January 18, 2007
comment, please, that my concern is this, that -- you're right, if you
weren't successful you will not get any future. My concern is with a
great density of people, if it fails, the communities are stuck with those
conditions. So that's where I was addressing my remarks to your
concern for oversight.
MR. DURSO: And we hold the mortgages, remember. So we
hold the mortgages on those homes for 20 years. So we obviously
will be responsible.
We'll continue to do a good job. When I say we, I mean not just
my wife and I, we've got a big organization. When we're long gone,
there will be other people taking care of it, we hope.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, this started with your
question. Did you get your question finished and answered?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I'm happy. It was more of
a statement than a question that any problem they have with parking
now, they will resolve within their association and documents.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Quick question. What's the
background origin of the name Kaicasa?
MS. SPURGEON: Sam will explain that.
MR. DURSO: Just remember now, it's Kaicasa Immokalee,
okay? Kai is the Creole word for home. Casa is the Spanish word for
home. Immokalee is the Seminole word for home.
So somebody could -- now we didn't do it, but somebody could
live on Maison Street in Kaicasa Immokalee. That really is home,
sweet home. I mean, it's tough coming up with names for
subdivisions. I don't know, somebody in our office came up with that
name. I think it's the best name we've ever come up with. So it's
home, home. Home, home Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, just for clarification, for the planning
commissioners, there are very specific criteria in the code for parking.
Page 100
January 18, 2007
It's a code enforcement action. Though it's not really a zoning issue,
per se, it can be in the documents. But there are clear restrictions as to
how many vehicles can park, driveway, all that kind of business.
I just want to make sure you understand that that is something
that's already in the code; does not have to go back into another PUD
document of any shape or form.
Likewise, when you look at this, it is at the base density of four
units an acre. So I just want to make sure the perception isn't that this
is an excessive density. It's at a base density of four units an acre,
which is our base density in Collier County.
MR. DURSO: And hopefully if you require garages, we can
make them use it and get one of the cars off the street. That's the
challenge. And we hope that's going to happen. So we would like to
be required to do garages.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of
the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. And I'm thinking before I
start, because a lot of it's language issue, nothing serious in regards to
problems, I just think there's a lot of language clean-up needed in this
PUD.
And as in the past, I've asked staff 100 times to please not
provide redundant language in PUDs. I've not been successful in
seeing that happen. So I think the best way to make sure it doesn't
happen is to spend the time and walk through every sentence of every
paragraph of every PUD so maybe we can put a stop to language that
says will be pursuant to the LDC when it has to be.
So let's take a break for lunch. We'll come back here at 12:45.
And I'd like to ask the planning commissioners this time to please
remember it's 12:45. Because a couple times we've had trouble with
people getting back here at 12:45.
So we'll break for lunch, we'll be back at 12:45. Thank you.
Page 101
January 18, 2007
(A lunch break was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's 12:45. The planning
commission will resume.
Now that we've had lunch, does anybody have any further
questions of the applicant at this point before I do?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Laura, these may not be as
many as -- questions of you as much as they are of the
characterizations in your PUD.
2.2.E. It's the first page Roman numeral II-I. It says that
basically the petition and development approvals will have to be
consistent with the concurrency review.
And I'm just wondering, Ray, is there a possibility they couldn't
be consistent with the concurrency review? Don't they have to be?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we need E?
MR. BELLOWS: My understanding, they are concurrent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would suggest then ifno one
has any objections we strike 2.2.E as a redundant language.
Ifwe turn to the next page, 2.5. On 2.5.B, the last sentence, any
division of the property and the development of the land shall be in
compliance with Section 10.02 of the LDC and the platting laws of the
State of Florida.
Margie, can these be inconsistent with the platting laws of the
State of Florida?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, they have to meet them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then shouldn't that -- is there any
reason this need to be repeated in this document?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 2.5.C, same question. Provisions
of section of the LDC. Again, I don't know why that's here, because I
understand they have to be consistent with the LDC. Is that a true
Page 102
January 18,2007
statement?
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, if you have a PUD and you
have language in the PUD and it's specific, does it trump the LDC?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The only way that it would trump
it is if there's a deviation that's been approved, and then everyone
understands that the PUD on land uses and performance standards you
create your own zoning district, and they're not going to comply with
the district that's in the LDC. Otherwise, you comply.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, some of the general ambiguous
language that's in PUDs like any interpretation of this PUD be subject
to the current language of the LDC -- and I'm talking -- we're talking
about like for example that height definition. This particular PUD has
a redefinition of the height as well --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: In that case if it's a policy decision
for this board or the Board of County Commissioners ultimately if
they want to vest for a definition, I think that's a policy decision. You
could decide whether to do it or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if you do do it, then the
definition that's in the PUD dominates?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 2.5.D again references
consistency with a section of subdivision plats of the LDC.
2.5.E talks about appropriate instruments being provided. I
believe that they have to be.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think they do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't know any need for those last
three paragraphs.
Ray, you're the only -- well, I know Melissa's here, but you're at
the microphone. If you see any objections to striking any of these,
would you please --
MR. BELLOWS: No, definitely not. We had several meetings
Page 103
January 18,2007
with staff to help convince the petitioners that redundant language isn't
in there. As a matter of fact, we are now in the middle of our -- or start
of our new process of eliminating the PUD document. As of January
1 st, all new applications are going to come under this new format
where there won't a PUD document.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You're going to see about five
exhibits attached to the ordinance. That's going to be it. And they're
going to be maybe one or two pages. Maybe developer commitments
will be a little longer, but it's going to be a lot different than this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's going to start when?
MR. BELLOWS: It started already. All new pre-aps as of
January 1st are -- they're to use this new format. Any petition
submitted prior to that January 1st will still be under these formats.
And we're trying to convince the applicants to follow staff
direction to eliminate all the redundant -- as a matter of fact, we may
not schedule them anymore until it's all cleaned up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Laura, are you -- since this is
redundant language, if you have any objections to striking any of
these, would you please speak out? Because otherwise I'm hoping that
Melissa being in the audience is taking notes. And then rather than
going through a lengthy stipulation, if there's no objections, these
items will be cleaned up in the PUD.
So as we go through, if you see something you object to, I'd
certainly like to know it.
MS. SPURGEON: I'll speak up. But, you know, my only
objection is that the model PUD ordinance that's disseminated to the
public includes all this language. So that's -- you know, the fact that
the PUD process is changing, we all are glad and we'll comply with it.
But that's -- we can go through these, and so far I've been in
agreement with all your ideas.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I just have a comment. The model
PUD was prepared in 1991. And since 1991, I think last year, or
Page 104
January 18,2007
maybe at the end of '05, Mr. Strain directed that he wanted -- despite
the model, he wanted to see the redundancies gone.
Wasn't that toward the end of '05 that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's been going on for quite a
couple of years now.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staff is indicating they were going
to do it, and I think we're finally there --
MR. BELLOWS: And for the record, we have revised that
model to show a cleaned up --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, we did. We did that last year.
Last January we did that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But as far as these coming through now,
if the staff people in charge of these were to review them and look at
this as redundant language, they could -- and the applicant's not
objecting, why don't we just strike it before it even gets to this board?
MR. BELLOWS: It should be. We'll work on getting that done
a little better.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.6 and 2.7 are, I believe, in the LDC.
They're completely redundant.
On the next page, 3.4. I wanted to ask you on number C (sic),
Laura, not as a redundant issue, but is that -- it says it's part of the
LDC in effect at the time of building permit application. That's what
happens now.
Are you guys looking for any deviation to parking? You're not,
are you?
MS. SPURGEON: No, we're not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then 3.4.C can be struck.
Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is wouldn't --
when you put in for a site development plan, wouldn't you want the
parking to be at that time not the building permits?
Page 105
January 18,2007
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, it would be at site plan, I
think.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, if it's going to be consistent with
Section 4.05.01 of the LDC, it's whatever it says in that section, right?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, the reason we put it like that
effective language, we've had some issues come up where people have
tried to, because it has a reference in here, tried to argue that it was the
standard in effect at the time the ordinance was adopted. So that's
why we put that language in effect --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying--
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, I like having -- actually, it
should say SDP. But I like having that in there, because we have had
arguments where people try to go back in time and say that means the
one that was in effect when the ordinance was adopted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, tell me how you would like to
see 3.4.C --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: As required--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- stated.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: -- by the LDC in effect at the time
of site development plan.
Do you want application or approval, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Application.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Application.
MS. SPURGEON: I'd say site development plan or PPL.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that different than what the LDC
says?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, the LDC is -- you know, it's
there and it's effective when you come in. But this avoids the
argument -- because we've had this argument, Mark, where people
have tried to say if it just, you know, says references -- I suppose if we
took the reference out totally, then that wouldn't be an issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to get to, Margie
Page 106
January 18,2007
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: -- and not even say signs at all, and
just strike it out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just take it out. Then there wouldn't be
a question. It falls to the LDC.
So 3.4.C should come out.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. I just had to think about
that a little bit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.4.B is the definition, or at least a
partial of the definition of height. I don't know if it's needed here. I
don't know if -- and per Margie, if it stays in, it stays in by policy.
Does the applicant care if you fall to the definition of height in
the LDC, or do you have a reason why you need a special definition of
height at 3.4.B as stated?
MS. SPURGEON: We prefer having it spelled out so that when
the LDC changes there's no question what the expectation was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 3.4.B would remain in, as long as
nobody objects.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. Now see, this is an example
of where we're going to vest height for now but -- it seems like. But
then for everything else, it has to be in accordance with the LDC --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the purpose for a PUD.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- when it comes in, so--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Laura, number seven, preserve the
setback at 10 feet for accessory structures also applies to any site
alteration. And it goes on with some more definition of preserve
setback.
Is that a deviation from the LDC?
MS. SPURGEON: No, it's required standard language that the
environmental staff gives us to put in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if it's part of the LDC, do we need it
restated here, Ray?
Page 107
January 18, 2007
MR. BELLOWS: I think it is a part of the LDC and it doesn't
need to be in there. It's redundant.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: What page? I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roman numeral III-2. It's the bottom.
It's the footnote number seven.
MS. SPURGEON: I would note where we are, spelling out
specific dimensions, specific standards, it's appropriate to keep in
there because it gives us the sense of security that that's the standard
we will be held to, where we've spelled it out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't -- if there's a purpose for
it and it serves a purpose, fine. But if it's there because it's just
specifically being redundant to the LDC, then that's my concern. I
don't have any problem leaving it in if you feel it meets the purpose
that you need.
MS. SPURGEON: That's one I would like to keep in.
COMMISSIONER CARON: On that same page, your front yard
setbacks will be changing to 23 feet now that Commissioner Adelstein
has and Mr. -- and it has been agreed on by petitioner that garages will
be part of this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you look at footnote two, which
you have a little footnote --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that does take care of that issue, I
believe.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page Roman numeral V-l,5 .4.D,
another redundancy . You've got to provide a monitoring report, we
know that.
Next page, transportation. I have a question about 5.5 .A. Is the
width that you're asking inconsistent with the Land Development
Code?
MS. SPURGEON: Yes. That is deviation number one on our lista
Page 108
January 18,2007
of three deviations. Section six, the 50-foot right-of-way request is to
replace the 60-foot requirement in the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And my question there is -- and
I'll ask staff to address it when they come up -- normally we see a staff
analysis of each deviation. I didn't find one in this packet. In fact, I
didn't find one in the other packets either. And the others have got
deviations.
So at some point when Melissa comes up we'll have to ask her
what staffs opinion is of this deviation, because it isn't discussed as it
normally is.
Under 5.5.G, if this -- is this saying that unless this is in here, you
don't have to pay road impact fees? I don't think so. So G can be
struck.
H, I think you need a right-of-way permit if you work in a county
right-of-way. I think you can strike that language as being redundant.
On the following page, 5.6.A says you got to have a South
Florida Water Management District environmental resource permit.
That's a state law and you've got to do it, so I don't know why it's in
here.
5.6.B says you need an excavation permit, so does the LDC. So I
don't think we need that in here either.
5.9, environmental. I went through all those issues, A through J,
and Ray, I can't find one of those that isn't addressed in the LDC. Can
you find any that are? Because my suggestion is if they're addressed
in the LDC, strike them all.
MR. BELLOWS: I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they're not, then leave them in. But
the fact that you need permits from the state and the government is
well known to everybody, so why put it in the PUD.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Chairman Strain, also engineering,
under 5.8, that has language that says the development will be
consistent with the LDC.
Page 109
January 18,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you're right. 5.8 should come
out.
You know, it's interesting, by saying it only has to be consistent
with the LDC, I guess it doesn't have to be consistent with any state
engineering standards then.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It does.
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5.1.0, signs. Says it will be in
accordance with the LDC. I think you can strike that. It goes without
saYIng.
And then the last page is a series of deviations. The only
comment I'm going to have on those is that I need staff to address their
concerns about any of them, if they have any.
That's the last comment I have on the PUD.
Is there any other comments from anybody on the planning
commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we're on to the staff
report, Laura. Thank you.
MS. SPURGEON: Thank you.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MS. ZONE: My name is Melissa Zone, principal planner with
the department of zoning and land development.
I think that most of the questions about the land use, the
consistency with the Immokalee area master plan have been found
consistent. And so for my presentation I'd like to go through some of
the concerns that you have. And if you have any additional questions,
I'd be happy to address them.
F or the deviations, I'm sorry, I will make sure that never happens
again. Even if the deviations that staff does support are -- if staff
supports it, it will still just be in the analysis. And that's why I didn't
do it. But that is an error of staff. And that won't happen again.
Page 110
January 18, 2007
But the deviations -- we had been going back and forth on them
with the applicant and their agent, and there was only one deviation
that we -- staff had some issues with. But then through the EAC they
found that it was with the sidewalks on both sides of the road.
The applicant worked out their master plan, the EAC was
comfortable with it, and so staff went in support of the EAC
recommendation.
And so for the error of the lack of not discussing it, it won't
happen again in that issue.
But I'd like to just for the record, part of these PUD documents,
staff always asks to remove the redundancy language. And two things
happen to the staff, which we're always overruled on, is one is we'll
ask the applicant. The applicant agrees. But then another division
says no, we need to keep this in, we're not comfortable yet. And so
then they're forced to put it back in. That's what some of the -- with
environmental.
We asked environmental over at -- since it's in the LDC it would
behoove them to make sure the applicant complies with the LDC as
amended, but we were overruled on that. So there's only so much
badgering staff can do on that.
Other ones, as Laura mentioned, was that depending on how the
LDC or the GMP changes the frequency, that they might become
nonconforming. And so sometimes the applicant will say we want to
keep this in. And then staff leaves it to determine for the planning
commission to make that recommendation.
And I think with the new model PUD -- or the new PUD
ordinance in place it will not only help staff, it gives us now more
authority to say no, this is what you have, where before we were stuck
with the 1999 PUD model.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for the explanation.
MS. ZONE: But you're going to come across that with, I'm sure,
mine and some of the other principal planners until we get everyone
Page 111
January 18, 2007
on board. But that's why we're still having these issues.
Do you have any questions or concerns that I might be able to
address?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I just wanted to confirm,
the EAC's recommendations, you're in agreement with all of those?
MS. ZONE: I am. I know that the flood elevation, with not
being an engineer, they felt that it was -- staff kept it in. We were
supporting EAC, and we that felt it could be something the applicant
address with the planning commission and staff would support
planning commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Melissa.
I have one question of transportation.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, the Vanasse and Daylor TIS that
was supplied with this project had one issue that I need your
clarification on, maybe suggest some help on it.
On Page 2 it talks about the speed limit on SR-29, and it says it's
60 miles an hour out in front of this project. Now, that is pretty fast.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Might be design speed, 60.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It said the speed limit is posted at 60
miles per hour.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't believe that's correct. That
might be an error.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if it is, then that solves the
problem. If it isn't, would you just check? Because I think if anything
with a project like this going in, with the vehicles moving in and out
and the amount of vehicles, families and distractions, 60 is way too
fast to be in front of a project.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll check on that before then.
Page 112
January 18,2007
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't think it's posted at 60.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just reading the document. Okay.
Well, that was the only -- anybody have any traffic issues?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with you, I was
concerned about it myself, bicycles and so forth, sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't mean bicycles are moving at
60 miles an hour, do you?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do I what?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. Does the
county plan to extend sidewalks and bike lanes all the way south
through this development?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Through the development or along --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, along 29.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The county doesn't. That's a state road
right now. So there's no plans right now.
One question I just asked Mr. Durso is if the county was going to
assume responsibility for these roadways internally. And I believe
we're not. It's not stated as such in the document. So I don't have a
problem with their deviations internally.
I did have a question about the deviation that says one -- actually,
deviation two, second sentence: Also a deviation for a sidewalk along
State Road 29 is requested --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to talk slower and closer to
the mic, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Also a deviation for a sidewalk along
State Road 29 is requested in order for interconnecting sidewalks to
the adjoining Farm Workers Village project.
Does that mean they don't want to put them in or be consistent
with the LDC? I'm not sure what that means.
MS. SPURGEON: We are requesting deviation that we not be
Page 113
January 18,2007
required to install sidewalk on that portion of State Road 29 where
there are no existing sidewalks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is it the intention that you want to
pay the fee in lieu of?
Well, the way that it works is it's either a sidewalk or a fee in lieu
of.
MS. SPURGEON: Right. I don't think we have a choice.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So you don't want the sidewalks
MS. SPURGEON: We don't want to be forced to pave a
sidewalk along our frontage along 29.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a concern for safety. I
was only partially kidding before when I said bicycles. If they have
no place to buy food, you know, basic staples, they're going to get on
their bikes and they're going to drive down. It would be better for
them to be on a path, right? We're talking about the one along into
Farm Workers Village?
MR. DURSO: We actually don't have that much frontage on 29.
So putting a sidewalk just on our frontage wouldn't do us enough
good. We would have to then put a sidewalk all the way up to where
the crossover is.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I don't know how far that
IS.
MR. DURSO: We are trying to get permission to have a
walk-through to Farm Workers Village. Not a drive-through but a
walk-through. We don't have that permission yet. We don't know if
we'll get it. But that's our intention.
You know, if we don't get that, we'll, you know -- yeah, a
sidewalk on 29 would be great. But just in front of our property is not
going to do any good.
So we are going to put a lot of pressure on getting a walk-through
Page 114
January 18, 2007
onto Farm Workers Village. Because that way the kids can go to
school there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would make me happy.
MR. DURSO: That's what we'd like to see them do. So we may
need your help with Farm Workers Village to get that to happen. But
that's our intention, to have the kids walk through Farm Workers
Village and then to walk to school that way also. Because as you
remember, there's a crossover on 29 right in front of Farm Workers
Village. So we want to get our kids there safely.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Have you had conversations yet
with the director of Farm Workers Village?
MR. DURSO: Yeah, we've had lots of conversations.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because what he's saying is if
there's only a sidewalk in front of their property but there's not a
sidewalk on 29 in front of Farm Workers Village, it would just be a
short dead-end sidewalk.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Nick, you expressed a concern about deviation number two. Do
you believe it applies to State Road 29?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think what they're asking is not to
pay in lieu or build it. And I don't believe that trannie's (phonetic) had
a chance to review that deviation, so I'm a little concerned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question. Deviation number two,
do you believe it applies to State Road 29?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They call it out specifically, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, it says that it's a local deviation.
Actually the language says it's a five-foot sidewalk on both sides of
local streets. So --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Then it says also, a deviation for
sidewalk along State Road 29 is requested.
Page 115
January 18, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the part about 29 ought to be
struck. Because that ought to be handled typically as it is handled
within the LDC, which means either they put it in -- if it goes
nowhere, that's their choice, or they pay a fee in lieu of.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is that acceptable to the applicant?
MR. DURSO: Yes. If that's what the law is. Our understanding
is the requirements are the same on 29 as they are on 41. If that's the
case, we will do whatever the law requires. So either put in a
sidewalk or pay in lieu.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think your deviation for the
internal roads is appropriate, and that's what we're trying to say.
That's what you really want.
MR. DURSO: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the 29 goes, that just falls--
you need to drop the references to 29, because that should fall to the
Land Development Code.
MR. DURSO: Yeah, right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess everybody's made a note of that.
Are there any other questions of the applicant or staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have two registered speakers. First
one is James R. Smith. And the other is Mrs. Trescott.
MR. SMITH: Can we stand corrected? I think that's for Toll
Brothers that we have.
MR. BELLOWS: Oh, Toll Brothers?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you've got to speak on this one.
(Laughter. )
MR. SMITH: If you want me to speak--
MR. BELLOWS: Then we don't have any speakers.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We'll hear the same thing
Page 116
January 18, 2007
twice.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if there's no public speakers, is
there any final comments by the applicant?
MS. SPURGEON: No. I appreciate your time again. The only
change to stipulations we request is that adjustment to the FEMA
requirement so that it's based on final approval rather than application.
That was the only change.
And we request your recommendation for approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there are actually two changes.
That the FEMA will be required prior to the approval of the PPL.
MS. SPURGEON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that the garages shall be required.
MS. SPURGEON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the rest of the changes to the
language, I'm just going -- I'm going to hope we all can assume that
staffs going to make those as discussed at the meeting and we don't
have to get into lengthy stipulations about it.
Okay, with that we will close the public hearing and entertain a
motion.
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to move that we send
PUDZ-2005-AR-7820 to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval with the change in -- I'm sorry, with all
of the EAC recommendations but the engineering recommendation
number one, change application for to approval for, and add in
garages. Other than that, accept all of the EAC recommendations and
also with all of the deviations that were mentioned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Midney, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti.
Discussion? Mr. Murray?
Page 11 7
January 18,2007
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would ask that there be one --
if the motion maker would accept one other additional stipulation, that
since there's going to be a homeowners association, that the
representative -- a representative of the homeowners association shall
also be an official of the Habitat for Humanity so that there's an
authority there to allow them to be most effective in carrying out their
duties.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we can direct people to--
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's not really a zoning and land
use matter. I think that's up to them internally to -- and I think we've
heard that that's what they do.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As long as they do that, that
would be very good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's been a motion made, a
discussion, and Mr. Midney, the two stipulations that we've been
discussing are the FEMA issues prior to approval of the PPL and the
garages will be required. And of course, as you mentioned, the EAC
recommendations.
Are there any other comments or stipulation?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
Page 118
January 18,2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you.
Item #8E
PETITION: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9403
The next project is Petition PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9403. That is
Toll Brothers, Inc. That is for the Princess Park RPUD at 6780
Airport-Pulling Road.
And Mr. Y ovanovich will represent the applicant.
All those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition, please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of planning
commission. Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had spoken to Mr.
Y ovanovich by phone regarding this petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyothers? Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich on the
phone about my concerns with this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich
addressing the density issues and the conversion issues.
Okay, with that we will -- the applicant can proceed with the
presentation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today are a host of
people, not all of which will be speaking, unless you have some
specific technical questions.
We have David Torres, Gary Haines and Bruck Fanning with
Toll Brothers. Bob and Debbie Bickell with Bic's Investments.
Walter Fluegel, Bob Meltzer, Richard Ybeck, all from Heidt &
Page 119
January 18, 2007
Associates. Suresh -- is it Carif? Sorry, Suresh, with David Plummer
and Associates to answer any transportation questions you may have.
And Chris Smith from Passarella. Hopefully you won't have any
environmental questions, since we received an exception from an EIS
on this parcel. And also Wayne Hook, the landscape architect on the
project.
At the risk of proving Mr. Strain right from his comment on
another petition regarding directions, I'm going to ask Ray to put
things on the visualizer for me so I can get the directions correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think you were here when I said
that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I heard it. The microphone was on
outside.
So the property is -- I'm sure most of you are familiar with the
King Richard's amusement park. It is on Airport Road. It is on the
east side of Airport Road on the -- north of Pine Ridge Road but south
of Orange Blossom. It's roughly 11.3 acres.
It is an existing PUD. The PUD uses are commercial uses as far
as the Collier County Land Development Code is concerned.
In order to have the uses we have there today, which are
amusement -- general amusement park uses, the property must be
zoned either C-4 or C-5. And then you request a conditional use for
this particular use. So it's not a permitted use in any of the
commercial categories, but it is clearly within the commercial
category uses.
The property's adjacent to Walden Oaks to the north, which is a
community that has both office uses on the western portion of the
property and residential uses both to the east and north of our
proposed proj ect.
To our south is the Willow Park office complex.
The property is rectangular in shape, as you can see, and it is
fairly narrow along Airport Road. It is only 394 feet, approximately,
Page 120
January 18,2007
wide.
The narrowness of the site and our desire to move our residential
buildings as far away from Walden Oaks' residential portion of the
property as possible is one of the reasons we're asking for the
deviations we've requested.
Since it's a narrow site, we're essentially going to have a
cul-de-sac going down the center of the property and then there will
be buildings on both sides.
The requested density for the project is 133 dwelling units.
We're looking at multi-family and townhome type units. The density
is based upon a calculation as follows: The base density under the
comprehensive plan, since we're in the urban area, is four units per
acre. Plus, since we're converting commercial property to residential
property under the policies within the comprehensive plan, we can
request up to another 16 dwelling units per acre, which would total 20.
Now, we would lose one, because we're in the current traffic
congestion zone, which is proposed to go away but still applies to us
today, which would bring you down to 19. And then there's an overall
maximum cap under the comprehensive plan of 16 units per acre. So
the maximum we can ask for is 16 units per acre. And the request is
for 11.7 units per acre.
By way of history a little bit, I know there's -- some
commissioners have raised the concern, does this property actually
meet the comprehensive plan requirements for conversion of
commercial.
The Willow Park PUD, which was approved several years ago,
and I have a little bit of familiarity with it, was approved as an office
park based upon the fact that it was adj acent to commercial. It
qualified under the office infill criteria. And in order for you to get
commercial as a non-activity center area, you had to be adjacent to
commercial on at least one side.
Staff and the commission determined that King Richard's was a
Page 121
January 18, 2007
commercial use and therefore was the basis for the Willow Run PUD
receiving the office PUD that it has in place.
So hopefully that will address any concerns about whether the
King Richard's PUD is in fact a commercial PUD, eligible for the
conversion under the commercial provisions of the comprehensive
plan.
And as you will recall, on other petition I've been involved in, the
reason for this commercial conversion provision is to encourage
properties that were back in 1989 not supposed to be retail or
commercial because they weren't in activity centers to convert to
residential uses, which the board's comprehensive plan deems to be
the more appropriate use of that property in the urban area.
Regarding traffic, Airport Road has an adopted level of service E
and is currently operating at level of service C.
The daily traffic is actually being reduced by the request over
what's there today. Now, the peak hours, there are increases, but the
overall daily trips will be less for the residential project versus the
existing amusement park.
The reduction's even greater on the weekends. The weekday trips
are reduced by 38 daily trips. The weekend traffic is reduced by 1,127
daily trips. So there's actually a reduction in traffic by converting the
use to residential.
The project has a little bit ofa history with the residents of
Walden Oaks. There was a challenge filed by the residents of Walden
Oaks when the PUD master plan was being revised to actually make it
jive with what was actually on the ground at the time of the project.
We resolved all those issues. We reached a settlement
agreement. But I think it's fair to say that at that time, and I believe
currently if the residents of Walden Oaks had their desires, they would
prefer to be adjacent to a residential community versus the existing
amusement park.
As I said, the proposed site plan will call for a cul-de-sac down
Page 122
January 18, 2007
the center of the property, with residential buildings on either side.
And our amenities will be on the eastern portion of the property. We
will have our lake and we'll have our clubhouse and pool on the
eastern side of the property.
We're requesting five deviations. The first deviation is -- since
it's going to be a private road, we're requesting to reduce the road
right-of-way width to 40 feet versus the 60 feet which is on the LDC.
That's almost become a routine request for private roads. And
probably the LDC should be amended to address that issue so we can
not have to always ask for deviations.
Deviation number two is the -- deals with the existing lake. The
reason we requested a deviation was because we don't plan on
resculpting the entire lake. And for those areas that we're not going to
resculpt, we did not want to have to bring those up to current slope
requirements.
Deviation number three is regarding increasing the fence height
from six feet to eight feet. Due to the narrowness of the site and the
fact that we would like to put our fence on top of the berm, we're
asking to go to eight feet versus six feet. That again has become a
deviation that a lot of property owners are requesting, based on
narrowness of sites.
Deviation number four is intended to read that we can have
cul-de-sacs that exceed 1,000 feet. So it needs to be revised and
clarified that we can have a cul-de-sac that exceeds 1,000 feet in
length, provided the fire department doesn't have any objections to
that. Instead of them forcing us to do it, it should have been more of
the standard cul-de-sac deviation that a lot of proj ects have come
through with.
And finally, we're requesting deviation number five is to reduce
the northern landscape buffer width from 15 feet to 10 feet. The
plantings will be the same; however, there's already a 15- foot wide
utility easement there. So in effect you're going to have a 25- foot
Page 123
January 18,2007
wide area with the same plantings you would have in the 15- foot area.
So again, because of the narrowness of the site, we needed that
deviation to make the proj ect work.
Now, I hesitate to do this, but we did receive some comments
from the county attorney's office regarding some minor revisions to
the PUD. There was only really one provision that I would say is
substantive. And I can either hand it out or I can just describe it to
you all. Whatever you prefer, Mr. Chairman, as far as -- you want me
to hand it out?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you tell us the reference in
the PUD so we can be on the same page and let's see if we can follow
what you're trying to say.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. You want me to hand it out, Mr.
Strain, or just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you tell us what page it's on.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It should be Page 8 of the PUD, which is
the section three, which is the residential subdistrict. Let me make
sure it's still Page 8. Yes, it is.
What we did is, the county attorney commented that items three
through eight in the accessory use section really aren't accessory uses
to a residential building. They're more of like an ancillary use that's
allowed throughout the PUD.
So what we did is we renumbered items three through eight and
put them under a subsection C entitled ancillary uses. And the
development standards -- the reason we left it in the section is because
table one already included development standards for those ancillary
uses. So we just -- we took them out of the accessory use category,
put them in an ancillary use category, and that's really the only -- I
don't even know if I would call it substantive, it's a formatting change
to the document --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, it is substantive --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. Margie, let him finish
Page 124
January 18,2007
and then you can be recognized and speak.
Richard?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. So that's really the only--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where on your development standards
table do you find a reference to ancillary uses?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you see them under clubhouse,
recreation building, guardhouse, access, control structures. So those
are the standards you would need. I don't believe -- you know,
signage would be covered by the LDC. Utility facilities can be
allowed anywhere throughout the proj ect. So I believe that really the
guardhouse and entry gate is the only -- is called out specially in the
development standards table. So we thought that that addressed the
issue of not coming up with development standards for these, quote,
ancillary uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about your maintenance facility,
what would be the standards for it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can live with the same standards for
the -- we can live with the same standards for the guardhouse and
access.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now that you've got all that on
the table, Margie, did you have any comments about it?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, what I was going to -- what
I understood from the applicant's agent from height was they were
going to label the table -- not to make a rhyme there --
accessory/ancillary structures under that part. So it would be clear
that those standards would also apply to the ancillary ones.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does that work?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so that everybody is clear then, on
Page 8, B-1 and 2 are going to remain. Then you're going to start a
new section called C and numbers three through eight will be
relabeled one through six.
Page 125
January 18, 2007
On the development standards table 2.3 the word maintenance
facility will be added above interim to be included in the guardhouse
control structure section. And under accessory structures it will
be/ancillary .
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work, Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I had another comment about the
deviation on the slopes for the lake. And I have to defer to staff. But
that's no longer in the Land Development Code. And I understand it
used to be. So the question is can we now deviate for excavation
matters since it's been moved over to the code of laws? Is that the
policy of the staff?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
We're not deviating from the LDC, it's no longer a true deviation.
However, there is a standard in the Laws of Codes and Ordinances
that they want to be sure they can apply different standards to. And I
don't have a problem listing it in the PUD document and having staff
talk about it as a change from what normally would be required. Just
so everyone is clear what's being asked of.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the deviations, you're telling us that
basically staffs in agreement, not -- you do not agree with some of the
deviations listed?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought staff was in agreement on all of
the deviations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Except for the lake standard.
MR. BELLOWS: I have to defer to Melissa on her final analysis
on whether she's supporting all the deviations or not.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: But I don't think that's the correct
label for it. Because you can only deviate from the land code --
MR. BELLOWS: That's true.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: So what I'm trying to ask staff is,
Page 126
January 18, 2007
because this was moved over into the code of laws in '04, is it still the
policy that you can deviate from things under the excavation section
in this process?
MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding that the PUD document
can contain different development standards from the laws of codes
and ordinances. Whether it falls under the deviation process I think is
a semantics type term. And I don't have a problem with leaving it in
there as a so-called deviation. I've talked to the director to make sure
we address it more clearly in the future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, question seems to be -- I'm
wondering whether or not you can deviate from the code of laws or
how you change the code of laws.
Margie, I see you keep asking Ray . You're the attorney. The
code of law seems to fall under the legal department. Can the code of
laws be modified by a PUD document or does it have to go through an
ordinance process with the BCC?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: In my understanding, and I'll
straighten it out before the BCC -- and it's a little bit mixed, because
things have changed. It used to be the PUD can vary anything. And
then we came up with the deviation process, and it was my
understanding that that only deviates from requirements in the Land
Development Code. And excavation used to be in the Land
Development Code, then it was moved to the code of laws.
So if you want to look at it purely substantively, I would say just
because it was moved and you used to be able to deviate from it, you
probably still ought to be able to. Because it becomes a form over
substance argument just because the thing was moved out of there.
So I'm going to have to straighten this all out because of these
changes over time between now and the board, if you make the motion
with that direction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Margie. That's a simple
answer.
Page 127
January 18,2007
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I'm not trying to get -- there's a
convoluted history here. So that's what makes it convoluted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And for my two cents, from what
I understood was when we did the recodification of the LDC, it was
not intended to change anything, it was supposedly to make it simpler.
So I would -- I don't think the intent was to take away the ability to
get a deviation from those provisions.
MR. BELLOWS: I think that's why we've been applying it in
other similar situations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this particular case, since we don't
have a staff report on the deviations and there is a light slope issue,
has staff reviewed that in regards to the engineering department?
MR. BELLOWS: I'd have to defer to the principal planner.
MS. ZONE: I'm Melissa Zone, principal planner with zoning
and land development.
I spoke with engineering as well as landscaping. If you go to a
three-to-one slope, the LDC requires a certain type of planting. The
reason why they normally have a four-to-one is so that the -- when
someone's coming in with a lawnmower that it doesn't flip. So if
they're deviating and going to a three-to-one, they have to have
specific plantings that are required by the LDC. So there's that option.
Because they -- the type of planting, and I know their landscape
architect could expound on that, staff felt that this could be, again, a
deviation that could be approved or not approved. Staff was going to
go by the recommendation of the planning commission. It would just
be if they did do three-to-one, they could not have a standard
landscaping. They'd have to have native vegetation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Continuing on. The -- there needs to be a
couple more revisions to the PUD document to make it consistent with
what was said at the neighborhood information meeting. We need to
Page 128
January 18, 2007
change the height from 65 feet to 57 feet.
And we also, and I'll take responsibility for this, but when we
submitted the first draft of the PUD document, we had the standard
language in there about making a donation to affordable housing.
When we switched the formats around to try to get as close to the new
PUD format, that provision somehow didn't make it in the switch and
it needs to be in there. It was in our original draft that we submitted to
the county. I missed that in the proofreading, so we need to add that
back into the PUD document.
And again, we would pay the $1,000 at closing, and it would be a
credit against any linkage fee that mayor may not be adopted by
Collier County.
Finally, we need to include in the commitments, we agreed that
we would plant trees 16 feet in height versus 12 feet in height, as
called for in the LDC. So that needs to be added to the PUD
document as well. And if the motion is to approve, it needs to be part
of that motion.
Your staff has reviewed our submittal, is recommending approval
of the project and the PUD in front of you. We are requesting that the
planning commission forward the petition to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
And that is our overview of what is before you. And we're
available to answer any questions you may have regarding the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there questions? Mr. Kolflat, then
Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You mentioned about
Airport-Pulling Road, the level of service. I didn't understand whether
you said E for Edgar or D for David.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The adopted level of service E for Edgar.
And the actual is C for Charlie.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, as I understand this
conversion, commercial conversion aspect, that was initiated primarily
Page 129
January 18, 2007
to give commercial properties that might be highly intensified with
commercial uses the opportunity to convert to residential and send to
residential by adding those 16 more density units.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, no. What happened in 1989
when the Collier County Comprehensive Plan was adopted, we went
to an activity center designation for where we wanted to have office
and retail development. There were several either improved
properties, which this one was, and it received an exemption because
it was improved, or zoned property that was unimproved that was
commercial outside of these activity centers.
And there's a provision included in the comprehensive plan to
incentivize the conversion of those commercial either improved
properties or just zoned properties to residential. And that's where you
can come in and ask for each acre of commercial you convert, you can
ask for up to 16 units per acre.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the intensity of a theme
park seems to me to be far less than the intensity of other commercial
designations.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, if you look at it, you find -- you
can't even ask for it unless your property is zoned C-4 or C-5, which
are the most intense of the zoning categories as far as retail
development goes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It seems to me that this credit of
16 density units is geared for other types of commercial properties
rather than theme park.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I disagree. I think that--
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It doesn't say that, I realize. I
don't know whether that was the legislative intent when they instituted
it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you want to look at it from an intensity
standpoint, we're actually reducing the traffic impacts by converting
from the amusement park to residential. So it really is a reduction.
Page 130
January 18, 2007
If you want to apply it the way you're applying it, Mr. Kolflat,
which I don't think is what the comprehensive plan requires, it still
would be a reduction in intensity.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's all I had, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rich, I'm kind of back on
the conversion thing. I always thought that that was an isolated area
of commercial. Let me read what it says. It says, if a project includes
conversion of commercial zoning, that is not consistent with any
subdistrict allowing zoning uses.
So how does that apply? In other words --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It applies as follows: If this property
were zoned agricultural today, the only -- and Willow -- I keep
wanting to call it Willow Run, I know that's wrong -- Willow Park
didn't exist. I could not ask for commercial uses on that property,
because it's not in an activity center. Your comprehensive plan
discourages commercial development on this piece of property.
So it provides a provision to convert to residential. So that it
would be consistent with what the comprehensive plan wants on that
property.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's in the urban mixed use
district and we couldn't put commercial in there --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, you can only put it in activity
centers.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's kind of irrelevant. I mean, if
we move the commercial in here, don't you orphan Willow Park then?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. They could, I guess, at some point
could come in if they -- I don't think it's going to ever happen. I mean,
there's too many new buildings there. But they could come in later
and request a conversion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the line's not consistent with
any subdistrict. That means --
Page 131
January 18, 2007
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The activity center subdistrict.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Subdistrict equals activity
center.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: On this particular page, yes. And your
comprehensive planning staff has reviewed this and obviously has
agreed with the interpretation of your review, as you can see through
their executive summary.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, I mean, the existing use
pattern, everybody is calling this primary commercial in this area.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I think it's primarily residential in
that area.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking under number two,
existing land use in this area. This is a -- pro-con, this is a con. This
area is primarily commercial.
Anyway, I'm not convinced on that, but that's the -- and the
cul-de-sac thing, in the deviation you want, what is -- hold on, give me
a second. What is Ordinance 86-54, the county fire protection code?
Does that still exist or has that been --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not sure. And I think that language is
what confused everybody. And that's why that language needs to go
away and it just needs to be a straight deviation to exceed the
1,OOO-foot length of the cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when you are looking for
the width of 40 feet, obviously the cul-de-sac will be built to
department standards.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, right. And if we need to clarify
like we have on others, Mr. Schiffer, we can do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is the height
of the building. Would you have a problem limiting or increasing
kind of a setback for those areas up against Walden?
What I'd like to suggest is that anything over 35 feet, which
would just be your multi-family, not get any closer than a two-to-one
Page 132
January 18, 2007
ratio, two being horizontal, one being vertical, to the northern PUD
property line.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can't fit it in. If you look at it -- let
me put a -- if you look at the aerial, you'll see that the northern
boundary is really not adjacent to any residential uses within the
Walden Oaks PUD. We have pulled back, if you will. To the east
you can see some condominium buildings within Walden Oaks, and
that's where we have moved the residential away. And we're going to
keep the lake, obviously, and we've going to have our clubhouse and
pool and then residential structure.
So we've addressed that issue, residential, residential. And we
think we -- we can't fit what we need to fit to make the project work if
we were to go to a setback that you're suggesting from the northern
property line.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then how close to the northern
property line could you put the 57-foot high building?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The setback in the table --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Conceptually that can be the
rear.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well -- I mean, well, theoretically it
would be a rear yard of 15 feet. But we already have a 10- foot
landscape buffer and a 15-foot utility easement, so it's 25.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that will put the back door
right in the buffer.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would put it on the utility -- yes, it
would.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. I still think it
should be further back, but I'm through with questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Adelstein.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm looking at your PUD,
application for PUD. It's dated June 14, '04, which may very well be
valid. And I'm looking at the page -- well, what page is it here? It'st
Page 133
January 18, 2007
disclosure of interest information. This is the second page of that
document. And it's asked about 45, and it asks for names. Toll
Brothers, it says publicly traded. Is that sufficient?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And you don't have to disclose
shareholders if you're publicly traded.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. You asked the
applicant, he produced the document. He's always going to say yes.
I'd like to ask Margie if she agrees.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I do agree. Because on publicly
traded companies, you have thousands and tens of thousands of
shareholders.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I wanted to be sure that I
was correct on that or knew what I was talking about.
In that connection then, all right, on the affidavit where it speaks
to property owners, I see that there were two property owners,
Deborah and Robert. But only Robert signed. I don't know if that --
maybe I'll ask the attorney about that, if that's appropriate.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, it's an application. It's not a
deed or anything like that. And if they're husband and wife, I mean--
so I'm going to make an assumption, maybe incorrect, that he was
acting as agent for his wife.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm trying to do my duty
here and see that everything is right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And just if you will, the affidavit is from
the corporation.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Oh, okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay? So Bob is an officer, an
appropriate officer in the corporation, and he can sign the affidavit on
behalf of the corporation. We're disclosing to you who the
shareholders are of the corporation. That's 50-50. But the corporation
owns the property.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I see that on your --
Page 134
January 18, 2007
what was on the staff report. But it refers to the mid-rate or the high
of $400,000, but no affordable housing. And I wondered if we had an
opportunity here, where any consideration was given to gap, because
we're getting so close now with the market dropping down. I'm
wondering why you wouldn't want to provide workforce housing for
folks.
Is this going to be an up-scale operation, at $400,000?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Toll Brothers prides itself on doing
up-scale luxury communities. It's going to be based upon what the
market conditions will allow for the units.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: By the time it's built, it may very
well be back up to $600,000.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, it could oscillate your way,
depending on the market.
No, when we had the neighborhood information meeting, we
provided information based upon what we thought the market
conditions were at the time. And the market was pretty good, during
that neighborhood information meeting.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And the last question I
had, or comment, perhaps, is while it's in the criteria cited for us to
make a determination, it struck me that one of the pros and cons
stipulated or stated is Page 3 to 5 of those items -- sorry for my
struggle -- the rezone. It says there is no guarantee that the project
will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding
developments.
Now, I don't know if that's your phrase or if that's staffs phrase
or -- staff usually takes it right from your PUD, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, that's not our language. Can you tell
me what item numbers? Is it eight, nine or 10 that you're reading?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at Page 3, and I'm
looking number 10, con. There's no guarantee that the project will be
marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. I
Page 135
January 18, 2007
just wondered what that really meant. You can't answer it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're going to have to ask staff that
question. That's staffs conclusion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Those were my
questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yeah, one time I did hear
what you said. On Page 6 of 8, height, which was stated at four
stories, and 57 feet. Is that what you said?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. The zoned height will not
exceed 57 feet. And we need to correct the development table to
reflect that.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I wanted to make sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all, sir?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just to talk about the deviations
here for a minute. I think deviation number two is really a deviation
that is being asked for just because the petitioner doesn't want to have
to do what they're supposed to do. There's no real reason for this
deviation. So why we would ever approve them, I can't imagine.
The same with deviation number five. The reason given for the
deviation is because the site is narrow. Well, the only issue here is
that we are trying to cram 10 pounds into a five-pound bag, and that's
why this narrow site just can't handle it. And this deviation also is not
really one that should be entertained.
I spent about a half an hour on the phone with Mr. Yovanovich
talking about the conversion of commercial and the density issues
involved with this PUD. I'm going to wait and talk to staff first about
the transportation and compo planning, and then I'll address it again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the
applicant at this time?
Page 136
January 18,2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a few, Richard. Put your stuff
away.
Margie, I got a paragraph I want to the read to you.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay, what page?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You won't find it in anything you've
got.
It says, regulation for development of Princess Park shall be in
accordance with the contents of this document, PUD zoning
regulations and restrictions and other applicable sections and parts of
Collier County zoning ordinance in effect at the time this document is
approved. Now--
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That seems to vest them at the time
of zoning, and I don't like that language. Because if the code changes
-- also, it's a reference to the zoning ordinance instead of the Land
Development Code. But that means that they have vested themselves
for the language that exists in the land code at the time of approval of
the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Did you review in your legal analysis --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't recall--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't recall seeing that language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the recorded document that is part
of the PUD 84-34.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I was in -- I was practicing -- just
out of law school and practicing law in New Jersey then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean this wasn't relevant?
Doesn't it still carry weight?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was in the old '84 document.
Page 137
January 18,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I guess for the development -- of
that development at the time. But we're getting rid of that PUD and
doing a new PUD. So I don't think --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, I know that. It's hard to get an
answer from you today.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't think it's relevant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To what? I didn't ask a question yet. I
just read a statement to you, and you told me, from what I understand
that it vests the development for the -- for their particular development
for this PUD to the documents at the time. In fact, it references the
Collier County zoning ordinance.
In your legal review of this PUD, did you review the Collier
County ordinance in effect at the time of this PUD?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I did. It's 82-2. And the zoning
ordinance at the time of this PUD had more zoning classifications than
we have today. One zoning classification, which this one comes under
is the recreation and open space district, RO. 82-2 had an RO as well
as a C for commercial, R for residential and I for industrial.
Now, if you read the RO, that's their facilities. All the -- it's a
recreational open space unit. So how can they qualify for a
commercial bonus conversion when their own PUD that they qualify
under says they will come under the zoning category and ordinance of
the time, and the ordinance of the time classified them as recreation
and open space, not commercial.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I am going to have to ask
comprehensive planning staff that question because they're the ones
that do that review and make that determination?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they here today, Ray?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, there is a gentleman here
from comprehensive planning.
Page 138
January 18,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bosi, welcome. If you want to grab
amIC.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Not really.
MR. BOSI: Absolutely. Mike Bosi, comprehensive planning.
I didn't know if you had -- you were in the portion of entertaining
questions to the applicant. I'm not sure if you were ready to make that
transition to staff, but with the allowance, I will certainly make an
attempt to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bosi, can you answer a question?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you review the zoning ordinance in
place at the time of the original PUD for this Princess Park PUD?
MR. BOSI: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm not sure you can
answer my question, but you can try.
MR. BOSI: The manner in which we looked at this property, in
commercial, in 1989 when we adopted the Growth Management Plan,
we created -- the Growth Management Plan at that time that we
adopted said we wanted to concentrate on all commercial in activity
centers. Well, we realized that not all commercial at the time of the
existing land uses were at activity centers.
So they went through an exercise, and basically they created the
maps -- or a map that was called properties consistent by policy. And
these were for commercial properties that were existing land uses that
were outside of the activity centers.
Well, Princess Park PUD at that time in 1989 was found to be --
was identified as a commercial property outside of an activity center
and therefore consistent by policy.
And a second instance where this county with staff, the planning
commission, the Board of County Commissioners recognized this
property as commercial was -- and Mr. Yovanovich referenced it
within his -- within his presentation, was how Willough Park PUD
Page 139
January 18, 2007
qualified underneath -- or within the office infill commercial
subdistrict, meaning that it would have to be adjacent or adjoining to
an existing commercial property.
So in 1989 and when the Willough Park PUD was approved, the
county, the county staff, the county advisory board and the planning
commission and the Board of County Commissioners have applied a
commercial designation to this property.
To -- and in staffs purview, for the sake of consistency, for a
reasonable expectation for how we've treated this property over the
course of 18 years, the recognition of commercial classification was
determined and therefore the consistency review reflected that this
property did indeed qualify for the conversion of commercial to res --
to residential in the density bonus.
The question, I believe, would be how is it between when this --
when this PUD was approved in '84 and the zoning classifi -- or the
zoning regulations that were in place that were enacted in '82, how
was it in '89 that somewhere along the process that we've switched it
from recreation open space to commercial? I wasn't here, I was
maybe in grade school at that time. Not sure how that happened.
But what we've done for the past 18 years was designate -- or
was view this property as commercial. And therefore, our consistency
review was a continuation of that -- of those past 18 years in how this
property has been handled by the county. And those are the only
explanation or answers I can provide with regard to that. Any
questions that you may have?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the way that you've reviewed and
treated this property in the past then 18 years may not have risen to a
level of concern as it does here today. Because they're asking for a
substantial density conversion bonus in an area that already has a
density deduct because of its traffic congestion.
And it certainly seems inappropriate to turn around on one hand
and demand a deduct for traffic congestion, then turn around and say
January 18, 2007
that because we made a decision 18 years ago, that nobody knows
exactly maybe how that was done and now can apply for a
commercial conversion to a much higher density than would have
otherwise been allowed. You know, you had a zoning in '84, it was
zoned, and is zoning by Margie's comments was vested by the
documents it referenced. I don't know if staff in '89 took any of that
into consideration. I don't know if they made a mistake. But I do
know I don't feel it's appropriate to continue with a mistake.
MR. BOSI: What I would say in response, and it's been repeated
many times at the dais and at the podiums is that bonus -- or the
conversion of commercial residential and up to 16 is not an
entitlement. Whatever the planning commission, whatever the Board
of County Commissioners would deem appropriate at the time is all
that you're obligated, based upon the conditions that are set forth in the
application.
Whatever density then you arrived upon, based upon those
factors is all that they're entitled to. There is no entitlement with it.
What you're asking is can this property even be zoned to
residential? Because what your statement was, that it should never
have been commercial and therefore they shouldn't be entitled to the
bonus?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It can be zoned residential. It's the
bonus part that concerns me. If they came in for another bonus
application under a different application, fine. But this particular
bonus, I have a hard time understanding how it's applicable, based on
the vesting of the documents language to the zoning conditions in
1984.
And you haven't been able to answer that because you were
probably in grade school, as you might have said.
But without that answer, and without some difinitive proof that
that was taken into consideration back in '89, I'm not sure we're
perpetuating a larger mistake. That's all.
Page 141
January 18,2007
MR. BOSI: I was going to say, for 18 years we've perpetuated
the view that this has been deemed commercial. And how the
planning commission feels to deal with the issue, unfortunately I don't
think I'm going to be able to fill in all the gaps.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that. Thank you, Mike. I
appreciate your input.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I ask Mike a question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead. Mike, hold on a
second.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mike, just purely out of the
code. Do you believe that -- what does it mean when it says, if the
project concludes conversion of commercial zoning that it's not
consistent with any subdistrict allowing commercial uses? What does
that mean?
MR. BOSI: Could you repeat that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's the conversion paragraph. If
the project concludes conversion of commercial zoning, that it's not
consistent with any subdistrict allowing commercial uses.
MR. BOSI: That would mean that the location of the commercial
-- of that commercial zoning in its existence, if it did not -- if it didn't
-- if it weren't classified or qualified under an existing subdistrict that
would allow for commercial, therefore that's how it gained its
recognition of consistent by policy and therefore added to the map.
I think that's the question you're asking me, how did it get onto
the original map that deemed it as commercial; is that the question?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm not sure what it
means. It's the answer I'm looking for. We've discussed this with
David Weeks quite a bit, and David always explained it as this is how
we clean up isolated pockets of commercial throughout the county.
So I guess for this to be available -- I mean, it's kind of a reward
if you're if the middle of a residential area with tiny commercial --
MR. BOSI: Well, for whatever reason, however it happened, at
Page 142
January 18, 2007
the time they were saying however that commercial became into
existence at the time that we were doing the reevaluation in '89 when
we were looking, we were trying to isolate our commercial to only the
activity centers, that those existing uses that were out there, however
they got there, were existing. And we're not going to make them
noncomplient; therefore, they're deemed appropriate by policy.
But if they came forward today, they wouldn't find a subdistrict
that would allow them to go forward.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean, so -- I'm still not
sure what that means. Do you know what it means, Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I -- well, that's part of the crux of
my problem with this whole conversion issue.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it can't be in activity
centers. If it does, I mean, the paragraph before and after, everybody's
using the word activity centers, it wouldn't shyly avoid using --
MR. BOSI: It doesn't just mean activity center. It means any
subdistrict that would allow for commercial zoning. That property,
wherever it was located at the time in 1989, there wasn't a subdistrict
that could be applied to it to make it fit within our Growth
Management Plan and therefore that's how it found its way onto that
map.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's a subdistrict?
MR. BOSI: Infill office commercial subdistrict. There's certain
conditions that could be met for a property to qualify for commercial
underneath those guidelines. Those are subdistricts within the
urbanized area. You have various subdistricts within there that if you
meet certain criteria you're allowed certain uses.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And in the land use designation
description of the comprehensive plan, there are several subdistricts
listed. At first there were only a handful, but over time private
petitioners have come in and they've created subdistricts in the Golden
Page 143
January 18, 2007
Gate area. Subdistricts -- Orange Blossom I think is one, and you have
some mixed use subdistricts, and they're all labeled under the future
land use designation description.
And what I take that to mean, just hearing that orally, is it just
means if they could not fit at that time under one of those subdistricts.
And at the beginning we had a handful.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too much further, I was
remiss in something I was notified about a few minutes ago and that is
we need to switch court reporters.
Cherie', I'm sorry. Her face is not as familiar with us as the
others that have come into to us and I kept forgetting why she's here.
So we'll take a few minutes, no more than five, you signal us when
you've switched and we'll resume.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, we left off with
your questioning. Are you finished or do you have others?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm still not sure, but
maybe Melissa can --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's try to finish one line of
questioning and then we'll get into others.
MS. ZONE: Okay. Melissa Zone, principal planner with the
department of zoning and land development.
There are some issues that are going on about the land use. I
would like to do some clarification.
Commissioner Strain, you referenced the original ordinance
84-34. And I'm going to use that as our base to discuss this. Before I
get into what the ordinance is though, the federal government back in
1920 established and recognized four land uses that are still only used
until today, which is agricultural, residential, commercial and
industrial.
Under those four land uses you have subcategories. Goods and
services, which recreational falls under services, is a commercial use.
Page 144
January 18,2007
So as recreational use is considered, it is not residential. It is not
industrial. It is not agricultural. It is a commercial use.
In section two, page three of the PUD ordinance
84-34, number two, comprehensive plan, it reads: Designates the area
of Princess Park as urban. Golf courses, playground and other similar
recreation and open space uses are permitted, non-residential land
uses. So what that paragraph is saying is that they recognize this is a
non-residential land use and these are permitted uses under the
statement of compliance.
On the very next page, section three of the project development
description, which our Chairman read 3.2, the general statement, the
regulations for development of Princess Park. It is a standard
paragraph. It says when -- basically if it does not -- if it is not spelled
out in the PUD document, then you defer to the regulation of the LDC
and the LDC zoning ordinance.
Underneath 3.2 you have 3.3(A), which is the project plan. And
it talks about that the development calls for miniature golf course,
mini car track, which some know as the go-cart tracks, bumper cars,
kiddy cars, an array of all recreational uses. All of those uses are
under services in our standard industrial code book, which are
considered commercial uses.
Since 1989, from what Mike Bosi has said, that Collier County
has also considered this area a commercial district. It is a mixed-use
district
because there is residential next to commercial. But what the
applicants are doing here is they are down zoning or asking to down
zone the property. And from down zoning -- and this is a legal issue
that Marjorie could expound on.
When an applicant comes in to down zone, most government
agencies offer more -- a higher density to get them to down zone
because of the ability -- the property -- you lose value in the property
when you down zone. And so the comprehensive plan recognized that
Page 145
January 18,2007
and that's why they gave the additional density to encourage
commercial zoning in this area to come down to residential.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to address them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, you're still trying to get an
answer to a question or have you gotten it by now?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I don't.
Sorry, Lee.
This thing is in the urban mixed-use subdistrict; is that right?
MS. ZONE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And are commercial uses
allowed within that?
MS. ZONE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How is this taking advantage of
the 16 units per acre if it's in a subdistrict that allows that?
MS. ZONE: Well, it's an allowable use. It is a permitted use to
commercial because it is an approved PUD. What they are doing is
now down zoning. And so they're taking the GMP, our growth
management plan, provision that says that if you want to down zone
from commercial to residential we will give you additional density for
that. It's an incentive.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. I was here when we did the
comp plan. I think what subdistrict means -- it doesn't mean that it's in
the urban district. Because the County as a whole has an agricultural
area and an urban area and some conservation areas.
Because if he said, well, if you have anything that was
commercial in an urban district in the County, then you never would
have been able to do any conversion of commercial. Because the
urban area you have commercial uses that are allowed, along with
residential uses.
But the idea was that commercial would go into an activity
center. And that was the only place that they
Page 146
January 18, 2007
were supposed to be really at the time, except for what was vested.
So that was put in there -- Charlie Gauthier was the author of it -- to
incentivize getting rid of the commercial that was nonconforming
because it wasn't in an activity center and directing them into activity
centers.
And that never would have worked if you would say, well,
commercial is allowed in the urban district or urban subdistrict so
since -- you have commercial allowed in there, they have the whole
array of uses, including the nonconforming commercial, as well as the
proposed -- which later adopted activity centers. That can't mean that.
What I believe it means if there is any other subdistrict in the
urban area that it could have gone, which at the time it couldn't, then
you wouldn't be able to do that. But you're taking a larger look at the
urban district. And as far as whether it is a commercial use or
whatever use, that is really a planning call. That's--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, I have got to finish with
Brad first. I want to let him get done.
Brad, I don't know if you're going to get any more answered than
you've already gotten. It is up to you if you want to pursue it anymore
or you want to go on.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: As the applicant do I get a chance to
respond?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifhe wants to ask that question.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: He has already asked the question, so I
would hope that he -- you have to go -- and you probably don't have
the comprehensive plan in front of you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I actually do.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I do, too. So if you were to look at what
Marjorie just said, she is referring to the urban -- from the very
beginning. Because you have to flip through.
She is talking about the urban designation. And within the urban
designation there are probably 20 or so subdistricts.
Page 147
January 18,2007
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. Correct.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. And what that language
specifically says -- the conversion it says if the project includes
conversion of commercial zoning that is not consistent with any
subdistrict -- any of the 20 or so subdistricts within the urban area,
then it is eligible for a conversion.
So at the time this property -- the comprehensive plan was
adopted, there were no commercial subdistricts
for which this property was eligible to become or be commercial
property. So the conversion would be allowed.
And specifically your comprehensive plan, which, like it or not,
we have to follow. You have maps that are adopted as part of the
comprehensive plan. And those maps specifically say that we are
compatible or we are consistent by policy, which means they made the
determination that this use -- this commercial use is not allowed on the
property.
It is being allowed because it was improved property under that
map. So that factual determination and that policy determination has
already been made by the Board of County Commissioners, end of
story. That's what the comprehensive plan says.
And you can't -- you can't pick and choose which provisions of
the comprehensive plan you want to apply. You have got to apply
them all. And this has been through many challenges. It's been
adopted and readopted I don't know how many times. But that issue
has been resolved by the adoption of those maps.
Now, the question becomes: Do I get all16? Do I get a number
less than 16? Those are the issues that need to be addressed through
this petition.
I can tell you that the property makes no sense as
a residential development at four units per acre. It just makes no
money. It will have to stay the amusement park it is today for it to
work.
Page 148
January 18, 2007
We can't -- we have looked at all the different -- we have looked
at an affordable housing project. It doesn't work.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're going into more of a
sales on the project. Let's stay on the subject of this thing for a
second.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially what you're
saying is that this property is deemed consistent on the map. To prove
that you actually have a property below, south of that, to show that it
too is consistent because it is in this district of commercial uses or in
this area of commercial uses, right?
I mean, to get the Willow Park you had to prove to the Board that
this was essentially a commercial area.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. It was improved commercial at
the time. That's how Willow Park came in.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And now we are pulling -- now
we want the reward of removing this commercial because it's not
consistent with the district.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. And I don't see where that
is inconsistent with your comprehensive plan. The comprehensive
plan says we would prefer that this property, Princess Park, not be
commercial.
You have other examples where it could be -- well, Walden Oaks
itself. It has got both office and residential in it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That doesn't mean it can't be compatible.
It doesn't mean you can't have residential next to office.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I think we are -- we're
not getting anywhere. I'm cloudy still.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Willow Park qualified as
commercial because somebody decided this recreation and open space
area zoning was commercial.
Page 149
January 18,2007
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now that Willow Park gets its
commercial, the recreation open space zoning wants to be commercial
just for a conversion to go back to residential, which Willow Park then
wouldn't have qualified to be next to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So are we inventing leapfrog
zoning then?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Circular argument.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's end it though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we have beat it pretty well.
Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. I wanted to ask the
gentleman from comprehensive planning. You agree this commercial
conversion is not entitlement, don't you?
MR. BOSI: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. Fine.
I want to ask Melissa a question, if I could, please. Disregarding
the number "C" or letter "C" or other designations we talked about, do
you feel that the conversion of this theme park to the project that is
proposed is going to be an effective down zoning or less intense use?
MS. ZONE: It is a down zoning because it has been defended in
our U.S. federal-- the Supreme Court has deemed residential a down
zone from commercial.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay.
MS. ZONE: I go by our planning laws, the Supreme Court and
our laws that are enacted here in Collier County. It is a down zoning.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What about from a judgment
standpoint, as far as how this property will be used?
MS. ZONE: Well, if you had it at a base residential zoning of
four units what is going to
happen is those homes will stand out more so. And so to have an
easier adjustment from the commercial mixed-use district and the
Page 150
January 18,2007
residential, a higher density is more appropriate just because of -- for
aesthetics and for the transition.
Now, at the base density it is not an entitlement. That is
determined between the Board -- the Planning Commission and the
Board of County Commissioners. If you want it at 11, if you want it
lesser, or at a higher -- a higher one.
But it is a down zoning, which there has been many -- in court it's
considered a taking if we were to remove it. So you have to be very
careful and you have to recognize it for what it is.
I don't know if that answered your question, Commissioner
Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: In your staff report, Melissa, it
says when the GMP was adopted in 1989 it contained two provisions
to remove strip and isolated commercial zoning.
MS. ZONE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: This is neither strip and it is a
commercial piece of property. It is not isolated
in any way. It is surrounded on two sides -- both to the north and the
south -- by other commercial.
MS. ZONE: Correct. And I mentioned that. That there is a lot
of commercial predominantly around that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So once --
MS. ZONE: And when this was zoned back in '84, there were
mostly orchards and agricultural land. So this was an isolated
commercial zoning at that time. Though in Collier County we -- we
use the land use as PUD document, though really though that is a
planning tool that --
COMMISSIONER CARON: So you, as staff, are saying to us
here in the Planning Commission that we can probably look forward
to the commercial to the south coming in for this conversion and
Page 151
January 18, 2007
perhaps the commercial to the south of that coming in for a conversion
and all the way down until we get to the activity center? So it has
nothing to do any longer with isolated commercial?
MS. ZONE: Theoretically anyone can come in and ask for a
rezoning and that would happen. This being a mixed-use district,
mixed-use meaning residential/commercial uses, and this area being
designated through our growth management plan, staff can only
review a project and deem it consistent if it
follows the provisions and regulations of our land development code
and our growth management code.
And that's how we review it. We cannot take it as a personal and
look at it -- there are a lot of projects, Commissioner, I would
probably like to give my own planning sense, but I have to follow our
codes.
I know that Mr. Bosi from comp planning also wants to address
your question.
MR. BOSI: It was just in regards to the properties that exist to
the south. You said would they be eligible. They would be eligible if
there was no corresponding subdistrict within the growth management
plan that would allow them to -- to allow that commercial to be there.
I mean, this is how -- this is how this property landed on that map
in 1989. It was because we talked about it. It is within a district that
only allows commercial if you meet the criteria of subdistricts.
This one didn't meet the criteria. Therefore, it was on the map.
The property to the south, if it met the criteria for infill subdistrict --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Do you know if it is?
MR. BOSI: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Do you know ifit is in the
subdistrict?
MR. BOSI: In here it's just a circular argument. The commercial
property to the south is in the office and infill commercial subdistrict.
The only way it qualified though is because commericial to the north
Page 152
January 18, 2007
is commercial.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Michael.
Before I go on, I only had one question so far.
Anybody else have any questions?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If you have ten on this case,
we'll be here for a week.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few more.
Richard, do you -- maybe it is staffs question. I found an
affidavit authorizing Davidson Engineering as their applicant -- it was
from a Paul J. Page, represents Page Six, LLC, is that you or anybody
associated with this proj ect?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is it in my packet?
MS. ZONE: I haven't had a chance to come up to actually just do
the staff analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need you to do that now. Just tell
me is this --
MS. ZONE: It was put in there by accident when
copies were being made. And that should be an omission. That one
affidavit.
The correct affidavit is a few pages in front of it that shows the
owners. But that page -- page three of the -- well, it is not really page
three. But that affidavit should be removed from the application. It
will be for the Board of County Commissioners, as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Listen. That's fine. Let's get on. I still
-- I would like to get to my applicant's questions from me before we
go into your staff report.
Richard, your TIS. I know I spoke to you about this, so I hope
you're prepared to respond to it. You used the ITE rate code based on
amusement park, yet Mr. Bellows in his elaborate report in 1988 said
that the one to use would be the multipurpose recreational facility of
Page 153
January 18, 2007
the ITE manual. And Mr. Kant supported Mr. Bellows and you
agreed with the both of them, based on the court transcripts or of the
project transcripts at the time.
So I would like to know: Have you done an analysis using that
other ITE?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the outcome of that? I wasn't
able to do that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, Mr. Strain, I can have
Suresh come up here if you prefer. I will report the conclusions if
you want me to explain the details.
Actually, if we use the category mixed -- the one you just
described --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would generate more traffic under
the ITE manual than the category we actually used in our TIS. So the
numbers become even more favorable for us if we were to go ahead
and use the other category. And Suresh can come up here and tell you
what those numbers are from the ITE manual.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you familiar with Mr. Hoover? Bill
Hoover.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Am I familiar with Mr. Bill Hoover?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know Bill Hoover?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have run into him once or twice.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figure you had. He provided an
affidavit back in the '89 hearing discussing the differences between the
multipurpose recreational facility standards and the standards of
amusement park. At that time he indicated they were -- Saturday day
trip ends are 98 and Sunday day trips are 91. And the amusement park
at the time was Saturday day trip ends
180 and Sunday day trip ends 171.
I just want to know how the -- how we compare today versus the
Page 154
January 18,2007
amusement park that you used.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. We are using the most
current ITE manual and Suresh can go ahead and answer the question
for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. Sir, you might need to spell
your name for the court reporter.
MR. KARRE: Good afternoon. This is Suresh Carre.
S-u-r-e-s-h. The last name is Karre, K-a-r-r-e.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you have to talk slow.
MR. KARRE: I'm with Dave Plummer and Associates and I
worked on the rezoning traffic study for this proj ect. At the time of
the traffic study, I looked at both the multipurpose recreational
facility, as well as the amusement park for the trip generation
consideration.
And what we found was the multipurpose recreational center was
creating a higher trip generation than the amusement park. So to be
conservative, we used the amusement park so that the trip generation,
which is generating -- which is showing lower benefit to the project.
At the same time, I would like to point out that this information
was provided in the report just for
the information. When the project total impacts were assessed, they
were based on the project trips. And based on the number of project
trips, we provided in the report that the proj ect does not have a
significant impact on the roadway.
And the staff reviewed it and agreed with the conclusion that it
generates less than one percent of the service volume at the level of
service on Airport-Pulling Road. Therefore, the proj ect does not have
a significant impact on the roadway.
The reason I point that out is when we are talking about the
difference between the trip generation or the existing use and the
future of the proposed project, it is for the information purpose and
how it compares. If, in fact, we are dealing with the difference
Page 155
January 18,2007
between what it was and the existing conditions and what it is going to
be, then that would be have been relevant.
But since -- for the proj ect impact, we are using the total
proposed project trips. We are not directing any for the existing use.
It will not have any relevance on what the proj ect is generating or how
the proj ect impacts as the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you explain why another traffic
engineer would have nearly a 50 percent difference in trip generation
rates using the sixth
generation ITE manual versus what you're using today?
MR. KARRE: This -- the current generation document was
updated in 2003 and it is a national standard. And my understanding
is that as the Institution of Transportation Engineers, which produces
these documents, gathers additional information as the time goes by,
they incorporate all the new information and try to reflect the most
current information that they have. So probably that is one reason.
There is a difference between the sixth edition and seventh edition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Using the new information, in either
case then you're not creating any more trips basically?
MR. KARRE: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Using either trip generation rate,
whether we use the amusement park or the multipurpose recreational
facility, we are not generating any more trips on the road?
MR. KARRE: On a daily basis, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On a daily basis. What about an
accrued basis?
MR. KARRE: We look at both the peak hour, as well as on a
daily basis. On the peak hour we did show 30 trips -- approximately
30 trips increased during the peak hour.
Again, as I mentioned, the significant impact on the LOS of the
roadway is measured based on the peak hour trips and we showed that
it is less than one percent. And, therefore, it is not significant and it is
Page 156
January 18, 2007
not adversely impacting the roadway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. You answered my question.
I appreciate it.
MR. KARRE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, in the PUD we have a lot of
redundant language. So here we go again. The statements of
compliance in this PUD are paragraphs. As in previous PUDs, do you
have any objection to reducing the statement of compliance to the
needed language that we typically see and not the strenuous,
redundant language that we have in this particular compliance, just
like the last PUD that we talked about?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. I mean, the PUD has to be --
to be adopted, it has been to consistent with the comprehensive plan. I
don't know what the ultimate model PUD ordinance is going to look
like. So this is -- I guess, we're evolving from what it used to be to
where we ultimately are going to go on the form of the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess, Melissa -- when Melissa comes
up, I will ask her specifically.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will point out that Ms. Student did
strike several paragraphs that, I believe, she concluded were repetitive
and I would agree. And they were -- they will be stricken according
to her comments to the PUD document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To save us all a lot of time, Melissa,
could you come up to the podium just for one question?
Based on the review of the last PUD and the redundant language
there, do we need to walk through each sentence in this PUD or are
you familiar enough to make the common strikeouts and corrections?
MS. ZONE: I'm more than capable. If the applicant is agreeable,
then I would be more than happy to strike out all the redundant and
make sure that when we go before the BCC that that is removed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will save 30 minutes of court
reporting time.
Page 157
January 18, 2007
Is everyone comfortable with that?
Richard, your deviations -- and the one that I'm concerned about
is deviation two. And it says that it requires an excavated area as a
maximum of four-to-one slope from existing grade to a breakpoint at
least ten
feet below control level elevation to allow slopes to be no steeper
than three to one.
Earlier I thought I heard staff or somebody tell us that this
three-to-one slope was going to be on the bank and they were going to
be looking at the native vegetation, instead of grass for cutting. But
the breakpoint is in the water.
Can you explain to me what it is you're seeking so I can --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This has become more confusing than it
was really worth to us. It sounds like the code may address this
situation. So we'll just remove the deviation and be bound by what the
code says regarding the lakes.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Deviation five you're seeking relief from the LDC to allow a
deviation from a 15-foot required buffer adjacent to the office
complex along the northern property line. I know Commissioner
Schiffer talked to you about this.
Is this the same issue he was referring to or is this a different
one?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to have the same plantings
that would be in there, but it would be 15 feet, plus 15 feet, which
would be a total of 30 when the goal is to only have 15 wide in the
first place. We will have 10, plus 15 for the utility easement. So we
are going to exceed essentially the code requirements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think now that staff is
Page 158
January 18, 2007
going to make the cross-outs and corrections that is going to save
enough time. At this point, that's all the questions I have.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It may be appropriate for staff to
answer this, but the location of the document is in with the PUD. It is
from this -- I don't know how to pronounce his name.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is the Bear Creek project. I have that,
as well. But that is a staff issue. I'm sure Richard is not going to have
the information.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wouldn't think he would, but
because of its location I thought I would mention it. But it needs to be
asked, of course, when Melissa makes her presentation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the letter that says since
I didn't get it, they shouldn't get it either?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. He's mad because they didn't have
you as their attorney.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will let you know how the hearing turns
out.
MS. ZONE: Melissa Zone, principal planner with the
department of zoning and land development.
I feel like we have gone through so much with this that I'm not
sure which presentation -- what more you would need. I do have a
question on deviation five.
Is that one that you would like removed or were we leaving that
one in? I was unclear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, you started the questions
on deviation five. Do you still have concerns over that deviation?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. What I was concerned
about was with that narrow cul-de-sac and it won't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And also it's referring to a
Page 159
January 18,2007
standard that you're going to take out that's probably been sunsetted
three times since then.
MS. ZONE: So leave deviation five in?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aren't you going to remove
wording from it referencing standards?
I mean, it goes without saying that it has to pass
the fire code. There is nothing we could say here to overrule the state
fire prevention code.
MS. ZONE: I just wanted to know if I should have deviation five
or not? I'm just asking.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Was that the length of the
cul-de-sac?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That was the buffer.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait.
MS. ZONE: The buffer adjacent to the office complexes
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you continue. We'll look at
that one again and then we'll respond to you after you finish.
MS. ZONE: Commissioner Murray, I had called Tom Manusos
several times when he sent that letter, which he sent to me certified
mail. He finally returned my call. Unfortunately, it was after hours.
And I called him back and -- again, he is a difficult person to get
ahold of. The letter though addresses mostly about affordable
housing. And they were coming in to do affordable housing and it
was denied.
So I'm still going to try to contact the gentleman who wrote the
letter, but the applicants here are not proposing affordable housing.
I'm not sure how to
compare that to. But staff has tried several times to contact him on
that.
And, you know, I am sure -- I know it is with Bear Creek, but
why or what happened he didn't -- since I haven't spoken with him, he
hasn't given me that information.
Page 160
January 18, 2007
I want to talk about deviation three. We have it in there. They
are seeking relief from the LDC for the wall to be six feet on a
two- foot berm. And they're asking for the fence or the wall height to
be eight feet.
I went back and forth with the applicant and I was not budging.
And I noticed in here it says it should be six, but it does show it on the
master plan as six with a two-foot berm. So I just wanted to reassure
to everyone with that deviation that that will be corrected.
If there are any questions that I might --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just an observation. I think we
now know why Toll Brothers doesn't want to put any affordable
housing in there. That was a joke.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Melissa, if the level of service on
that road is level "C", why is it in a traffic congestion reduction zone
of one unit per acre?
MS. ZONE: That is probably a better question for Nick. They
determined that. I didn't.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, I don't want to see the
batting cages go, so I may be biased.
I can't answer the question about the congestion management
reduction. I think it has to do with the department of intersections.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Young lady, do you know who he is?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can tell you comments from -- I
think you made prior to the department of traffic study that were
reviewed. I can tell you that even without the discussions about the
prior trips that were there, the new trips that we reviewed are
consistent with the level of service on that roadway. We have seen
about a 20 percent reduction on Airport Road since Livingston has
opened up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that answer -- Mr. Midney,
does that answer your question?
Page 161
January 18, 2007
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Next time talk loud.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Did you say it was level "D" or
level "E"?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The roadway service standard is "E",
but it is operating at level of service "C" right
now.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of transportation?
Okay. Thank you, Nick.
Melissa, did you have anything more to say?
MS. ZONE: No. If you have any questions for me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything?
Did you have a question, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
Melissa, forgetting the conversion, how many units would be
allowed on this site? It is in the urban residential subdistrict, which
encourages high density.
MS. ZONE: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would 16 be the maximum
allowable?
MS. ZONE: Correct. That's the maximum.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Start with four?
MS. ZONE: Correct. And then with the minus of the one
dwelling unit for the traffic congestion, they are asking for 11.7
dwelling units.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't we be able in that
district to add more units anyway because it is in the urban
residential?
MS. ZONE: Right. It is in the mixed-use
district. And that particular area is a residential subdistrict of the
mixed-use district. And so, yes, they are eligible. Not entitled, but
Page 162
January 18, 2007
eligible.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the four minus one is the
base?
MS. ZONE: No. It is four. But then when you add on the
commercial conversion of 16 --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I am saying without that. Forget
that.
MS. ZONE: Okay. So it would be four and that would be it.
And then the traffic congestion area that wouldn't reduce it because it
is far less than what would have been.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a minus one for traffic
congestion, right?
MS. ZONE: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that would be the base
density that is allowed?
MS. ZONE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they could ask for more
above that?
MS. ZONE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the fact is that it looks like
MR. BOSI: Clarification on that. They have a
base of four minus one for traffic congestion area. The only way they
can get above that base is to utilize one of the provisions in the density
rating system. And the provision they are seeking to utilize right now
is the conversion to commercial.
Without that, they can only -- they are only at three. Maybe they
could ask for an affordable housing if that was their project. But they
cannot get above the three unless they utilize a provision within the
density rating system.
That's why inherent to the application is the utilization of the
conversion of commercial to residential to get their density above that
Page 163
January 18, 2007
prescribed three, which they would be -- they would be prescribed by
the density rating system.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they have a density bonus?
MR. BOSI: They have to utilize a density bonus to get above
that three. And the density bonus that they are seeking is the
conversion of commercial to residential.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kelley, did you know his name is Mike
Bosi?
Is there any other questions to staff?
Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Can we pick a density bonus or
density that would be not what they have asked for, but between that
and, say, the four?
What about if we wanted --
MR. BOSI: The conversion of commercial to residential --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Would it be all right if we were
to say -- we recommend approval of eight units per acre even --
MR. BOSI: Absolutely. Based upon the conditions in the
application you can go -- they are asking for eleven. You can go up to
16.
You can find it anywhere in between that 3 and that 16 that you
would deem appropriate for this site. As I said, that 16 units maximum
is not an entitlement for zoning. It is based on how you view the
conditions of the site and the conditions of the application, the impacts
that it would have upon the surrounding area, the compatibility with
the existing surrounding uses.
What you deem as the most appropriate density can be between
that 16 and that 3. Whatever you feel is in your purview.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think we may have advertised,
you know, for what they asked for. So
there would be a problem going over that. But if you do select
Page 164
January 18, 2007
something in the range between the two, I think we need to articulate
reasons for that, like compatibility and things of that nature, that you
find in your criteria for a rezone. And compatibility would be one
with surrounding land uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Bosi, is there any density
associated with this property right now?
MR. BOSI: Is there commercial-- straight commercial zoning or
-- the straight commercial zoning has no residential density associated
with it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No density on this property right
now?
MR. BOSI: No density.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of
staff at this point before we go to public comment?
Okay. Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We did have two.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two speakers. Same rules. I believe
you were -- if you weren't sworn in, please rise for the court reporter
to swear you in. As you come up to the podium when your name is
called, please try to limit your discussion to around five minutes.
Go ahead, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: First speaker is James R. Smith, followed by
Mr. Tress.
MR. SMITH: Chairman, members of the Board, good afternoon.
I'm glad to be here. I happen to be James R. Smith and I live with my
wife at 666 Ilex Circle at Walden Oaks.
We have been following this through its inception. And we feel
that this would be a benefit to our particular community. As the
public seems to go from time to time with the construction of Ipods
and computers and everything else, I do believe maybe somewhere
down the line that King Richard's Fun Park may just diminish into
Page 165
January 18, 2007
nothing and turn into a blight. Under the circumstances, that mayor
may not be true.
I like the project the way it has been presented. I think it would
be a benefit to our particular neighborhood. It would increase the
value of our properties and establish the neighborhood as a residential
concern.
I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Sir, hold just a moment. Mr. Schiffer would like to ask you a
question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have any concern
over the height of structures on your entrance?
MR. SMITH: No. I think they are further toward Airport Road.
I don't really think it will be bothersome, as far as we are concerned.
It just overlooks our lake area and possibly the swimming pool. I don't
see that as a problem.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way they have it written,
they could be 15 feet off of that property line, 57 feet high?
MR. SMITH: I tell you, we have got tree growth right now, with
the exception of a few areas, that would particularly hide most of that
anyway.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you're not concerned, I'm not
concerned.
MR. SMITH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
Next speaker, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Tress.
MR. TRESS: My name is James Tress. I live in Barrington
Apartments. I have been here for some 35 years, as far as the Naples
area. I was also here not too long ago -- I call not too long ago six
years or so -- in the zoning hearings of the park when they wanted the
higher elevation for the rides, which we
Page 166
January 18,2007
obj ected to and which has thrown more noise into our area.
And I have been in contact with Mr. Fluegel from time to time
and contacting him about the proj ect and I have walked the area. And
I think it would be very compatible and a much better use for
everybody around.
I used to every once in awhile sit in the position that you did up
north. And, of course, I can say this. But you're better qualified than
most of my other panels there. And how you have handled the whole
day, I hope you don't have to do it five days a week because you have
been through.
Now, another thing I would like to point out. That Huntington is
the closest homeowners' association to the park development. They
may have concerns, but I don't think there is too great. I think that
they are the ones in which we mostly went to court for before when
we were talking about noise, elevation.
And I think also that if somebody is concerned about
displacement of these particular facilities for children, I think Collier
County has done an outstanding job in the rate -- that recent regional
park on Livingston Road is an example of a beautiful, beautiful
facility that takes some of these -- this area of concern away. And
they could also add -- they
could add for Nick the whiffle ball court and so forth for his
practicing.
So, consequently, Collier County has gone a long way, too, to
provide facilities. So I don't think that is an issue which was brought
up before by the Planning Commission back then. So I, as an officer
of the association where I live and actively participating, I believe it
would be an asset that -- for this housing to be put in there.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Okay. Ray, do we have any other speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one else has registered.
Page 167
January 18, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant wish any final
comments?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I appreciate the residents coming. We
did ask for a meeting with their association directors months ago to
explain our project in detail to them. I think we have done a good job
of getting the word out for a neighborhood information meeting.
Consequently, you don't have anybody here objecting to the rezone
that we're requesting.
To the contrary, you have people speaking in favor of it. I think
your staff has analyzed it and believes that the project as proposed is
compatible and
consistent with what is around it and will not have a negative impact
on the community.
Weare consistent with the comprehensive plan. We are reducing
traffic. And in the worst case, we are certainly not increasing traffic
from a daily traffic standpoint. And we are requesting that the
Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County
Commission approval of the PUD document.
Again, if you have any further questions regarding the proj ect,
we'll be happy to try to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any final
questions?
Thank you, Richard.
With that, we will close the public hearing and entertain a
motion.
Mr. Adelstein.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-9403 be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval subject to staff recommendations.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will second that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A motion has been made by
Commissioner Adelstein and seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti.
Page 168
January 18, 2007
Discussion.
Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Would the motion maker and
second agree to put in there the commitment made about the
affordable housing?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: There is three --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have got a series of stipulations that I
have been writing down. I mean, that is one of them.
Do you want me to read all those so we can handle it one at a
time?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: There is a 57-foot height,
affordable housing, and the 16-foot trees they agreed to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I would like to ask you in your
research here on this subject and going back to when -- originally
formed PUD, is there anything that indicates to you that this was not
an appropriate application of this commercial conversion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as I have stated on the record
earlier in my discussions with staff and right here, I do -- Tor, I don't
have any problem with what they are proposing in regards to what
they want to do
or even the density. My concern is I don't feel it is an appropriate use
of a commercial density conversion bonus. Staff, also who are
experts, believe it is. But I don't -- based on the documentation I have
reviewed, I still don't buy into that conversion bonus.
Now, it has nothing to do with the proj ect. It has nothing to do
with the density. It has nothing to do with the fact that -- if anything,
the fact that the neighborhood would prefer it over King Richards is a
plus.
But seeing how -- I can't myself get past that conversion issue.
Page 169
January 18, 2007
So, unfortunately, I'm going to be declining on voting affirmatively
for the motion for that reason.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But for those people who are thinking of
voting it and for the motion maker and the second, the stipulations that
were also entered into the discussion were that development standards
were going to change in regards to the ancillary uses and how to
define those both in the table and in the text. The standard affordable
housing donation was to be added pursuant to Mr. Midney's
comments.
As Mr. Vigliotti said, the trees that were going to be at 16 feet
heights, instead of 12 feet. They
were going to remove deviation number two. And then Mr. Vigliotti
said the height.
What was the height issue?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 57 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maximum height was 57 feet; is that--
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maximum height is 57 feet. Those are
the five stipulations that I have made notes of as we have gone
through.
Ms. Caron, did you have any?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I just want to make a
comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get past these first.
Will the motion maker want to accept these stipulations as an
amendment to the motion?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the second accept?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I want to make a comment
Page 170
January 18, 2007
because I think that we're using some rather convoluted logic here
with this conversion of commercial on this particular project.
Whether we agree with it or not, this project sits in a traffic
congestion reduction area.
So we go from a base density of four units an acre and we have
to take one away. What possible logic do you use to then take away a
unit of density and add back nine? This just doesn't make any sense to
me whatsoever.
And, additionally, we are sitting here with a commercial product
that has zero density on it now and you are going to put 12 units an
acre on it. And while you can call it a down zoning, it is still adding
density to this area that is not there now. Because, as traffic will tell
you, the commercial that is there now is just an attractor. It is not a
generator attractor.
And what you're talking about when you convert it to residential
is creating a situation where you'll be creating traffic, not just
attracting traffic. We have heard Don Scott tell us this on numerous
occasions. Commercial is an attractor of traffic. It attracts it for a
short time. It goes away. When you put residential in place, then you
have traffic that is there continuously and has far more impact on the
area.
I can't possibly support this project at 12 units an acre in this
area. I think it is a really gross misuse of the conversion of
commercial.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments before
we call for the question?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I would tend to agree with
Donna on the aspect of traffic. It's one of those conversion questions.
Both of those seem to me to be binding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat.
With that, we'll call for the vote. We should do this by signifying
by aye and raising our hands.
Page 171
January 18,2007
All those in favor of the motion, signify by raising your hand and
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five.
All those opposed to the motion, same sign.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Motion carries five to four.
Thank you all. We will take a 15-minute break and be back here
at 3: 15 . (A short recess was held.)
MR. BELLOWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. We'll resume our
meeting. Now that we have had some coffee, we can talk really fast
for the court reporter.
Item #8F
PETITION: PUDZ-2004-AR-6810
The next petition up is PUDZ-2004-AR-681 0, the Livingston
Greens, LLC represented by George Varnadoe. It is called the
Hamilton Greens Project on Livingston Road.
All those wishing to speak on behalf of this project, please rise
and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn in by the court reporter.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of
Page 1 72
January 18, 2007
the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. I had spoke to Mr.
Varnadoe's office. He had made sure that I received a copy of the
report because I was away on vacation. And they sent me a copy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just spoke briefly to George this
minute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I attended a neighborhood
information meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I also spoke with Mr. Varnadoe. In fact,
actually it was before the last meeting and again before this meeting.
With that, George, it's all yours.
MR. VARNADOE: Last but not least, the Hamilton Greens
PUD. I'm here on behalf of the Livingston Greens, LLC, the owner of
the 29.66 acre parcel for which our PUD is being sought. Also here
today to answer questions are Patrick Cunningham from the firm of
Houston Cuozzo, our planners; Russ Ervin from Ervin, Lovett and
Miller, architects; Craig Smith from Dexter Bender, who did the
environmental work; and William MeAnly from MeAnly Engineering,
who did the water management engineering.
I am going to give a basic description of the project and then ask
Russ Ervin to address some planning considerations very briefly.
Hamilton Greens is a nice little infill project. The property is
located approximately halfway between BBR and Immokalee Road on
the east side of Livingston Road. It is bound on the north by the new
regional park and a preserve for Wilshire Lakes. It's bound on the east
by that preserve and Wilshire Lakes, on the south by a wetlands
preserve as part of the Tiburon project, and on the west, as I said, by
Livingston Road
and then Tiburon Park of the Pelican Marsh DR!.
The property is bisected -- you can't see on this aerial very well,
Page 1 73
January 18,2007
but you will in later plans -- from -- there's a golf parcel on the east,
one on the west, and it's bisected by a part of this large wetland
flowway system that we have preserved on the site.
Our proposal is for 88 multi-family units on this 29.68 parcel
with a density of 2.96 units per acre. It's designed to be a compact,
walkable residential community. It's recognized in the staff report.
Both the use and the densities are consistent with the future land use
element of the growth management plan.
Weare well along in the planning stage. I am going to use the
PUD master plan just very briefly. Here you can see the flowway that
goes northeast to southwest. It's a big wetlands system.
There are three basic land uses on the site; R-l district, which is
residential, and R -2 district, and a special use district, which is our
recreational amenity.
If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, I am going to use this concept
plan. I think it really illustrates the project a lot better than a bland
master plan. The recreational parcel is this location. It's typical
recreational amenities you might see around. A large
pool with cabanas. The R-l product that you see, which is most of
the project, are three-story units. Excuse me. One unit per floor.
We also have what we call a lake house building, which is a
four-story building, three living levels over one level of parking. If
you look in the PUD -- and I'm going to ask to make this change. Mr.
Strain, if you want to start making your notes on what we want to
change.
The zone height of the R -1 parcel are 40 feet. The actual height,
we request 50 feet. The R-2 parcel the zoned height is 70 feet. The
actual height we ask for 75 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: The units are fronting on preserves or the
lake or both. We also -- I'd submit to you this proj ect is very
respectful of both the environment and our neighbors.
Page 174
January 18, 2007
We had two informational meetings -- one in 2005 and one in
2006 -- where we added ten acres to the project. At both of those
meetings I think the majority of the people in attendance were from
Wilshire Lakes. After talking to them, we did not have any objections
from them.
We have put a lake in between our easternmost
units and the property boundary. We have committed to an 8- foot
wall along that border to be landscaped on both sides and to be built
prior to vertical construction on this eastern side. So we can put the
infrastructure in, but before we go vertical an 8- foot wall landscaped
on both sides.
The closest units are over 145 feet from the property line and
approximately 230 feet from where -- our units are approximately 230
feet from the nearest unit in Wilshire Lakes.
The overall project is discreetly tucked into the upland areas
preserving a majority of the wetland areas. The property contains 14.1
acres of uplands and -- excuse me -- 14.4 acres of uplands and 14.4
acres of wetlands and .8 acres of water surface area currently. A
majority of the wetlands on-site are being preserved. In fact, 14.1
acres of native wetlands and upland vegetation are being preserved,
which is 47 percent of the site.
So you compare the 14.1 acres that are being preserved to the
LDC requirement which would have us preserving 6.8 acres, we are
maintaining most of the important vegetation on-site. The eastern
parcel, as we call it, is being accessed by a fill dirt previous driveway
that was there to serve an old homestead that
was in this area. Weare proposing to use that same location as a
driveway to the east area.
But right now that filled old driveway acts as a berm or a dam for
water flow from northeast to southwest. It's not high enough to be a
permanent dam, but it does serve to stop the flow. Working in
conjunction with the water management district, we have designed aT
Page 175
January 18,2007
raised roadway, if you would, that is going to have five bridges
through that wetland at appropriate locations to allow the flow of
water.
Weare also going to take the existing grade of that fill down to
what the historic level was so it will also serve as wildlife crossing for
small animals. This is just a transview, if you would. It leads into one
of our deviations that I will talk about in a minute.
Weare trying to keep that road width as narrow as we can in
order to have the minimum environmental impact that we can. It is
approximately 405 feet of span across that wetland flowway. In
addition to that, we are going to put some sort of traffic calming
devices at each end -- probably decorative pavers -- to try to keep the
speeds on that to a minimum.
We have asked for two deviations from the land development
code. One is for this -- where is Vanna
when you need her?
One is for this area here where we have asked instead of having a
5-foot sidewalk on both sides of that road, to have a 5-foot sidewalk
on one side. And that is to keep the profile narrow and to keep the
wetland impacts to a minimum, plus it's only serving 12 units back
here. I think one sidewalk would be sufficient.
The second one is to substitute a 7- foot sidewalk on one side of
this point to this point to the rec facility, instead of a 5- foot on both
sides. We are trying to preserve this upland native vegetation area
here and we just got squeezed on room at the entryway there. At this
point you can see a crossover and picked up with sidewalks on both
sides of the street. Given the minor number of units between here and
the rec parcel, which would be the basic use of that sidewalk, we think
that is also justified.
I said there were two deviations. While I was waiting for our
current notice, I noticed that -- although in our Section 3.8, we point
out that we can have cul-de-sacs in excess of 1,000 feet, we didn't call
Page 176
January 18, 2007
that out in the deviation section. And I would respectfully request that
we do that.
I also have a couple clean-up comments in the land
development code as a result or review and talking to Marj orie
Student that I would like to make. The first, to kind of keep the
continuity, if you would allow me, I would like to have Russ Ervin
talk about some planning considerations and I'll come back to those.
Thank you.
MR. ERVIN: Thank you, George. My name is Russ Ervin. I
am with the planning and architectural firm of Ervin, Lovett, Miller
out of Jacksonville, Florida.
And we have been retained by the landowner to provide
architectural and planning designs for Hamilton Greens. I will be very
brief. I know the day is going on and I will be glad to answer your
questions if I'm too brief here.
But basically, as George indicated, starting out a lot of our goals
were to create a very walkable, residential village. We also wanted to
provide tremendous amenities inside of this residential village. We
wanted to give privacy to the residents and we wanted to respect our
neighbors.
And, as well, we wanted to utilize -- we preserved an awful lot of
wetlands. Almost a little over 13 acres of wetlands. And we wanted
to utilize those wetland assets to our benefit or for the benefit of the
residents here.
So with that, just a brief overview from a planning perspective on
the site plan. George has gone through most of it. Like he said, we
have 88 units, as well as a community clubhouse facility. Starting
from Livingston Road, we'll have a narrow cul-de-sac turnaround, if
you will. In that cul-de-sac we'll have a gate -- a guard gate and this
will be a gated community for privacy.
We have a central amenity, as George has pointed out, purposely
located as the hub of the village. With that location, it is very
Page 1 77
January 18,2007
walkable from all -- all residential homes there. Even the homes
furthest to the east would be no more than a three-minute walk and it
would be a terrific walk down that wetland causeway that George has
already described.
We also provided a central lake feature at the entry, another
amenity for the residents there. We did create private cul-de-sacs.
There is three prongs coming out of that center hub that access all
three private cul-de-sacs giving the residents there privacy.
We took a lot of time in looking at the vehicles and how we can
disguise the vehicles on this project and to create a great walkable
community. So with that, the carriage homes we have turned the
garages facing each other and created an auto court. With that
there will only be one driveway penetration as you go from the
carriage home garages out to the road. So the pedestrian on all the
sidewalk systems that have been laid out only has to cross that one
driveway and then -- rather than having six garages facing the street.
So we did provide a lot of sidewalks with interconnectivity to the
various amenities on the site.
As George described, we did respect our neighbors with large
landscape buffers between us and the adjacent Wilshire project to the
east. The architecture on the site, starting out at the entranceway off
of Livingston Road, our largest building is our lake house building.
We do have Vanna now.
The lake house building is a four-story building. The lower level
is parking underneath. The parking is disguised from the public space
or from the public areas with louvered vents. The conceptual plan that
you see in front of you, the elevation is looking at the lake house
building from the south looking north or from the lake.
As you can see, we have parking on the first level and then three
living levels above that. Each one of these condominium homes or
lake house homes have balconies that are private balconies facing the
lake.
Page 178
January 18, 2007
We also have the clubhouse and the village center. As you can
see from these graphic depictions, we are leaning towards a very
Caribbean/British West Indies architecture. Both the clubhouse, lake
house and all the carriage homes all will be in the same vernacular, if
you will.
The clubhouse is located central to the project. The amenities that
go along with the clubhouse will be a club room, fitness room,
restrooms and lockers, massage room, and then we have a fairly
significant pool facility with private cabanas going around the pool
facility.
Last, going back to our carriage homes, those are three-story,
private homes. Ground floor would be a residential unit linked to
three private garages. The garage entries are from an auto court that is
shared by the adjacent building. The front entry is for guests. We
would have a front entry door off the sidewalk. We would also have a
side entry through a gated courtyard that would be on the opposite
side of the garage auto courts. Again, ground floor would be the first
living level with garages. The second and third floor would be
residential condominium homes.
That is the extent of the presentation on planning and
architecture. I will be glad to answer any
questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm not sure what you said the
height was for that tallest building.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. The zoned height, Mr. Adelstein,
would be 70 feet with a maximum height of 75. Actual height. I'm
sorry .
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That one there? I thought that
was at 90.
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. Well, 70 zoned, 75 actual.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That brings up a good question. Maybe
Page 1 79
January 18, 2007
Brad is going to ask it.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The actual height -- well, let's
start with zoned. Zoned would be from essentially the FEMA
elevation to the midpoint of the roof.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Five feet more would -- actual
height would be from the center line of the right-of-way to the top of
the highest thing, which would probably be that left-hand, middle
chimney.
MR. VARNADOE: I understand actual height will not exceed
75. When we wrote the ordinance, we hadn't
completely designed the buildings. And the PUD ordinance says 70
feet from a zoned height. To provide a little leeway, we would like to
leave that alone, but the actual height will not exceed 75. And our
actual design that's where we are.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So your zoned height is
way below 70 then?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. Actually, when this building -- I
think it was like 62 or three, something in that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because when I look at that, I
see the midpoint of the roof to the top of that looks like it is probably
15, 18 feet.
MR. VARNADOE: You're exactly right. When we went to the
neighborhood information meeting, they asked us. We told them. And
I would appreciate it if we could leave that alone and give a little more
leeway in height. And if we need to reduce the chimney, we can
certainly do that and stay within our zoned height.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a question I thought you would
ask.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I didn't want you to get in
trouble. These are beautiful buildings and I don't want a problem like
Page 180
January 18,2007
this.
MR. VARNADOE: I appreciate it. We looked hard at
that after we looked at the actual height.
I have a couple of clean-ups, if I might. Maybe it will alleviate
some of the questions.
Mr. Kolflat, did you go to the 2005 or the 2006?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 2006.
MR. VARNADOE: I was just interested.
2.7 -- 3.7(A)(4) on page 3-3 of mine, but that's just the number.
We had a paragraph that -- although the intent is there, when Marjorie
and I were talking, we thought we could make it a lot clearer. And, if
I could, I would like to read what we would like proposed here.
If you go to the second sentence, it starts this shall not prohibit.
And we would like to say this shall not prohibit the attachment of
enclosed parking structures to the principal residential structure
however -- and insert where parking structures face the street and then
pick up a parking apron of at least 23 feet shall separate the enclosed
parking space.
That gives us the flexibility if the proposed auto court doesn't
work we could have a garage facing the street, so long as it's 23 feet
back from the sidewalk, which accommodates a car that is not inside
the garage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure staff gets your
language.
So, Carolina, since I think you're the staff person, did you hear
the language that George had just cited in regards to changes on that
3.74?
MS. VALERA: Yes.
MR. VARNADOE: And I'm sure Mr. Strain was going to bring
this up, so I thought I might as well. On 3.7(B), which are the
development standards, footnote five. We had repeated the zone
height definition because, as you can tell, we are very far along with
Page 181
January 18, 2007
the design of these buildings. And as we seem to want to change our
land development code willy-nilly, I wanted to lock in today's height,
as far as the definitions of height, whether it be actual or zoned.
So what I propose is delete that and put as a footnote building
heights will be measured and defined as per the land development
code in effect on the date of approval of the PUD. And that allows us
to maintain our design and the effect in the event we somehow start
redefining what heights mean. I appreciate your indulgence on that.
And then I had a final clean-up comment in the environmental
section, if I can find it. I think it is 5-3.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is Section 5.8 of the
environmental?
MR. VARNADOE: 5.8. You're correct, Mr. Strain. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: George, to be honest with you,
consistent with the other PUDs we reviewed today, I think that entire
section is unnecessary because it is all redundant language and
required language by codes, unless there is something in there that you
feel you need to lock in for the future.
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. The only thing that we were -- was
there is we had a conflict on accessory structures being allowed ten
feet from preserves where our matrix showed a 25- foot setback. 25
was correct and I was going to ask to strike that last sentence of
5.8(F). Ifwe are going to take it all out, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only question I would have then is:
Which is the LDC requirement?
MR. VARNADOE: Twenty-five.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're consistent with the code, then
we'll strike all that 5.8 section. We'll just fall back on the codes then.
Is that --
MR. VARNADOE: I will be happy to respond to any questions
anybody might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat.
Page 182
January 18, 2007
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Varnadoe, as I understand
it, there were two NIM meetings; one on April 7th, 2005 and one on
April 6th, 2006. Regarding the east boundary with Wilshire Lakes,
you committed to an 8- foot high masonry wall landscaped on both
sides with varied height vegetation -- that is low, high, mid and tall
trees -- that hide the masonry wall.
You stated that the landscaping would be similar to that on the
Golden Gate Parkway side of The Estuary north wall. Do you recall
this?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, in order to ascertain to my
mind a little what that landscaping consisted of, I visited and inspected
the site with one of the representatives of the owners there of The
Estuary. And the type of vegetation they are taking about, as far as the
low and the mid, include Podocarpus, Arabellen (phonetic), Xanadu,
Pittosporum, Downy Jasmine and Bougainvillea. It included trees that
were Black Olive, Live Oak, Foxtail Palm, Royal Palms on I5-foot
centers and 14 feet high at planting. The trees and bushes were
grouped in sections by species and repeated through the wall for
variety.
I would like to show you a few illustrations. If
you could get those photographs I brought, please, Ray.
I think it is an excellent landscaping arrangement they have there.
Here it shows you one section of it, which has the Royal Palms with
the Bougainvillea at the lower level.
What is the next one, Ray? This is some Black Olives. And you
can see how it completely hides the masonry wall. You cannot see it.
There is also some other low-growing vegetation there.
Next one. Here is an illustration with Live Oaks and Arboricola
there underneath it. You see how it completely hides the wall.
And the next one. Slide it up so he can see. Podacorpus. You
can see the Royal Palm trees there in the background.
Page 183
January 18,2007
The point is is that the quality of the vegetation there is excellent
and I think it would make an excellent barrier. And I expect that this
would probably be a part of the commitment that you would make
with this PUD.
MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Kolflat, I think if you look at what I
said was -- and I have used it as an example. I would hate to tie down
the vegetation. I don't mind if we end up with the same kind of
treatment because that is the same kind of masonry wall we are talking
about.
I was using that as an example.
The difference is along Grey Oaks Estuary, which is what that is,
that goes on for close to a half a mile and here we have 405 feet. We
will put in ground cover. We will put in mid-story and we will put in
the trees on those centers. That is fine.
But I would not -- I would hate to be dictated to as to what the
type of vegetation we would utilize there would be.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: At both your NIMs you
indicated that it would be similar to that that was on the Estuary wall.
MR. VARNADOE: That's exactly the word I used, yes, sir.
Similar.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And I would assume that when
you say similar, similar plantings, too. We don't have to identify the
particular plantings in the stipulation, but I would like in the
stipulation that you will agree that it will be similar to what is on The
Estuary wall.
MR. VARNADOE: That's fine. I don't have a problem with that
at all.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. When I first
started here about six years ago, we wanted to make sure the height of
buildings stayed at a reasonable level to be done. I don't know what is
Page 184
January 18, 2007
going to be behind that. I do know it's going to block out a lot of
people and a lot of things.
Basically I have sat back and said, in my own mind, if we can't
build it up to 60 feet, I don't think I'm going to vote it. It is the kind of
situation where we could make it 90 or anything you want, but we
have tried to get it down to a point where everybody in the area could
have the enjoyment.
And with somebody out here with 75 feet and there is things
behind them or things in front of them, I think that is absolutely
absurd. I'm going to -- it is up to you. I'm not going to ask you what
you are going to do. But I am telling you point blank I can't agree to
vote on par with this thing going up 75 feet.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. I hear you. And I would, I guess,
disrespectfully disagree with you, Mr. Adelstein. I think you cannot
respect the environment and get a rational number of units. We're at
less than three units an acre on this project.
I can certainly design it to go into the wetlands and get permits
for that, but I think that is the wrong approach also, sir. If you will
see, there is just one
building on a six-lane highway and it is set back 120 feet from the
road because that is the right-of-way. There is nothing behind us,
other than us, and a park to the north and a wetland preserve to the
south. I don't know who we are going to impact besides ourselves, sir.
And you see the architecture of the building. In my opinion, it's
exemplary. And I would ask for your consideration on that in this
special circumstance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Lindy, I think one thing that
you can notice that tall building is only as you come into the proj ect.
All the other buildings, especially the ones back by the residential, are
only 40 feet in height.
My actual comment on this thing is because it is in the urban
Page 185
January 18, 2007
residential subdistrict I actually -- and because it is a beautiful proj ect,
I kind of wish it had a greater density and more people could live in it.
It's on a major road. It's perfect for a higher density than even this.
MR. VARNADOE: And I will say, Mr. Adelstein, that you don't
see me in here specifying height in normal cases. I think in this event
this makes the best use of the property without getting into
environmental --
we have preserved native upland vegetation on this site because it is
very nice. I think in this instance you can take that into account of
where that building is located.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I really appreciate what
you're saying. And I understand what you're trying to do. And if
everything was wide open for everybody, I would say fine if you want
to go to 75 feet. But this is not Naples.
And what we have tried to do, in fact, when we started is we had
that type of heights in too many buildings. Right now we don't have
that kind of height anymore because it does interfere with other
owners.
This is a good thing for you and for the people that are going to
live there. And that's fine. But we also have to look at the people who
are going to look at it from the other way out.
As far as I'm concerned, I have tried very hard to make sure if
there was a need for something else for some specific area. But just to
make that 75 feet height I think it is just a little bit too much.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. I think if you would look at -- I
don't have a specific height. I don't think this 70- foot building would
bother anybody in this instance.
If you look at the heights in Pelican Marsh, I think you will find
the Ritz-Carlton far exceeds 75 feet though, sir.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How long ago were they
built?
MR. VARNADOE: Ritz-Carlton? Eight or ten years. I mean, it
Page 186
January 18, 2007
is right across the street from us.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's what I'm saying. When
I got on this Board, that's what they were doing. When I got on the
Board for awhile that stopped being doing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think probably more of an issue it
stopped was because they ran out of money to build mid-rises and
high-rises. That is part of the reason.
Mr. Murray, did you have a--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would ask this question. The
property adjacent, there are a number of buildings from the picture
and they appear to be high.
Would you happen to know how high those structures are?
MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Murray, I do not. I think that the -- as I
recall, and this is just recollection and not testimony, sir. I don't want
to -- but I think these are three-story in this instance. So they are
probably in the same height that we are in that 40 to 50-foot category.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That was my only
question. I respect Mr. Adelstein's views on that, but it is such a nice
project and I do see it being very close. It is a good line you're
holding, but that is a terrific project from the look of it. I wish I could
afford to live there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a series of questions.
Ray, is there going to be any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. George, I am going to ask
Carolina one question before I ask you any. It might save some time.
Carolina, were you here when we were talking about the very
first PUD we went through as an example of redundant language?
MS. VALERA: Yes, I was here. Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you feel from that discussion you
could go through this document and pull out all that similar, redundant
language that is in this?
Page 187
January 18, 2007
MS. VALERA: I will get with Melissa to compare notes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would save about a half hour of
discussion. I just wanted to make sure that
you were aware of it enough so you could handle that.
MS. VALERA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much.
George, that just pulled off a lot of questions. So let me see if I
have any substantive ones that -- oh, 2.9(A). You're asking for
landscape berms with maximum slopes. Is that any different than
what is in the land development code?
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can strike that language I would
assume?
MR. VARNADOE: Let me look at it. I think that's exactly what
is in the code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The measurement of--
MR. VARNADOE: The only thing I would suggest, Mr. Strain,
is "B". I don't know that that is. I would like to keep that in there.
That really allows us to do what we want to do with our neighbor back
there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was only looking at "A".
Ms. Caron, did you have any?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just wondering. I'm not
sure. I think that "D" is a deviation. I don't know if you need to
separate that out. It is not one that bothers me. It is just -- I believe it
IS SIX
feet for wall and not eight.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I could be wrong. It was a
question and not a statement.
MS. VALERA: The old code used to say six to eight and now it
says SIX.
Page 188
January 18, 2007
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. So it is a deviation.
MS. VALERA: Now it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there is a deviation.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. I would request that we put that in
as a deviation so we can meet our commitment to our neighbors on the
east.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good catch, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 2.9.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: George, on page 2-5, very top of the
page, it starts "A", general permitted uses. And it says, one, essential
services as set forth under the LDC.
Do you have any problems adding language indicating the LDC
in effect at the time this document is approved?
MR. VARNADOE: Not at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was no attempt to change the
essential services?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't think a fire station would
look really good in the project.
MR. VARNADOE: I wouldn't want to try one. It probably
would be higher and Mr. Adelstein wouldn't like it anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On 2.16, your fill storage. Is there
anything in there that you believe is different than the land
development code?
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir, I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll just assume that Carolina will strike
that. I just want to make sure there is not something you need or that
there is something that you need and it is a deviation. We need to list
it so it gets put in its right place.
MR. VARNADOE: 2.16.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your permitted uses, the principal
uses, you list the following: Multi-family dwellings, townhouses,
Page 189
January 18,2007
garden apartments, caretaker units. And then you have a sentence. I
was just puzzled by what it means.
It says a group of dwelling units within a single conventional
building attached side by side or one above the other or both. What
does that mean?
It is kind of like just hanging there. I don't know if it was trying
to define something as a
predecessor to it.
MR. VARNADOE: It was defining something that we took out
so that sentence can be removed. In our clean-up we got halfway
there in that paragraph I'm afraid.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, did you catch that?
MR. VARNADOE: 3.4(A)(1), Carolina, the second sentence.
MS. VALERA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your development standards -- I
think, Marjorie, you indicated that you had some concerns with this.
You have your development standards listed in a format and then you
have your table and sometimes --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's the same thing.
MR. VARNADOE: 3.5(B)(C)(D), 3.6(A) are redundant with the
development standards table two.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 3.6 -- all of3.6(A).
Okay. So those -- you don't have any problem with striking those
and relying on the table?
MR. VARNADOE: Not at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. One question about the table.
Since we took the environmental out because it is already in the code,
do we want to take the
County preserve standard out of the table? Because that was
reiterating what was stated in the environmental section that you took
out.
Page 190
January 18, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see the need for it.
George, do you have a problem with that?
MR. VARNADOE: Huh-uh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. For the record. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On -- the last thing I have is your master
plan. You show these tunnels and passageways and you list them, I
think, as wildlife -- wildlife crossings. I just want to make sure that
that doesn't cause you a problem. Because I know you indicated they
were for water flow for that flowway, as well; is that correct?
MR. VARNADOE: And I think we probably ought to either take
that out or change it to say small wildlife crossing. They're not going
to be high enough for a deer or something of that magnitude. We
don't have that in this area, so it's basically for small animals.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other part of it was -- you want to
put wildlife -- small wildlife/water flow. Because there is an issue that
you might have to have it to a certain height so it doesn't stay under
water
and, therefore, cause problems for wildlife. So I think you want to
use it for both. I don't know how that gets changed on your master
plan.
Carolina, if you want to make such a note, I am sure staff will
come up with something.
Those are the only questions I had. Overall, I thought it was a
very good project.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just had a couple of things
that I want to make sure that I had gotten them all.
Page 2.5 -- 2.5 under development standards. (B).
MR. VARNADOE: I'm sorry? 2.5(B).
COMMISSIONER CARON: I am on 2-5. General permitted
uses 2.11, but it is on page 2-5 under (B), development standards,
Page 191
January 18, 2007
number one. It says setback from back of curve or edge of pavement
of any road 15 feet, except for guardhouses, gatehouses and caretaker
units.
Is that because if you had a caretaker unit it would be above? I
mean, you're not going to stick a caretaker unit --
MR. VARNADOE: I think the caretaker unit --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- like a guardhouse on top of --
MR. VARNADOE: It is above the guardhouse.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It is above.
On page 2-6. 2.15, use of right-of-way. It says here
administrative approval by the Collier County engineering director. Is
that who should be there or is this County Manager and designee?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's one of those redundant
languages that is defined in the LDC that is really not necessary in this
document. So that was just like the previous PUD we went through.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just to confirm finally on the
height issue. The buildings that are going to be 75 feet in height that
are a total of four stories, that is not four stories, plus a level of
parking, right?
MR. VARNADOE: That's correct. Three living levels, plus
one-story parking.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But not to exceed 75 feet?
MR. VARNADOE: Exactly. 75 actual feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is even better.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. I always talk about
actual.
MR. VARNADOE: All right.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 3.6, special use. What is a special
use that would need 45 feet in height?
MR. VARNADOE: That would be our clubhouse.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And 12 cabanas that you're going
to have, those are strictly recreational cabanas; they are not living
Page 192
January 18,2007
space, correct?
MR. VARNADOE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would make great homeless units,
wouldn't they?
COMMISSIONER CARON: On page 4-1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have been here too long.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Uses that are permitted in the
preserve and conservation areas under 4.31, one of them says water
management structures. Where are we on water management
structures and preserves?
I believe that this is --
MR. VARNADOE: I don't know who is --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're looking for someone to answer
that.
MR. VARNADOE: I can tell you that it went to the Board. And
I was watching it on television and basically they declined to make
any changes at this time to what's in the code today. So it is allowed
as long as it doesn't have a negative effect on the ecology of the
wetland spaces. In other words, no change was made.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And we already talked about the
sidewalk deviation, right? That is listed as a deviation.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Varnadoe, the
conceptuals, are they actually what you're going to build?
MR. VARNADOE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The conceptual drawings, are
they actually what you're going to end up building?
MR. VARNADOE: That is the design as it exists today, Mr.
Vigliotti. I'm not telling you it won't change slightly, but that is the
design we are with today.
Page 193
January 18, 2007
Is it going to be exactly that? I can't comment to that.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Minor changes?
MR. VARNADOE: Minor changes.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions?
Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. I would like to come back
to the stipulation on landscaping that we talked about. I'm concerned
about this because this was a
public statement to the public about a commitment. And I feel that
we should follow through on it.
What I would like to do is -- I'd prefer a stipulation --
MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Kolflat, I'll tell you what I would like to
do. I would like to put my words in this PUD as a commitment.
How is that?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I have with me the
transcript of both of those meetings.
MR. VARNADOE: So do I.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: If you would let me read this. I
think I have encapsulated what you have on it. Regarding the
eastbound Wilshire Lakes, there will be an 8- foot high masonry wall
and landscaped on both sides with varied height vegetation that is low,
mid and also tall trees that hide the masonry wall. This landscaping
shall be similar to that on the Golden Gate Parkway side of The
Estuary north wall. There is no mention of what that constitutes.
MR. VARNADOE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Essentially no mention of what
that comprises, as far as landscaping. You did not want that written. I
agree with that.
MR. VARNADOE: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So if I make the stipulation you
would accept that?
Page 194
January 18, 2007
MR. VARNADOE: Absolutely. We made that commitment, sir,
at the neighborhood information meeting. Weare going to live with
it.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I want to be sure that you
do.
MR. VARNADOE: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. So make it part of the
PUD.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: One caveat on that. You might
want to put a date and time as it existed on a certain date because
landscaping could change over time.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What date and time would you
like? As of today.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It is just an observation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wouldn't it be as installed? I
mean, you can't come in with 50-foot high trees.
MR. VARNADOE: I think that is the point where we -- when
you start talking about that, that one -- they happen to be clients of
mine, so I know exactly what is there when that was put in and it did
not totally hide the wall.
Of course, the reason -- the purpose is to make that wall opaque
or go away, if you would. And it is getting along towards that as that
landscaping has been there some three plus years.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I agree with that. As installed.
MR. VARNADOE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of
the applicant?
Thank you, George.
Staff report. It might almost be a moot point at this point.
MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, principal planner with the
development of zoning and land development review. And she has
my name spelled out.
Page 195
January 18,2007
Staff has reviewed this petition and has noted in the staff report
and found it consistent with the growth management plan, as far as
transportation and environmental. We have also reviewed it for
compatibility with the adjacent properties and found it consistent.
We -- as noted in the staff report, we did get into the discussion
of the deviation for the sidewalk. And staff is in -- approved this
deviation. We did not -- we did not do an analysis of the deviation of
the cul-de-sac as proposed today by the applicant. I just wanted to
note that to you. That's why you don't have it in your staff report.
I would also like to note that in the rezone findings I did -- in the
findings -- I'm sorry -- for the PUD on the very first page and the last
criteria, number four, I did mention the proposed density is four units.
It should read 2.96 as it has been revised in the PUD.
And also on page five of the staff report on the very first
sentence, I also mention based upon analysis that staff concludes that
the proposed density of 2.6 units per acre. That was the density that
we had before, but the revised PUD mentions 2.96.
I think the petitioner did mention this. That they are proposing
2.96. The base density is four per acre, but they are allowed up to
seven units. So they are well below than what would be required. No
transferring of commercial or anything else.
With that, I will be glad to answer any questions that you may
have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Carolina.
Is there any questions of staff? Comments?
Thank you, Carolina.
MS. VALERA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? I
think you said no, but I will ask you again for the record.
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina.
MS. VALERA: I'm very sorry. I did receive an e-mail the day
Page 196
January 18,2007
before the last CCPC hearing from the president of the Wilshire Lakes
Association, not in opposition of the project, but just to inform me that
she had filed a complaint with our code enforcement department in
regards to a clearing that had -- that seems to have encroached into
their preserve.
I believe the attorney for the agent has been notified of this. And
I just wanted to let you know that I had received that e-mail from
Wilshire Lakes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. VARNADOE: Can I comment on that, please?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
MR. VARNADOE: We got the typical pre-removal permit to do
the soil borings out there. And the area in question is -- and you can
probably see it better on this. It's that existing fill driveway that exists
across the wetland area. In order to get equipment back into that
eastern parcel, we removed some Australian Pines from that filled
area.
Some of those pines did fall into their preserve. I talked to Mrs.
McClanahan, as did the project sponsor. We have had a crew out
there that -- to take those trees out of their preserve. If there is any
damage, that will be our responsibility. But I didn't want you to think
that we were out there just clearing wily-nilly before we had the
ability to do it.
Thank you for your indulgence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Vigliotti, discussion?
We have to get the motion first. Let's close the public hearing.
The public hearing is closed. N ow we will entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I would like to make a motion
for approval.
Mr. Adelstein--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to get a second before we go to
Page 197
January 18, 2007
discussion.
You made a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I make a motion for
approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Kolflat.
Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think this is a fantastic
project. It is low density. To the north we have the regional park.
Wilshire Lakes is in favor of it.
As far as the height restriction, it is far back from Livingston
Road. You can't see it from Wilshire. Normally I am against heights.
I think in this position and this condition with this type of -- the
buildings as nice as they are, I have to vote for it, even including the
height.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other discussion?
I have a series of stipulations I will read.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I would like to add one
stipulation, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant has agreed to actual
height restrictions of 50 feet for the R-I area and 75 feet for the R-2;
and that there will be an 8- foot wall with landscaping on both sides;
on the east side by the lake facing the estuary will be put up before the
vertical; and the landscaping that will be installed along that wall will
be similar to the landscaping along The Estuary wall that was initially
installed on the Golden Gate Parkway side.
MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Strain, all you have to do is
put in that last stipulation the 8- foot wall and the landscaping is
already in the PUD so we don't get redundant with your stipulation.
But we do need to put Mr. Kolflat's conditions for the type of
landscaping and when it will occur.
Page 198
January 18,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, an 8-foot wall then with
the landscaping as read by Mr. Kolflat into the record concerning the
similarity between that landscaping and The Estuary wall on Golden
Gate Parkway.
There is a deviation for cul-de-sac lengths. There is another
deviation for wall heights on 2.9(B) and that the staffwill also go
through and clean up the PUD and remove the redundant language as
we have instructed in the other two PUDs here today.
Ms. Caron and Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you say the sidewalk?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sidewalk deviation, which is
number one, is also part of the stipulation.
Mr. Kolflat and Mr. Midney.
You had another deviation you wanted to --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No. You covered it. I didn't
know you were going to cover that last one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I almost forgot the
affordable housing contribution.
MR. VARNADOE: I did, too, Mr. Midney. I apologize. I
meant to cover that in the presentation. We would agree to the $1,000
per unit donation paid at closing and a credit against any horrible
linkage fees that may be enacted in the future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say the 1,000 bucks is
real cheap compared to what has come out in that linkage fee.
MR. VARNADOE: How about the entire mitigation --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The last stipulation would be the
$1,000 accepted contribution.
Would the motion maker accept all those stipulations?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the second accept all the
stipulations?
Page 199
January 18,2007
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A motion has been made. The
stipulation has been accepted. Call for the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody oppose?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries eight to one.
Item #9
OLD BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, the next item on
the agenda was an issue that we have had on and off the agenda for
quite some time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is involving a language issue you
brought up before. And I assume that you're prepared to discuss it at
this time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what it is is that during
the last cycle of the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to wait a minute until
everybody calms down. I guess that works best.
Okay.
Page 200
January 18,2007
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: During the last cycle of the
LDC, the concern I had was -- we have kind of a process that starts out
where it goes through staff. Staff has an in-house review with VSAC
and it comes out. EAC looks at. We look at it. And then the Board
of County Commissioners look at it.
My concern was a definition showed up between the first and
second meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. I'm not really
so much concerned as to how that happened, but I wouldn't mind a
conversation with staff whether that is right or wrong or how we
prevent that or how do we track, you know, these words as they go
through these different processes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 1-- if Catherine wants to address it,
I think though that -- from what I understood, it has been
acknowledged it was something that should not have happened and it
wasn't going to happen again. And they corrected it in the last reading
of the LDC, if I'm not mistaken.
Maybe Catherine can --
MS. FABACHER: We pulled the amendment in question. So
we'll be happy to discuss it at length and work on it in the next LDC
cycle.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way that that occurred and
everything, I am assuming that there has been measures put in place so
we are not going to be doing that again.
MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was my only concern that
people acknowledge that we do have to respect that
process all the way through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think once you pointed it out, it went
like a ripple across the water and everybody realized real quick. And
that's why it got pulled completely to -- I doubt anybody will forget
that that had occurred. I think we are safe on that, Brad.
MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners.
Page 201
January 18, 2007
For the record, Catherine Fabacher, principal planning with
zoning and land development review. I'm sorry.
Item #10A
NEW BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Business. The presentation from Mr.
Summers is going to occur on February 1st, as we stated earlier.
There is a request for a change in schedule date.
Mike, you're going to handle that.
Item #10B
REQUEST OF CCPC TO APPROVE 05 GMP AMENDMENT
CYCLE
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, comprehensive planning department.
Comprehensive planning department is right now in the process of
handling the '05 GMP amendments. The reason why we are in the '05
GMP amendments is it has been an 18-month pause because of the
eared amendments and the modifications that are going on to the
entire growth management plan. The '05 cycles have been put on
hold. '06 will be following behind that.
But with this '05 cycle we have also incorporated
a new process to the GMP amendments. And that is following the
same manner that a PUD application or a PUD -- or a straight rezone
is required and that is to hold a neighborhood information meeting.
So every growth management plan amendment is first going to be
flushed out amongst the surrounding property owners.
What we have experienced and the turnout that we have found
out and the interest that these are generating throughout the
Page 202
January 18, 2007
community, we are finding that the schedule of hearings that we had
before the Planning Commission was not adequate to cover the 15
petitions that we have within the '05 cycle. So what -- David asked
me to come down here was to ask for confirmation of potential dates.
What we have now is -- the plan is March 5th. We have this
boardroom. And that would be the first cycle for -- or the first hearing
for the '05 GMP amendments. Now, we are going to concentrate that
day on hearing the amendments that affect the Golden Gate area
master plan, which we have about five. We are hoping we can get
through all five on that one day, but there has been a tremendous
turnout to each one of these neighborhood information meetings.
We had originally -- the original plan for the '05 cycle was to
present to the Board of County
Commissioners April 2nd and 3rd in these chambers. Well, we have
decided -- and routed it through the County Manager's office and up
the chain of command that we are going to have to put the -- put the
BCC hearings offuntil June 4th and 5th.
Therefore, the April 2nd and April 3rd dates will -- this room
would be available and we would like to have those as spillover days
for the '05 cycle.
The problem is David is concerned that maybe three days may
not be enough to get through all 15. These dates --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I thought we had a list of
them here this morning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we let him finish and get it
squared away at once.
MR. BOSI: What we had to -- as a safeguard, we were trying to
plan for four dates. We had the 5th for this room. If the 2nd or 3rd--
which this room would be available for us. If that was available -- if
that was agreeable with the Planning Commission members, we would
have to just select one day in between that March 5th date and the
April 2nd date where we would have a fourth hearing. But that would
Page 203
January 18,2007
be in community development and environmental services 609 and
610 because this boardroom is spoken for.
So David wanted to run these dates by you so we can give some
certainty to the petitioners, but also to the people who could show up
at the neighborhood information meetings as to when the potential
dates would be. It sounds like some of these dates have already raised
a couple of questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, if we have got the 5th of March
on board and the date that we would have to have after the 5th of
March, but prior to the 2nd of April would more than likely be over at
the CDS conference room, that conference room has an abundance of
dates opened up to us; is that right?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we wait until March 5th,
understand how much problems we have with the Golden Gate master
plan hearings that you have because you are anticipating a full day at
that. If we find we have a problem with getting it done that day, then
we can pick a day the last week in March in the CDS room because
that's where we are going to end up anyway.
Does that sound logical?
MR. BOSI: Is that with also the understanding that April 2nd
and April 3rd would be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Scheduled.
MR. BOSI: So that fourth potential date would be determined
based upon the proceedings of that March 5th hearing?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's one suggestion.
Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark, do these not start at 5:05
p.m. the very first meeting?
MR. BOSI: No. These scheduled hearings are at the 8:30 time.
GMP.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's comp plan, not LDC.
Page 204
January 18, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: From what I understood, we
got a list of March 5, March 15, March 22 and March 29. We pick
one. Is there any reason that we picked only one?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. He is telling us that we need to
pick new dates because there has been some changes. One date that is
going to stick that we are going to start is March 5th. They have two
other dates that they would like us to consider, which is April 2nd and
3rd.
But they believe because of the length of the amendments that we
are going to need one more date in between March 5th and April 2nd.
So all we have to do is either pick the date now or we can wait on
March 5th
and see if the meeting does last as long or longer than they anticipate
so we know if we need that fourth date or not. If we do, then pick it at
the date because the room that we are going to have the meeting in is
generally always available.
So it is not going to be a problem to pick it later. This is the
room that's a problem in --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it would be good, on the
other hand, to fix in our own calendars, even if we don't have to use it.
So that is something we can plan on so we can avoid fumbling.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. If that's what you want to do.
I'm just trying to throw some ideas out to get past this agenda item.
So we have the 22nd, which is a Thursday. That is after our 15th
meeting in March. We can meet on that date. We have the 29th,
which is a Thursday. It is not a regular meeting date. We can meet on
that date.
Mike, why don't we book both of those and then on the 5th we
can decide if we want both or just one of them. The reason I am
suggesting that is on your April 2nd and 3rd you're putting us in where
the BCC meetings are going to be and those are two dates very close
Page 205
January 18,2007
to our Thursday meeting of that week.
It is going to be kind of hard for us to be ready
for a Thursday meeting on hearings and then hit those two days for
amendments to the GMP. If we could get it done on the 22nd and
29th, we would probably be better off that way.
Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I believe we have a CPC meeting
on the 15th of March, so that would be off the table for us anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's why the two Thursdays
after that seem to work out pretty well.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 22 or 23.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody like that idea?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That makes sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And let's try to avoid getting in there on
the 2nd and 3rd, but keep the two days reserved.
MR. BOSI: We will attempt to make our staff reports as efficient
and as informative so the process can be sped along.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You always do, Mike.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, repeat what will be all the
dates for that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 5th of March will be the first day.
The 22nd and 29th of March would be continued days. And if we get
into a crunch and can't
get it done in three days, we have April 2nd and 3rd.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the day of the week
of the 2nd?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: April 2nd is a Monday. April3rd is a
Tuesday.
Everybody satisfied?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the 5th is a Monday?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
Page 206
January 18, 2007
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENT
Okay. Public comment? Don't have to worry about that.
Discussion of addenda? Nothing of that.
Motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So move.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you
all.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:19 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK STRAIN, CHAIRPERSON
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM AND
KELLEY NADOTTI.
Page 207