Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/01/2007 R March 1, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida March 1,2007 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 Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 1,2007, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 T AMIAMI 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 PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 4,2007, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JANUARY 23-24, 2007, SPECIAL MEETING; JANUARY 24, 2007, ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT; JANUARY 25, 2007, EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: DOA-2005-AR-7136. Naples Grande Holdings, LLC, represented by Bruce E. Tyson, RLA, AICP of WilsonMiller is requesting a change to the previously approved Grey Oaks Development of Regional Impact (DRI) in accordance with Florida Statutes, Subsection 380.06(19), to affect the southeast quadrant that is located in unincorporated Collier County of the 1,60 1.4::t acre project. Proposed modifications include removing 250 hotel rooms and adding 175 residential units. The Grey Oaks DRI is located in the northeast, southeast, and northwest quadrants of Airport-Pulling Road and Golden Gate Parkway, in Sections 24, 25 and 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County and the City of Naples, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) 1 B. Petition: PUDA-2006-AR-IOI57. Naples Grande Holdings, LLC, represented by Bruce E. Tyson, of WilsonMiller Inc., requesting an amendment to the Grey Oaks PUD to replace the approved hotel use with residential land uses and add 175 units, thus changing the maximum number of units to 1,775 dwelling units for a project density of 1.12 units per acre. The PUD comprising 1,601.4:1:: acres is located at the northeast, northwest and southeast quadrants of the intersection of Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway (the changes proposed in this petition will only affect the southeastern quadrant of the intersection), in Sections 24,25,26 Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County and the City of Naples, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) C. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-6921. Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., represented by Dwight Nadeau of RW A, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the (RSF-4) Residential Single Family zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to allow a 100 percent affordable housing residential development consisting of both single-family and two-family housing, with a maximum of 175 residential units, to be known as Faith Landing RPUD. The subject property, consisting of 35.11 acres, is located north of Lake Trafford Road and east of Lake Trafford Pine Estates, in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) D. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-97 16, 3301 Westview Drive LLC and 3375 Westview Drive LLC , represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., requesting a PUD Rezone from the Industrial (I) zoning district to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a development to be known as the Liebig CPUD. The subject property, consisting of 4.3+/- acres, is located on the Northeast corner of Airport-Pulling Road and Westview Drive, in Section 1, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County Florida. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 3-I-07/CCPC AgendalRB/sp 2 March 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will rise for the pledge of allegiance this morning. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you and good morning. Welcome to the Thursday, March 1 st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. And the first thing we have to do is roll call. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY CLERK COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Right here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show, Mr. Midney is here early today. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you, Mark. Page 2 March 1, 2007 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any addenda to the agenda? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: We delayed a meeting. Was it an EIS we were supposed to get an environmental impact statement from the last meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: When is that due to come back; do we know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we remanded it back to the EAC for review. And the applicant was going to take it under consideration as far as an EIS goes. There was some discussion on whether or not he was required to do that. And I think he was asked by the majority of this board that it would be a good thing to do. But that hasn't gotten resolved that I know of yet, and I'm sure we won't hear about it until it gets closer to coming back to us and gets rescheduled for this meeting. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Then I also had a question that I was going to address in the future. I've got a lot of copies of objections, written objections to our Growth Management Plan petition that was sent to us yesterday. And I'm curious, are those objections validated in any way to assure that they're not duplicates or if they are, they have to be properly represented? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that might be an issue better asked of the compo planning department on Monday rather than the staff that's here today. The staff here today is more the planning and not comprehensive planning. So if you might could defer that question till Monday morning, that would be probably a better time. Page 3 March 1, 2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning commission absences. On Monday we have a meeting starting at 8:30 in this room. It will go all day for sure. Is anybody planning not attending that Monday's meeting. Mr. Midney? And that's it. Okay, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I won't be able to attend the Monday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we will be at seven, which is still a quorum, so we're good to go. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 4, 2007 Approval of minutes. January 4th, 2007 regular meeting. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff made a motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Vigliotti. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 4 March 1, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Ray, the BCC reports? Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAP JANUARY 23, 24, 2007; SPECIAL MEETING; JANUARY 24,2007, ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT; JANUARY 25, 2007, EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT MR. BELLOWS: Yes, last Tuesday the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD amendment for Hammock Park. That was approved on the summary agenda. The conditional use for EMS Station 73 was approved by the board of zoning appeals by a vote of 4-1. And there were three other continuances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell us what the continuances were? Do you know them offhand? MR. BELLOWS: Kaicasa. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Kaicasa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right, the Habitat project. MR. BELLOWS: That was continued as a result of a late discovery of an advertising error. It should have said multi-family in Page 5 March 1,2007 the title. And the recreational facility, Princess Park, that was continued to allow the petitioner time to determine if the density, if they would come down on what's an acceptable level, if it would work. And they're going to bring it back as soon as they have that discussion with the property owner and the contract purchaser. And I don't recall what the other one was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, thank you. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Okay, chairman's report. I have a couple issues. Margie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so the members of the commission come prepared, Monday, our GMP meetings, are we required to provide disclosures? Because it's transmittal. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, you are not. Because that is not quasi judicial. GMP amendments are legislative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I wanted to make sure so that if we had to, they were -- everybody was prepared. If not, that's fine. As far as swearing in, are people required to be sworn in for GMP amendments? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, they're not, again for the same reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the other thing in the chairman's report -- and Ray, I noticed that -- I know comprehensive planning people probably aren't here today, but I have a -- between now and the time this meeting gets over, if someone could contact comprehensive planning, I would like to suggest that before this Page 6 March 1, 2007 meeting's over today we can at least announce that on Monday we most likely will not get past item G. We'll get -- A through G, I think if we accomplish on Monday, that's almost -- that's half of them. And that's all the Golden Gate ones, plus one, I think. That would give us a lot to do on Monday, plus the public will be notified ahead of time that we don't expect to get further than that. And if we agree that that's as far as we're going to go, we could even cut it off at that point to save the efforts of those that have to work from having to sit here all day for nothing if they're for one of the later documents. MR. BELLOWS: I'll let Mr. Cohen and Mr. Weeks know and e-mail them right now, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another thing that might dovetail into that discussion, since we only have staff reports for those first seven, I'm sure that it would be more difficult for this board to go past that without a staff report, as well as the public probably hasn't got the staff report yet. Okay? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to get that on early. If we could announce it today, that really will help. And then if anybody calls from the public over the weekend, anyone of us, we can let them know where they stand on the agenda. MR. BELLOWS: I will e-mail them right now so at least they'll be aware of it. And they usually watch, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe they'll e-mail you before you e-mail them. MR. BELLOWS: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. Item #8A and Item #8B PETITION: DOA-2005-AR-7136 & PUDA-2006-AR-I0157 Page 7 March 1, 2007 Advertised public hearing. The first petition is DOA-2005-AR-7136, Naples Grande Holdings, LLC, in regards to which the Grey Oaks Development of Regional Impact, the DRI. This is a companion item. It's item Petition PUDA-2006-AR-I0157, which is the Naples Grande Holdings, LLC, Grey Oaks PUD. As we have done in the past, we will be able to discuss both of these simultaneously and then separate our voting on those when we get to the end of the discussion. All those wishing to speak on behalf of these petitions, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any disclosures on the part of the planning commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I had an e-mail. Bruce and I e-mailed each other discussing cul-de-sacs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Bruce Tyson e-mailed me night before last and -- suggesting we talk about questions. And I didn't have any time yesterday to get together with him. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I attended a neighborhood information meeting. But I also would like for the record to ask the attorney, I own a home and reside in Grey Oaks; do I have a conflict of interest on this issue? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We discussed this with Mr. Kolflat, and I discussed it with Mr. Pettit in our office, and due to the fact that Mr. Kolflat owns one home out of upwards of700 that are Page 8 March 1, 2007 already built and additional lots that are in there, we feel there's no conflict of interest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, did you have something? COMMISSIONER CARON: I had an e-mail from Mr. Tyson as well, and spoke to him briefly this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing no others, we'll proceed with the presentation. Mr. Tyson? MR. TYSON: Thank you very much. My name is Bruce Tyson. I am a certified planner and a landscape architect with WilsonMiller. With me today are Bill Slavich and Gene Fraley (phonetic) of Empire Builders and Naples Grande Holdings; Steve Sammons, the landscape architect with WilsonMiller, and Brooke Gabrielsen, a planner with WilsonMiller as well. And at some point we're likely to have a transportation planner join us as well from David Plummer & Associates. Weare here to present the information for amending both the Grey Oaks Development Order, or DO, and the PUD. In both cases the change is to the map only. And I'd like to -- do we have the remote mic? I'll use this one. This is the -- an aerial view of all of Grey Oaks. I think we need to take that down a little bit. And the change that we're looking at is strictly in the southeast quadrant. You'll have me, or along the way I will refer to this property in here as the northeast quadrant. This is all of Grey Oaks. I will talk a little bit about the northwest quadrant, which is the Estuary. And then the southeast quadrant, which is where Naples Grande -- we typically know as Naples Grande. And this change that we're talking about is right in here in that location. So if you can look at that map, you'll understand exactly where we are.w Page 9 March 1, 2007 And as Commissioner -- Chairman Strain has indicated, that both of these items are parallel items, companion items, that we do have to change the DO as well as the PUD, since it is an amendment to both. Grey Oaks is a 1,60 I-acre development located at the intersection of Airport Road, the north-south road, and Golden Gate Parkway, which is the east-west road. The property, and I've gone through the location of what's there. One of the things that I did not point out is that the Estuary is completely within the City of Naples. Ray, the existing master plan, please? This is the existing master plan for the PUD and DRI. And I'm going to just quickly take that off and put the next one up, which winds up showing that section of property in yellow that we are talking about making the change to. That is currently designated as a commercial hotel. And the proposal is to turn that into residential. In that process, we will be -- the deletion of that removes 250 hotel rooms and increases the residential quantity in terms of the total number of units within the PUD from 1,600 to 1,775. So we have a reduction of 250 hotel rooms and increase of 175 residential dwelling units. In that process, from a transportation standpoint, the peak hour will experience a seven percent decrease over the course of a day, and the average daily traffic will decrease by 1 7 percent. So the average daily traffic, which is sometimes an important consideration, is certainly going to be a significant gain from that standpoint. Those of you who read through the staff report looked it from the standpoint -- we have the exact statistics in there from the standpoint of the number of trips and what has changed in that, and overall it's a loss of about 258 trips on an average on a daily basis. In addition to this change, we are -- we are seeking four deviations. And I'll bring these up in the same fashion as they exist or Page 10 March 1, 2007 in the order in which they exist, and as staff has recommended approval for all of these. But I'd like to take a few minutes and run through some of these deviations. You're looking at a master plan that has been generated for the property. It is subtly different from the master plan that we presented at the hearing -- excuse me, at the neighborhood information meeting. The main difference is we have some greater separation between buildings and we have a couple of larger buildings that have been -- no change in the numbers, but it's just from a standpoint of location. And I'll point those out in a second. Our first deviation seeks relief from Section 4.02.24(A)(2) and (3) of the corridor management overlay district. This requires a front yard setback of 100 feet for the first floor of residential dwelling units and an additional 25 feet for each additional floor above that. So in other words, if you're setting back, it's a step back. So -- or if you were going to do a three-story building, you'd have to be set back 150 feet. That's the intent of the regulation. The deviation proposes to provide a minimum setback of two feet for every one foot of building height measured at any point on the building, provided that in no case shall a residential structure be closer than 100 feet to Golden Gate Parkway. In addition, a 20- foot wide type D buffer that includes a 10- foot high wall -- and we have a companion deviation to this as well -- be constructed. Now, deviation B, and I'll get into that in a little more detail so you're aware of it, asks for a 1 O-foot wall instead of a six-foot wall. But together, this is what we're trying to achieve here is a lot of consistency and compatibility that exists in the corridor. The wall, along with the enhanced landscape buffer, will create a consistent look from the entrance of Naples Grande to the east, and then to the west edge of Bear's Paw and the Estuary, a distance of almost two miles for the drivers on Golden Gate Parkway. The intent Page 11 March 1, 2007 is so that the enhanced buffer in the front of the Naples Grande site is to provide landscape materials of sufficient height and width to block the view and break the sight lines to the buildings for eastbound Golden Gate Parkway drivers. The combination of the wall, landscaping, location of the buildings and the filling of the north edge of the lake to an average depth -- or width of about 75 feet has created a delicate balance between construction ingenuity and creating a setback distance that is in the best interest of all parties without affecting the traveling public and maintaining the integrity of the overlay district. I'd like to point out on the site plan, hopefully this is readable. I dashed in a line that I'm just following along here, and hopefully you can see that. That is the approximate edge of the lake as it existed last year. Actually, some filling has already started in the lake. And I wanted to show you how close that was in relation to the edge of the Parkway. Because it's important that you understand the relationship and when I talk about some of the techniques that are being used for the way in which this is to wind up working. The fact of some lake filling, not only as planned, but as ongoing. And the point is just to try to get this balance that I was talking about. Where we have three-story buildings, the intent again is to allow a building from the -- any point that exists on this property from the property line to allow a two-to-one height, which happens to be somewhere probably right about in here, to exist. But the point is that no building can be closer than 100 feet to the Parkway. And that's to maintain the integrity of that whole plan. Because if you recall, the overlay district says nothing closer than 100 feet. So we want to maintain that to make sure that's the case. What's also important to recognize in the sketch is that I've included a vertical dash line. That would be the line where the building would be placed if no deviation was requested. Page 12 March 1, 2007 Now, right along with that, meaning that's 150 feet from the property line to that point where you could put a three-story building, but keep in mind that all of this enhanced landscape buffer and wall would not be required. So that's -- the interesting thing is for only that short bit of difference with that enhancement, it's going to make -- you know, certainly to block the view. The other thing that's important is to recognize when I had that little sketch out here with the site plan with the lake filling, that lake filling edge, or the old lake edge was right about here. So in essence there was no opportunity, until we've done what we've done here. What I'm saying is basically that in any way -- to put any kind of residential structures in here we would have to seek this deviation. So we're doing it with what we think is probably the most sensitive, as well as a way in which we can maintain that integrity throughout the entire region. Right along with that we have a five-story building that is being proposed. And similarly you can see exactly what we're trying to accomplish by blocking the view of any driver. And we've been very, very specific in the language, if you happen to look at it in the PUD, of exactly how we're planning to do that, from where the measurement comes from, any point on the building that we're talking about from the standpoint of the height. So we've looked at this to the point of where we've, while it's gotten very specific, we also want to be very clear as to exactly what we're trying to achieve and to the point of where you're very aware and clear as to how this will be measured and what the rules will be for positioning of any building. You'll also notice the vertical line on this location. That happens to be 225 feet back from the property line. And that would be where this building could be located if in fact we did not change any of the rules; in other words, filled in the lake a little bit more. Again, recognize that that buffer and the wall would not be required. Page 13 March 1,2007 So this is a situation of where we're doing a fair amount of enhancing on the front in order to get this to the point of where it works. A first phase for this project has already been submitted for an SDP. And it's all for these three-story buildings that look exactly like this. Further, to provide an overall continuity, an agreement will be signed between county transportation and the developer, allowing the developer to both plant and maintain the landscaped area between the back of the sidewalk and the right-of-way line. As you can appreciate, that's a very important consideration. And that will provide about 15 feet between the back of the sidewalk and the wall to create an effective landscape buffer and ensure its long-term integrity. As I indicated, deviation B seeks relief from the wall height. That will request the wall height to go from six feet to 10 feet. Now, in fact, an eight-foot wall will be constructed, but it will be slightly mounted to the point of where the top of the wall needs to be consistent. And the way in which the county measures that is from an average grade on the property, and in this case we're asking for the 10 feet of wall height in order to accomplish and get that eight-foot wall on there. The fascinating thing is that all the walls within Grey Oaks, The Estuary and Bear's Paw now -- all of Bear's Paw are now eight feet high. So it will be very consistent in that entire corridor. Deviation C is more a matter of a clarification and understanding than maybe a deviation; however, it seemed like the best way in which we could accomplish what we wanted to make sure it would happen. And generally speaking, this request at deadend streets within the southeast quadrant will allow a cul-de-sac length to be 2,300 lineal feet, provided that the roadway and cul-de-sac do not conflict with any of the county's fire protection ordinances. That ordinance, by the way, deals primarily with turning radius at the end of a roadway, which is Page 14 March 1, 2007 the cul-de-sac. The sections -- the specific section out of the LDC that needs a little clarification for us was 6.06.01(J). And that limits the length of cul-de-sacs to 1,000 feet, unless topographic conditions or natural features preclude a street layout to avoid longer cul-de-sacs. That's somewhat unclear and a little ambiguous as to what that could mean, we just wanted to get it on the record to indicate that we need a roadway in here that was going to be 2,300 feet in order to serve this string of buildings. And the fire department had no problem with that. Deviation D seeks relief from 6.06.02(A)(3), the sidewalk and bike lane requirements. And since all of the residential structures on -- will be on one side of the street, it only made sense to keep the sidewalk on one side of the street. Typically in this case you would need two five-foot sidewalks. County has requested and okayed the point that one six-foot sidewalk on the residential side or the residences side is all that is required. So that has been determined to be suitable as far as the county is concerned. And they've approved those. One of the other things that we've had to deal with on this project is native vegetation. The requirement in the development order requests that 25 percent of native vegetation at the time of permitting be retained and preserved. And through a series of developments and the fact that we've -- we have gone back and with our environmental team we have determined exactly what those quantities are to the satisfaction of staff. And we had worked it out to a point of where there's only .89 acres of vegetation to be saved on the balance of the project in order to satisfy that 25 percent requirement. Yesterday at the end of the day the developer who has the last parcel, so to speak, in the development, which is -- I've referred to it as the easternmost parcel in the southeast quadrant. That parcel has, according to the county, 15.3 acres of native vegetation on it. But at the same time we've only asked to satisfy the requirement that they Page 15 March 1, 2007 preserve .89 acres. And it will be -- I have a couple of modifications that I will want to point out to you. Brooke, if you could take these up to them. This will just clarify exactly what the status of that is. And when you get those, I will point out what is -- what needs to -- the subtle changes that are happening. In the PUD, by the way, that works out -- I believe it's on Page 36 of your PUD that you have in your book. This is one paragraph out of that. And what we are requesting at that point is if you can just read through it, the changes are only into the second paragraph on Page 36. We will be deleting, at the request of the county at the time of this review, January, 2007, and the sentence will read, 137.10 acres of native vegetation has been preserved. The easternmost parcel in the southeast quadrant shall provide .89 acres of native vegetation preserved to satisfy the 25 percent preservation requirement stipulated in paragraph 7.03.1 above. Now, that takes care of the PUD. You also have a -- I think if you look through your PUD, you have four drawings. I'm holding one of them up here for you to look at. These are the four colored drawings that are part of the PUD as well that the -- what the native -- or the environmental team wanted to see these lines on the plans so they could understand where the preserves were and how they were calculated. And on the southeast quadrant again we had a statement in there that indicates on the bottom of that, and this is the easternmost parcel again, the minimum native vegetation to be preserved is .89 acres. We will need to take -- in order to make that consistent, we will take the word minimum out, and we will take out assuming this parcel contains 15.03 acres of native vegetation. So those points -- that will be removed as well. And finally, from your PUD map, this is in a slightly different Page 16 March 1, 2007 location than it is on mine on yours, but you will notice that there is a statement dealing with native vegetation preserves. It's over -- I believe on your map it's over on the left-hand side underneath The Estuary . We will be removing, under the double asterisks, assumes a minimum of. So it will read .89 acres saved in the easternmost parcel southeast quadrant. That's all in an attempt to get it to the point of clarity as to where the vegetation will come and make up the total 25 percent of what's going on on the property. Now, we've gone through a lot of work on that, but at the same time I think since that's -- that has all been resolved at this stage, unless anybody has any other specific questions about that, and if you do, I'll be very happy to answer those. But since we've reached consensus -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I have one question about-- MR. TYSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why was the word minimum taken out? It hurts nothing to leave it in. Why was it taken out? MR. TYSON: Because we've come to a definitive location as to what it -- I mean, they can preserve more, if they choose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So why was the word minimum taken out? MR. TYSON: Because it's redundant. It's not necessary. They only need to save .89. Really, it could be a maximum. You could almost put it down as a board maximum. Because they don't need to save anymore than that. If they choose to save it, they can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to a lot of work to change maps and everything else. I don't see why the word minimum needs to come out. It's just a -- go ahead, Doug. Brad, do you have a comment? Because it makes no sense to me, Bruce. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually, the way you want to word it means that it would be a problem if they did provide more. Page 1 7 March 1, 2007 Because you're telling them they have to provide exactly this much. If I provide more, I'm not providing exactly that much. MR. TYSON: I understand. We can leave it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That will make life simpler. MR. TYSON: We can leave that in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. TYSON: One other change that I think will help, and Brooke passed -- or she will be passing it out to you, is in our deviation section, there are two changes here, actually. One requested by the county attorney, the other is I just think it would be a point of clarification. This should be on Page 14 of your PUD. And the request by the county attorney is to remove that statement dealing with background. It really is not appropriate. There's no sense in putting it in there. It's just a dissertation on our part as to why we felt that the deviation was appropriate. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Margie. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: My only reasoning for that is this is a regulatory document, and the reasoning for the deviation should really be in the staff report. Because if you -- you don't read the legislative history in the law, it's usually an accompanying document. So it's kind of a form issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The paper you handed out is what you're trying to substitute? MR. TYSON: Yes. And the only thing we're -- I mean, it was removing that background section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not the one you-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, this has background. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you handed out-- MR. TYSON: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm a little-- Page 18 March 1, 2007 MR. TYSON : You're right. I'm sorry, that should all be deleted. That should all be a strike through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the paragraph that starts with the word background and ends with the word version should be entirely struck; is that -- MR. TYSON: That is correct. Sorry about that. And the only change that we really wanted to make is by adding the word measured, as you can see that in the documentation, to make it clear as to for anybody at CDES on the interpretation as to what we were doing and what the intent was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you want to make it real clear, the building height you're referring to is the actual height or the zoned height? MR. TYSON: The actual height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actual height. Okay, so now we're -- for every one foot of actual building height measured at anyone point; is that what you're saying? MR. TYSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're going to add a new word then. MR. TYSON: You want to add actual? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you want accuracy is what I heard you just say. MR. TYSON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be a good idea. Anybody object from the panel? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. TYSON: All right. And then finally, just from a coordination standpoint, the neighborhood information meeting was held at the Poinciana School on the first week of October of 2006. We sent out over 1,000 letters. Within the PUD is also to 500 feet within the PUD. Two people, as you recognize one, Mr. Kolflat and his wife Page 19 March 1, 2007 attended that meeting in the Poinciana School. The DR! amendment was approved by the RPC on November 16th of2006. A paragraph was added at that hearing and it was added to both the DO and the PUD, which requires the applicant to provide $1,000 per site development approved residential unit to be paid to the Collier County Affordable Housing Trust Fund at the time of certificate of occupancy. That is shown in paragraph 7.12 of the PUD. It's the last page, if you want to just look at that. And lastly, since The Estuary at Grey Oaks lies within the City of Naples, the city planners were asked to review these changes to the PUD. The county received a letter of no objection to those changes from the City of Naples, and that was dated February 8th of2007. Thank you. And if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's start with Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Bruce, I have a question. You had twice mentioned that you're filling in the lake right now? MR. TYSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Could you tell me more about that? MR. TYSON: Sure. There was an SDP amendment that was obtained, I'm going to say probably about 18 months ago, that allowed that. And so the -- the part of it that's -- and it's an ongoing situation right now. The intriguing part about that, when I talked about construction ingenuity, was the fact that the developer is actually taking slabs of concrete demolished from buildings, and they are being driven to the property where they are -- the rebar and all the other materials that aren't going to -- shouldn't be in those when it comes to fill are being removed, it's being crushed and it's being placed into the lake. So what's happening here is that the landfill is not being overburdened or overtaxed or even taxed at all with this filling Page 20 March 1, 2007 operation, and we're not hauling materials in from other counties because sand isn't available right now as fill in Collier County. So it's actually quite an ingenious operation. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But that's been done in consideration of this project? MR. TYSON: Yes. It's ongoing in consideration of this project. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And if this isn't approved, will you continue to fill the lake? MR. TYSON: I can't answer that, because I don't know the -- we haven't talked about that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer and then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, go to Page 3 of eight in our report. MR. TYSON: Staffreport? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one, the first or second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 8-B. MR. TYSON: This is the one for the PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. And I'm just trying to see where some of these areas -- first of all, in the City of Naples area, the northwest quadrant, why are there changes in terms of acreage over there? MR. TYSON: The last time this PUD was changed was in 2000, and it was prior to an actual development order being prepared, or in terms of the SDPs that were prepared for the Estuary. It was found that there were some -- from an overall planning standpoint it wound up as a -- as you can appreciate, a master plan is exactly that, it's conceptual in nature. And when the reality came, this is what the reality is, so we changed it to meet reality. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the area that is now commercial hotel, what is the acreage of that? Page 21 March 1, 2007 MR. TYSON: It was about 20 acres. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And of that, how much is going to be residential? MR. TYSON: All of it. From a residential use standpoint, it's all being turned into residential. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you have a clubhouse you're going to build there, right? MR. TYSON: Oh, I'm sorry, that's true. About five acres goes to the clubhouse. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So there's essentially 15 acres. MR. TYSON: About 15 acres that-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is that 175 units going then? MR. TYSON: That will all be within the combination of the existing residential land, as well as this 15 acres of changed land. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So -- but the 175 units stay south of Golden Gate? MR. TYSON : Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Can you bring up that -- you had that small like a master plan, it's a colored rendering. The clubhouse is the parcel that's cut out of that, right, the white area? MR. TYSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And those roads that are going in, they'll meet all the fire department turnaround radiuses and everything, right? MR. TYSON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you're not going to just deadend them like you-- MR. TYSON: No, as a matter of fact, both the clubhouse and the Page 22 March 1, 2007 -- what was referred to as the Ivy Phase 1, which is the three-story buildings, those two projects are in for SDP permitting right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On this, there are some five-story buildings also, are there not? MR. TYSON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Which are the five-story buildings and which are the three-story buildings on this drawing? MR. TYSON: The five-story buildings are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All those are the large ones? MR. TYSON: The big ones. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, could you put back on that illustration which shows your sight line looking at the five-story building? No, over there to the left a little bit, the work point. What is that work point? Is that in the center of Golden Gate Boulevard Parkway? MR. TYSON: The location is in the center lane of the eastbound lanes. That point is about 18 feet from the curb. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, those trees shown there, are they existing trees or those are going to be planted? MR. TYSON: Those will be planted. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And how high are those? MR. TYSON: They will be -- well, first of all, that has not exactly been determined, but my estimation at this stage is that they will be -- the canopy trees will be 16 to 18 feet, and the -- probably the palms will need to have about 18 to 20 feet of clear wood. So that's the head above that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All right. Now, keeping in mind where this work point is for your site line which puts you over the roof of the building, go to your plan that you had on there before, Page 23 March 1, 2007 your overall plan. No, the foot aerial, the aerial photo. Now, identify where these five-story buildings will be on this drawing. MR. TYSON: Okay, they will be from right about here around this portion of the lake, and then they will be over on this side, on the west side of this lake. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And that work point was measured between those two yellow lines, correct? MR. TYSON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, going north of that a little bit across Golden Gate Parkway north to the right a little bit, to the right of where you were. MR. TYSON: Here? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Now, those are all residents (sic) that are existing in there now. Did you make any determination of a sight line from those residents up to see whether the top of the roof is invisible? MR. TYSON: No, we did not. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, it's conceivable then that to bring the work point back to those existing residents that the top of that roof will be visible. MR. TYSON : Well, there's a number of existing trees that are to be retained as part of this preserve right here. So that these residences with these trees and this location, I doubt when our sight line is done, but that can be done, I don't think that they will be able to see those structures. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, my concern is that whole area, there's nothing that's five stories tall, either north, south, east or west. All the structures around there are much lower structures. And when you're putting this tall structure in there, that might have a visual impact on existing residents. MR. TYSON : Well, you can appreciate I believe where -- as I Page 24 March 1, 2007 know the little bit that I do about Grey Oaks, let me pull this down a little bit. And is it the Hermitage that's there, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, that's in the center. MR. TYSON: I believe that's over in this location? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, right about there. MR. TYSON: In here? And aren't those four-story buildings? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, they are. MR. TYSON: Okay. So there's a good comparison of what does exist in the fact that you don't see those buildings very well, because they're very well camouflaged with all of the materials that have been placed around them. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, let me ask you: Has this height been checked out with the airport as far as any possible interference? MR. TYSON: We have -- we certainly have. We've talked to the airport about it. And there will be -- we will file an FAA application. However, none of the property falls within these easement areas that are required, so a navigation easement will not be required. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, you also made a point that on the north boundary there of the Golden Gate Parkway and the new development that you're putting in you're going to have a wall with landscaping that is going to be continuation similar to what's at Bear's Paw, of style; is that right, to give you an effect of a corridor? MR. TYSON : Well, it's exactly the same type of wall that will be at Bear's Paw, but is very similar in nature to what's been around The Estuary and what goes around the southern portion of Grey Oaks. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the landscaping at Bear's Paw is much less than the landscaping at The Estuary. MR. TYSON: That's correct. This will much more emulate what's at The Estuary. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It will emulate The Estuary rather than Bear's Paw then? Page 25 March 1, 2007 MR. TYSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I understood you to say Bear's Paw. MR. TYSON: It will have to. In order to meet the requirements we've outline in the PUD, it will have to. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's all the questions I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Basically these five-story buildings that we're talking about, what's the actual height of each one of those buildings? MR. TYSON: As measured from the ground, where it starts up it will be to the top 83 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: To the top. MR. TYSON: To the top. I mean right to the peak of the roof. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. Eighty-five? MR. TYSON: Eighty-three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Bruce, in going over the height, looking at the development standards, which would be Page 23 of the PUD, it's actually showing that you could build six-story buildings above two levels of parking. Essentially an eight-story building. Why are we carrying that along? MR. TYSON: That's part of the PUD. That never changed. That was exactly what's in the PUD. We have not changed that at all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But for example, the parcel on Livingston, we don't know what product's going to be built in there yet, right? MR. TYSON: I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially that could be eight stories? MR. TYSON: Could be. Could be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the site you're describing, Page 26 March 1, 2007 you could build a -- I mean, you say you have a design that's in for SDP. It's not going that way, but there's nothing in this document to prevent that from being eight-story buildings either, is there? MR. TYSON: I'm sorry, say that again? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The product you're building south of Golden Gate, there's nothing in the document that would limit that eight stories there also, is there? MR. TYSON: No. But it's going -- I can certainly vouch for the fact that that's exactly where it's going. Because sales literature and everything has been produced for that building. I mean, that's -- where it is is exactly where it's going. We're limited to the number of units that we can put there. And so that's the -- the 175 gets us to that point. And it's not going up any higher than what I've just shown you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the residential units are much bigger than a hotel. I mean, you're reducing the footprints of the hotel 70 percent, but you're coming back with residential units, which will be much larger than a hotel room. I mean, you don't have to answer that, that's a statement. MR. TYSON: Depends on the size of the hotel. They're all theoretical. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Waldorf Towers I don't think will go there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any others? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I have quite a few questions. MR. TYSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before, though, I ask you the questions, some relevance from staff is needed for me. Kay, I need a couple of questions answered by you. MS. DESELEM: Yes. Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, principal planner with zoning. Page 27 March 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. We normally, for existing PUDs get a strike-through version. We didn't receive one this time. Can you explain why? MS. DESELEM: That was an oversight on my part. We were so busy at the last minute trying to get the document ready to you that we got the one with the actual language in to you, but I didn't get an updated strike-through/underlined version. And rather than confuse you, you just didn't get it. I do have a copy of it with me, if you're interested in seeing it. I did bring one copy. But again, it may not reflect the most current changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had made one myself, so mine will. And we will discuss it. But I also needed to know if you have a copy of the advertisement with you. MS. DESELEM: I'd have to look in the file to see if I have it. I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have the file with you? MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you look right now? MS. DESELEM: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question for Bruce. Can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, let me bring you back. And it's really where the density's going. The 175 is staying south of Golden Gate? MR. TYSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that exist-- the new parcel on Livingston that's undeveloped. It's the only undeveloped thing at this time, how much of that 175 is going over there? MR. TYSON: None. That has its -- if you look in the PUD, they have 300 units allocated to that 22-acre parcel. Page 28 March 1, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the past we have received advertisements in our packages, and this one we didn't. Has that been something that's changed or is this just an omission in this particular application? MR. BELLOWS: Nothing has changed. It may be-- unfortunately with -- as you know, with staffing changes and shifting of projects, that things are being placed on some of the older -- or more senior staff. And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Older? MR. BELLOWS: I didn't mean it that way. Kay is my most reliable person, and as you can see, these things aren't typical, and we are trying to realign projects so everybody has a more normal work load. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure that policy in the future will continue to try to get these new legal -- did you find the legal, Kay? MS. DESELEM: I do not have the advertisement as it appeared. It's still with the technical staff waiting to get all the documents back from the clerk's office. So I do not have it. I can tell you the title that was advertised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was more concerned about the text. Do you know what the text said the guts of this amendment basically was? MS. DESELEM: It should have -- in the ad it should have been exactly what you see in the title that's in the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the county attorney is aware of the legal ad, so when I ask questions, if there's any issue that I bring up that should have been advertised for, you'll know enough to point it out to us? Page 29 March 1, 2007 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I need to see a copy of the ad as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you saw a copy of the agenda with the language that we are told under testimony that was the ad, would that work for you? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, it would work for me legally, so long as the title of the ordinance appeared in the ad. And also if the DRI -- when Ms. Deselem references, I need to know exactly what part of the agenda package she's referring to. Do you mean the title of the ordinance? MS. DESELEM: The actual item as is listed on the agenda in 8(A) and 8(B). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm asking all this is, Kay, I did go through the existing PUD for Grey Oaks and the one that has been presented to us today. I found a -- quite a substantial amount of changes. I'm not saying they're significant or insignificant, but there are a lot of changes. I want to walk through them all so that if any of these changes rise to the level of something that should have been advertised, I'd like the county attorney to at least opine on that point as we go through them. So that was my point, and I will move into the PUD, and I guess it's back to Mr. Tyson then. Bruce, if we could start on the development standards table. And I think Page 24, the notes to the development standards table. MR. TYSON : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Asterisk number one, the setback may be reduced to 12 feet for a side entry garage. I believe on the original it said 10 feet. Are you -- do you have the original with you? MR. TYSON: One second. You're referring to the one from 2000? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the one I found was 2000-46. That's the latest one. I think -- and if I'm wrong, just tell me, but that's Page 30 March 1, 2007 the one I thought was the most recent. MR. TYSON : Yeah, I do have the comparison. It does say 10 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Twelve is more restricted to you. I'm not against it, I just want to make sure the record's clear. MR. TYSON: I'm not exactly certain where it came from, quite frankly. If it's there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, because that's in a footnote to the table, does that affect the entire PUD, Margie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Beg your pardon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to have a lot of these, so you might want to -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Mr. Strain, what I do when I review the title, it says a PUD to PUD rezone. Ifwe were doing an amendment, we would have a title that might be one and a half legal pages long. When we do a PUD to PUD rezone, what it states is it's rezoned from one PUD to another, and it typically does not incorporate every change in the title of the document which is typically advertised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine. That's not the question I asked, though. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm sorry, so would you repeat? Because I was trying to compare that against what was in -- when you were talking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, we have an existing project that has a substantial amount of build-out in it, and still has some build-out to go. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Changes in this PUD that we're reviewing today were brought in mostly to address the southeast section of land that they want to convert from hotel to residential. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Correct. Page 31 March 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: However, in my review of the existing PUD versus the proposed changes, there are a substantial amount of language changes from the existing PUD. And my question is, do those new language changes that are now going to be in the new PUD have an overall impact on the balance of the non built-out areas of this project? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I would have to probably defer to planning staff to answer that question. It's my understanding that the changes affect what's not built yet. Isn't that correct, Mr. Tyson? MR. TYSON: Sure. I mean, that would be the case. But in this case, I'm not even exactly certain how it got to 12. And if we want to leave it at 10, that's fine by me. I have no idea why it got to 12, quite frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I'm not against 12, I want you to know. I'm just trying to make sure that every -- you started this meeting out by saying this is a map change only. And going into the text of the documents, it's not just a map change. I'm going to show you paragraphs that have been added and changed in the PUD di fferent than the first. MR. TYSON: I understand where you're going. Basically it's a map change. Obviously there's text to support it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But like number three, same page, the original document said asterisk three, or one-half the sum of the adjacent buildings, whichever is greater. The rest of that paragraph is brand new. And it says, where adjacent multi-family buildings are clustered about a common access to garage parking or courtyards and share a common architectural theme, an R minimum of two stories in height, the minimum distance between the buildings shall be 40 percent of the sum to the heights of the two multi-family buildings. MR. TYSON: Right. Page 32 March 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that's an entirely new sentence added to that asterisk. MR. TYSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And again, I don't have an objection with it, but I want the record to understand that we're not -- this is going to then play out through the whole project. MR. TYSON: Yeah, thank you very much for pointing that out. Because it was not intended for me to simply say that the only change that we're showing here is a map change when in fact there are a number of changes like this, and obviously the deviations are all reflected in here as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And asterisk number six -- or there is no number six, I'm sorry. It goes to five. But the old document had a number six, and it dealt with setbacks for patio homes. Now, if this affects the entire unbuilt area of this PUD, and some of these may be more restrictive than the existing PUD allows, have the property owners for the balance of the PUD who have not been built out yet who now would have more restrictive language to build to, have they signed off on all this? Have we got acceptance from them that these changes are consistent with them as well, since it's their property? MR. TYSON: No, the only thing that worked with them is the issue dealing with native vegetation. And as a matter of fact, I'm not certain why six is out. Something must have happened in one of our changes. I'd like to put six back in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be doing an awful lot of things on the fly here then this morning. MR. TYSON: Ifwe have to. Because something -- that's no reason why that should be deleted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you, Bruce. Again, I'm not disagreeing with some of the things, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of them because they're not making sense. Page 33 March 1, 2007 MR. TYSON: I can appreciate it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a -- what we're saying here is that there's changes that aren't being relayed to us that we don't know. They're blind to us at this point. Don't you think it would be proper if this came back with a strike-through version? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was going to get there as I went through this document further. Because, and if you remember, a case just like this came up about a month or two ago. I think Richard Y ovanovich was involved and they had -- or somebody. Maybe it wasn't Rich. But there was a mixup in the number of PUDs that were issued and we ended up having to defer the case and continue it until we got back and each of us got a collective document that we could understand. And Bruce, I could sit here for the next three hours and go through changes between the two documents. It would be an awful lot simpler if we continued this hearing until a time when you could come back to us with a document that was put together a little more thoroughly than this one is. MR. TYSON: Well, we always like to do things with a strike-through/underline, because it makes it pretty clear as to what's going on. That's been one of the changes that the county, you know, doesn't like to see that anymore. But I will be happy to do that. And as a matter of fact, I think we've got one of those versions. It shouldn't take us very long to get it in your hands for all these changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then Kay, what I would like to suggest, if there's no objection from staff, that this be continued to our next regularly scheduled meeting. Is that going to work for staff? MS. DESELEM: What I was going to offer, if I may, for the record, since staff neglected to get this to you, if it's acceptable to you, Page 34 March 1, 2007 I will make copies and get them to you yet today, if that provides you enough time, with what I have. And then you could go on with the other petitions you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean yet today so that we have to read them before we continue with this hearing today? MS. DESELEM: You'll have the comparison. That's --I'm offering that to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. And if that's the only way it works -- MS. DESELEM: Oh, no, that's not the only way it works, I'm just offering it to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, Kay, the applicant mentioned that there was a strike-through thing that he didn't realize disappeared and he wants to bring it back in. I think he's the one that wants to see it before it comes back in, too. MS.DESELEM: Okay. Yes. Because what we have doesn't reflect all the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we have an agreement with the applicant, they don't -- have no objection to a continuance of both these items until the next regularly scheduled planning commission hearing? MR. TYSON: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 35 March 1, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Before we break, is there any members of the public registered to speak who need to speak today because they couldn't be here two weeks from today? Ray, do we have any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Doug Lewis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Lewis, when you come up, if you could tell us if you could be here two weeks from today to speak and defer your discussion till then, it would be more relevant, but you're more than welcome to speak today, but not both, if that would be helpful to you. MR. LEWIS: Well, I'm here today. My name is Doug Lewis, for the record, with the firm of Roetzel and Andress, and we represent Opus South Development. And only on the issue -- there was a couple of questions related to the preserve issue and the language that was negotiated between staff and the petitioner. And if I may, I just wanted to add a couple of answers to some questions that were raised by members of the commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to be coming back here? MR. LEWIS: I can. Yeah, we can address it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, it would be more relevant at the time we're digging into this deeper. You can say it today, but -- MR. LEWIS: We are going to be in in the next two weeks, just Page 36 March 1, 2007 for the record, submitting an SDP for that site. So we will be in very shortly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't review SDPs. MR. LEWIS: And we will show .89 acres. So there was a question raised as to how that's going to show out. And we will submit an SDP showing .89 acres of preserve on that site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How many units are you building? MR. LEWIS: Currently the plan shows 292, in that range. We won't exceed the 300 units. In that regard, we are going to come in with the SDP, and we are concerned that the assumption that the county makes on the 137 acres of native vegetation, that that assumption can change. And we're the last man, if you will, in the PUD, and what we don't want to have happen is our client -- we don't want to have our client be punished if another landowner within the PUD doesn't do -- interferes with their preserve, destroys or disturbs their preserve. And that's why we're asking for some certainty. All we want is some certainty . We have had a moving target. It's been a very difficult process. We just want to know if it's .89 acres, we'll take it. We have some questions about it that we've gone over ad nauseam with the county attorney's office and staff. We just want a number so we can get some certainty and move forward with our project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You ought to get a copy of the changes. They seem to lock in the acreage you're concerned about. MR. LEWIS: Yeah, the changes-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The changes that were passed out today. MR. LEWIS: The changes are fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think they work to your favor. MR. LEWIS: Yes. Page 37 March 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Ray, is there any other speakers registered? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we will continue -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question on this. There was a statement made by Bruce that the staff doesn't want you to do strike-throughs anymore? MR. TYSON: Well, go ahead, Margie. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I can clarify that. For your pur-- when we do a PUD to PUD, you don't do a strike-through and underlined document, you do a PUD to PUD rezone. But for your purposes and the purposes of the Board of County Commissioners for their review, a strike-through and underlined document is provided so you're aware of what the changes are. But the official document is not that. That's provided for your convenience. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we will have one for our convenience two weeks from today. So we will continue this to the 15th. Thank you and sorry for the delay. MR. TYSON: That's okay. Is there anything else that I might be able to answer at this stage that anybody else has any questions that might pertain to the information that we have here right now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, what I think would be helpful, and I've been trying to cal -- and I still haven't found where that 300 units is in the PUD. But if you could still do analysis of built units, unbuilt units, stuff like that, so we can kind of see. Because everything's filtering down to that southern site. And then everything's then filtering to the east. So just to show us the flow of unit counts, okay? Page 38 March 1, 2007 MR. TYSON: Okay. I can -- I'll have that for you. Anything else, or from the standpoint of the presentation, was there anything that needs clarification? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I will have -- I'll review my notes. If I have issues beyond the PUD changes, I will try to get in touch with you before the next meeting-- MR. TYSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- give you time to at least prepare for them. MR. TYSON: Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Item #8C PETITION: PUDZ-2004-AR-6921 With that, we will move on to the next petition. It's PUDZ-2004-AR-6921, Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., for the Faith Landing RPUD and Lake Trafford in Immokalee. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of the planning commission members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll proceed with the presentation. MR. NADEAU: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm planning manager with RW A. Very proud to be representing Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. on this Faith Landing RPUD, which is your application reference number 6921. Page 39 March 1, 2007 In attendance with me this morning are Rob Price ofTR Transportation Consultants; Mr. Jamie Anderson, a principal ofRW A; Mr. Shane Johnson, who's an ecologist with Passarella & Associates; as well as our client representative, Mr. Nick Kouloheras. Just to -- so you can understand where the project is, it's located north of Lake Trafford Road. Lake Trafford Road is the southern roadway that you can see exactly. Thank you, Ray. It is the open areas that is in between the existing subdivisions. Now, I'll have Ray give us the PUD master plan. Before I go into describing the project site, I need to make a couple clarifications related to the staff report, if I may. In the neighborhood information meeting section of your staff report, that is actually the wrong project within there. That information was obtained by the neighborhood information coordinator of the county, in fairness to Planner Zone. I do have the correct information, and I'll read it into the record. Neighborhood information meeting, PUD 2004- AR -6921, Faith Landing, RPUD. Faith Landing Habitat for Humanity was -- neighborhood meeting was held as required on June 22nd, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in the Habitat offices in Immokalee, 640 North Ninth Street. There were no attendees from the community. Staff from RWA and Habitat for Humanity and Collier County waited until approximately 6:00, 5:50 p.m., and then we adjourned. One other item of note in the staff report that was provided to Melissa by the utilities division is in -- on Page 8 of your staff report, the utility analysis. It's incorrectly referencing the Collier County water sewer district in two instances. It should be the Immokalee area water sewer district. The utility provisions have the correct utility provider in them, as a part of your application in your package. Now, with that said, we've put the PUD master plan up on the wall -- or up on the visualizer so you can see how it nestles into the Page 40 March 1, 2007 vacant land that's between the two subdivisions. The 35 .11-acre site is located in existing residential neighborhood platted as Trafford Pine Estates in Section 1 -- in Section 32, Township 46, Range 29 east. We're proposing to rezone from RSF-4 to RPUD with a companion affordable housing density bonus agreement that would provide for a density of 4.98 acres over the entire site. That would be 175 dwelling units. The proposed land uses are defined as a habitat project. They will be the standard single-family homes that you're familiar with, and some duplex products, which are basically taking their single-family homes and attaching them together. So it will be a two-family and single-family division. The project will be 100 percent affordable housing, and it will be providing housing to those individuals that make less than 50 percent of the median income. Now, the subject -- I guess I probably should explain where access is going to be coming from. Access is going to be multi-tiered. You'll come up off of Lake Trafford Road to North 19th Street. North 19th Street then connects into the project through Custer Avenue, North 18th Street, Lincoln Avenue, and then from Lake Trafford Road north to Carson Road and to Eden Avenue. I'll point that out here on the visualizer. This is 19th coming north off of Lake Trafford Road. It intersects with Leed Avenue, leads into North 18th Street, which will provide access through a development. There's also Custer Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. Now, coming up from Trafford in the alternative direction, there is also access from Eden Avenue to the west. The subject property sits within two distinct future land use designations, as identified in the Immokalee area master plan. There's a high residential district that allows for eight dwelling units per acre and there is a low residential district that provides for four dwelling Page 41 March 1, 2007 units per acre. The density proposed in our high residential portion of the project is 3.83 dwelling units per acre, which is well below the maximum eight that is provided for. The density proposed on the low density residential district is 6.89 dwelling units per acre, which is greater than that established density cap of four dwelling units per acre, pursuant to the Immokalee area master plan. The density bonus provisions of the Immokalee area master plan allow for affordable housing to increased density. So the additional 2.89 dwelling units per acre that is proposed for inclusion in the low residential zone is provided for in the affordable housing density bonus agreement. So to summarize, the proposed density is 4.98 acres gross over the entire project. We are asking for 2.89 density bonus increase in the low residential area. And this is substantially less than the 16 and 12 dwelling units per acre that are provided for by the affordable housing provisions of the Immokalee area master plan. There will be two preserve areas totaling approximately 8.42 acres. The northern preserve is a wetland preserve that adjoins other wetland areas to the north. The southern preserve is an upland preserve that is adjacent to a scrub jay preserve that Collier County -- I believe they own it. So it will be an adjacent and continuous scrub jay preserve in that area. Weare currently in the water management process with the South Florida Water Management District under application No. 060908-1. We have received our first RAI, and we're proceeding forward. We should expect our next RAI in about -- request for additional information, for those that don't know -- probably about a week or so. There'll be 60 percent of the project in open space. We've been found consistent by your transportation planning Page 42 March 1, 2007 staff. We're consistent with the Immokalee area master plan and the future land use element of the Growth Management Plan. I could go into some detail on water management, but -- if need be, I will go through it. Otherwise, I am open for questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions from the commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have a question on this wetland area to the north. MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And to the west. That's also a wetland area over there? MR. NADEAU: The small hatched area that's-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. NADEAU: -- in the residential? That is correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because your density is so low in this project, would it not be possible to move that density around so that you don't have to cut into any of this wetland area, especially to the north? MR. NADEAU: Well, actually, Commissioner, that wetland is of low quality. It is isolated. I don't know for a fact, but I believe it may be less than a half acre, so it's probable that mitigation would not even be required for it. COMMISSIONER CARON: But you're talking about the wetland area to the north? MR. NADEAU: No, I'm talking about the wetland area in the central western portion of the project area. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, let's talk about the area to the north. I mean -- MR. NADEAU: Of course. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- it would seem to me that is an important wetland area. It connects to wetland areas to the north of it. Page 43 March 1, 2007 And because the density is so low in this project it would seem to me that you could move around or move product around so that that whole area would almost not have to be touched at all. MR. NADEAU: I understand. And I understand your concerns. We went through a very protracted negotiation process. We've modified the plan multiple times to have the county staff find it consistent with Policy 6.11 of the coastal conservation element. And we're not receiving negative comments from our water management district reviews related to the small wetland impacts that we have. Therefore, I believe that we need to review the plan that's before us today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that means no. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that was a no. I'm not sure that I'll accept the no, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the commission? Mr. Midney, then Mr. Murray, and Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, going towards the traffic report, on Page 1, under existing conditions. I'm a little bit concerned about the traffic impacts of this project. Lake Trafford Road is a two-lane roadway that's at a category of service D; is that correct? MR. NADEAU: I'm going to defer to our transportation consultant, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. MR. PRICE: For the record, Rob Price, TR Transportation Consultants. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, right now Lake Trafford Road is a two-lane road and it's a standard of level of service D? MR. PRICE: That's the level of service standard, that's correct, yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And that's what we're at now also, D? Page 44 March 1, 2007 MR. PRICE: I do not believe so. There's plenty of -- I mean, according to the most recent AUIR, there is over 400 vehicles of capacity left before we reach D. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before -- maybe Nick could shed some light on that for you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, that would be nice, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's here for something, he might as well entertain us. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, transportation. The capacity on Lake Trafford is okay . We've looked at -- actually some of the numbers have gone down and fluctuated over the course of -- it hasn't grown as much as we thought it would on Lake Trafford. So when you say level of service D being the standard, there is remaining capacity. As a matter of fact, when we asked Rob at TR Trans. to grow the traffic up to 2012, because this petition was actually in two years ago for the initial review, came back in June of last year for another review, and then we've said if you don't mind, just carry it forward, we're trying to stay updated. So even growing the traffic to 2012, we show remaining capacity on that, based on historical trends. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What is the level of service now? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe it is at D, as you've pointed out. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. It's D. And that's acceptable? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know, maybe it's because I'm from a small town. We sort of expect to be able to drive around in Page 45 March 1, 2007 our small town. Maybe for an urban area like Naples category D is acceptable. But to us living in a small town, we don't expect to be stuck in traffic. To us category D I don't think is acceptable. Trying to make a left turn onto Lake Trafford Road from 18th Street, not north but it's not -- I don't know if it's called South 18th Street. But on the south side of Lake Trafford Road, it's very hard to make a left-hand turn. And I can just imagine trying to get out of here and make a left-hand turn now from North 19th or North 18th Street. It's going to be very, very hard. When is Lake Trafford Road planned to be upgraded to more than a two-lane road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nothing planned right now. There is some shoulder work that's being looked at right now as we speak as part of one of the Lake Trafford commitments. That's expected. I'll point out that in our urban area we're at level of service E on our six-lane arterials. And I understand you mentioned more of that country feeling that you were talking about. But when you start talking about level of service standards come into A, B, C, D and then E, these are the adopted standards set by the board. So I don't have control over that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I guess it's a matter of public perception. In Immokalee people are very unhappy about the level of service of Lake Trafford Road. Going over to Page 7 where it says future traffic conditions. On the second paragraph, second sentence, it says, based on the information contained within Table I-A, Lake Trafford Road from SR 29 to North Ninth Street is shown to sustain a significant impact as a result of the added project traffic in accordance with the Collier County 335 significance test. And then it goes down further on the map when it shows Lake Trafford Road on the next page under figure four. Lake Trafford Road, between North 19th Street and State Route 29. It says 533 Page 46 March 1, 2007 (481). And then under that it says six percent. Isn't six percent above the threshold of five percent? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's above the three. Just it -- when we do our 3-3-5, it means that it triggers it to look at the next link in other places that are involved in that area. But yes, it is above five. Currently our guidelines of 3-3-5 for zoning. In other words, you look at the first link to see if it's above three, and therefore it's considered significant, you keep looking on. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So isn't six percent more than it's supposed to be? I thought you were supposed to be less than five percent. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Those are only thresholds to continue looking. They're not thresholds where you adopt or approve a project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, the analysis to what's accepted and what is required is kind of like a report card. If your kid came home with a D on your (sic) report card, would that be acceptable? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's how maybe you ought to look at roads. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree. Going back to Page 7, in the paragraph three it's talking about the appropriate annual growth rate for this section of Lake Trafford Road was taken from the 2005 Collier County average traffic report based on data available over the last four years. And you're talking about the annual growth rate was then used to factor the 2006 peak season to come at some estimate of a background traffic conditions. I think that might be misleading, because over the last four years, starting from -- was that starting from 2006 or 2005? Where was the baseline point? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Price from TR Trans. actually updated it to show an increased growth, almost double of what he's initial shown. And we still show remaining capacity. He carried it out Page 47 March 1, 2007 two more additional years to 2012. So if you want to enter this into the record, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea. It was provided as an update. Because we keep saying these petitions come in for review and then they go through the process. And sometimes it takes six months, a year before they get to you. So we ask, as you get closer to the actual submittal, have an update. What he has shown, an annual growth rate double of what he's shown in his report, approximately. And remaining capacity is up to 420 trips by 2012 on Lake Trafford based on that. And that's consistent with what's in our AUIR. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So what you're saying is that the capacity has grown or the number of trips has grown, has doubled? MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's showing the background growth of the projected growth rate going forward has gone up. He's actually gone more conservative with his estimate than, say, liberal with a number more conservative than any impacts overall (sic). COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because that would be -- it sounds like what you're saying is that the growth of the traffic on Lake Trafford is growing much faster than the report that we were given. Is that what you're saying? And that confirms my own feeling, too. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, I wouldn't say much faster, but faster. And when you double -- when I say double, when you double the small amount, compared to doubling a large amount, it's obviously something you have to weigh out. He did look at that. We've asked him to look at that and bring it to 2012, just to be -- we were comfortable with what we've seen in the office, but we said it would be a good idea to provide a document to that effect. Which he has done. And it shows increased growth on Lake Trafford, which you expected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far, is there a motion to accept this Table I-A into evidence? Page 48 March 1, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved by Mr. Murray. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff. All in favor? COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Okay. Thank you, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the reason I bring this up is because prior to 2005 there was, you know, not that much growth on Lake Trafford Road. But when you start adding in the things that are going to be coming in this year, the Arrowhead Preserve, 500 units -- well, they're all not coming this year, but that's a lot of units on a two-lane road. Which basically it's the only way out of Immokalee, unless you're talking about the Carson Road extension. But the only way into town is along that road. And the traffic has been getting -- to me it's bad and it's getting worse. And you're going to be injecting a whole lot of new vehicles onto a segment of roadway that's already bad, from my point of view. You all say that it's acceptable. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just to update the commissioners a little bit, too, we are looking at improvements out there. Not in our work program per se, but as part of commitments from Arrowhead. Intersection improvements, shoulder improvements, things of that Page 49 March 1, 2007 nature. And I can tell you, I've been here approximately two and a half, three years, Immokalee is definitely coming up on our radar much more. There are large projects that are coming in. We are considering other improvements ahead of the work program. Obviously for traffic analysis, we can't consider those improvements till they're in the work program. But I can tell you that we're definitely looking at things happening out there. And we are aware of what's going on. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When is the next time when you're planning to do improvements on Lake Trafford Road in this segment? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry, you asked when the improvements would be done? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When are the improvements -- when are you looking at -- you said through 2012 you're not planning to improve Lake Trafford Road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not in our work program. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When are you planning to do it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I can't -- if I speak out of turn, if it's not in our five-year work program, I can't make a commitment that I couldn't justify. What I can tell you is the lake Arrowhead PUD, the back half of their commitments at certain thresholds have to do certain things, and we are working with them right now to do those. They include improvements to the shoulders, improvements to the intersection 29 and Trafford. So those are happening, not through the county work program, but through requirements for PUDs and commitments that were put in place. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: As far as you know, there's no plans at all to widen Lake Trafford Road? Page 50 March 1, 2007 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not in our work program, sir, no. MR. PRICE: Could I add something real quick? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, please. MR. PRICE: Rob Price, TR Transportation. It's also -- I think it's important to note that, you know, this is a, you know, low-income housing development. I mean, we're really looking at some affordable homes. And the residents that are going to live here, you know, are not going to be your people that own multiple cars and all that. I mean, when we talked with Nick when we were first looking to do this study, you know, we were discussing doing a reduction because of the affordable nature of this project. And we decided not to do that, to show our TIS looking at worst possible case. But I think it's important to note that a lot of these residents will probably be using the transit system. And the impact on the roads from this particular development will be significantly less from your typical, you know, single and multi-family project with the same amount of units. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would disagree completely with what you just said, because in my experience working class families, one wage earner is not enough. Usually you have two or three cars, because both parents have to work and a lot of times there are other people in the house that work, too. I don't know where you get that analysis. MR. PRICE: Statistically Habitat for Humanity projects are not high traffic projects. They're more your people that use transit systems and that's -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Habitat for Humanity people I know are all two wage earner families. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Keep going, if you have more. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, this is all I have on the traffic, so why don't I just stop there. Maybe other people have Page 51 March 1, 2007 questions about the traffic, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron's got a quick question. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just want a traffic question answered before I go -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- since it was brought up. Where is the closest public transit to this development? MR. PRICE: It's at 29 and Lake Trafford Road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a good distance. COMMISSIONER CARON: There's a significant walk for you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's continue on Lake Trafford Road for the moment, if we may, please. I hope we're not constrained only by the historical data but instead we have the ability to look forward. That's what planning is all about. And I recognize the limitations that we have on development and -- not development but on road building. But it also strikes me, because I'm familiar with Lake Trafford Road to some degree, certainly not as much as my fellow commissioner. But we bring an lot of boats down there. And if the lake is ever brought up to the scale of quality that is intended, that may very well blossom incredibly. And Lake Trafford is probably one of the central places. So we have along that road not only the building of all those apartments and homes, but we have the recreational activity as well. So I think it -- and I agree with Paul, a tremendous -- the folks who even at modest income, as their families grow and their children mature, new cars are purchased. Because they all have to work and it's an issue. So I think that that thesis that you brought forward may be a little bit in question. Paul's got some very good points about that, and I think that we Page 52 March 1, 2007 need to pay more attention to that. And in this maybe it needs to be reflected when we finally stipulate something along the line, if there's anything to stipulate. That was my only point on that one, but I do have some other questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since that is your only point on the traffic issue, it would be a good time for a break. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure, I agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's break till 10:15 and we'll assume this discussion at this point. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. We left off with Mr. Murray asking some questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I have a whole bunch of observations and a question. And I want -- Ms. Caron also brought up the question also about that northern area, the sort of wetlands. And there is a point made on Page 6 of 11 of the staff report that says -- and I'll just read it. The wetland preserve in the north connects off-site to wetlands on undeveloped lands. This area also ranks high and provides foraging habitat for wood storks and other wading birds. So I think the point that she's made is certainly very valid. Any time we can leave -- because we know the storks are already having problems, and any time we can leave the area alone, it would be far better. Also, on Page 8 of 11 -- and I know that this is not your writing, but I'm going to point out some things where I can. We're looking at -- there are no garages associated with this, from what I could see based on the setback, 16 -- the front yard setback of 16 feet is closer. Are there any garages? Did I misread this? MR. NADEAU: Yes, of course there's garages. Page 53 March 1, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, then I must have misread this. The front yard setback of 16 feet is closer to the right-of-way than a typical 25 foot. So -- MR. NADEAU: Yeah, that's a staff analysis. But it is -- our development standards are consistent with Habitat type projects that we've done in the past with the garage appurtenances in the front. That's why the setback is that 16 feet. But in all instances, there will be the 23-foot separation from the back of the sidewalk so that vehicles won't over -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, it's because you have two -- different type of residences that this is all in one type of catch? MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, and the storm that we're referring to is what, 100-year storm that we're using as a baseline for water? Because on Page 9 of 11, unless this is in error, at the top it talks about, please note the existing ground elevation at the subject well is 32 feet NGVD. I'm not sure I understand that -- MR. NADEAU: Oh, this was -- excuse me, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's all right. MR. NADEAU: The deviation for that allows more fill to come out of the lakes, and it's based on the groundwater fluctuations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. NADEAU: And if they're less than an average of four or five feet of groundwater fluctuation, based on well data, then we can have the more steep slopes on the lake. But it's still a safe project so that there's adequate room to get out on the slope before dropping into a deeper portion of the site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I understood that part of it, and I appreciate your further explanation of it. But when I saw the number 32, I just wondered. But beyond that, last year we had a lot of rain. And I live in an area where the water and so-called lakes usually is never very high. Page 54 March 1, 2007 And last year I had some real concerns that we were going to see water up at the grass line. And that amazed me. So I just wondered. I recognize that you use analysis -- your analyses are based on data. But okay. I also want to point out a question here for myself to you. It was explained that the entire project consisting of 184 residential units and 92 duplexes. That is a statement that's in the neighborhood information meeting. That was -- so in other words it was scaled back? MR. NADEAU: No, it's the wrong project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that's why you gave us that other sheet. MR. NADEAU: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I'm sorry. Thank you very much. I try paying attention. Okay. The term -- the -- what is this called again? The rezone findings and so forth. The use of the word similar, to conform to similar residential development standards. I would imagine -- when we talk about similarities, I thought our standards were to be adhered to. And then the question becomes to what extent is a deviation over the standard to a similar standard. And I would suspect that I have more to relate to that. Okay, there's a question I have here having to do with the internal and external compatibility of proposed uses. Now, I see in this document that's on the visualizer there's a lot of -- there's a lot of means -- I guess what one, two, three, perhaps three means of getting in and out. And I noted that there was a question of staff analysis indicated the petition is compatible and provides interconnections that link the surrounding neighborhoods. I also thought I remembered seeing something there about a fence, somebody requiring a fence or looking for a fence. Is that true? MR. NADEAU: I don't recall any discussions about a fence. Page 55 March 1, 2007 Understand, too, that I didn't get my staff report until 3:00 yesterday afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a question about a fence. It's on Page 9. It's the last paragraph. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And that's what I was trying to reference. Thank you, sir. I guess what -- I'm not trying to ask you the questions that were intended for staff, but I am trying to get a general overall sense of where I'm going with types of questions. And it has to do in general with the density. And it has to do with whether or not these folks -- I think the point that came out that the nearest bus is going to be one heck of a distance away is something to think about. That's not the end of the world issue, but it's something to think about. MR. NADEAU: Well, I can address that for you, Commissioner. In fact, all of the Habitat for Humanity projects petition the C.A.T. transportation for a bus stop associated with a primary entrance to their developments. They have always been successful in getting that C.A.T. bus stop. And Habitat is committing to petition for that bus stop at the terminus of 19th Street. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be very good, and I hope they're successful in that if the project goes forward. That would be certainly highly advantageous. I'm going to defer now to some other person who wishes to ask questions. But I my general questions were -- but the project is very good. My concern remains always the same, that we don't create an instant bad situation by focusing too much in one location. And I think some of that land up there in the north that was not intended to be used should be further allowed. But then again, that's another story. But thank you. MR. NADEAU: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Page 56 March 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Mr. Adelstein, you had earlier said you had a question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I have a couple. Number one, now, obviously I've always asked and made sure that we had garages coming. The one thing I did also want to make sure of is a 23-foot driveway, and now all of a sudden we're not in that area. Is there something you're going to be able to do to make that work? MR. NADEAU: Commissioner Adelstein, the garages will be set back from the right-of-way line 16 feet. However, the clear area that's also part of the Land Development Code for a 23-foot parking space in front of the garage so that it doesn't hang over the sidewalk, that is a component of this PUD. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's what I wanted to make sure of. MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is that in the PUD, that language? So we can make sure everybody -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't find it, that's what my problem is. MR. NADEAU: Well, it may not be in the PUD, because it's a requirement of the code. But I'll look for it here, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you have a setback stated at 16 feet and you believe there's a PUD, the PUD is a dominating document, I would rather have the clarification in the PUD that this 23 feet applies, regardless. MR. NADEAU: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that can be added as a footnote under the Table 2, residential development standards? MR. NADEAU: Yes, it can. Yes, it can. It would be included in the Table 2 development standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 57 March 1, 2007 MR. NADEAU: So I've got it -- it's also on the cross-section depicted on the PUD master plan. But I will add that note, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Midney, did you have any others? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple. This is an RSF -4 zoning; am I right? MR. NADEAU: That is accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Casalanguida? I hope I said that right. I just like calling you Nick, Nick. It's easier. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trying to get a better grasp on Mr. Midney's concerns about the traffic on Lake Trafford Road. When you do your analysis of road systems and you have to include something for a zoning that's in place in order to determine how that road could some day have to handle or what it would have to handle, for this particular project did you use the RSF -4 zoning as an anticipated need for road segment in that area? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not sure I can answer that question. I think we used -- when Rob proposed the development and we had our methodology meeting, he did talk about a reduction. We used the highest and best use that was proposed, rather than that reduction for affordable housing, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm talking before this project came forward. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You mean the land use model? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, in your original modeling of roads for Collier County, you go through and you have to figure out how big the road corridors are going to be based on the zoning that exists at some point in time. And in this particular project it's been RSF -4 for a Page 58 March 1, 2007 long period of time prior to this meeting. Did you use RSF -4 ? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. The traffic analysis zone that would have been used would have been consistent with the existing zoning, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you understand what RSF-4 is, how many units do you think that is per acre? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Four dwelling units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there's 35 acres here. That's 140 dwelling units. I was just curious as to what the road was expected to take. And this project has more dwelling units than that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, Nick, or Mr. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick is simpler. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Nick is good. All right, getting back to the level of service standards, the acceptable level of service standards in Immokalee is E for roads? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have acceptable level of service standards for each different road category. I know our six lanes are E. A two-lane facility might be a D. Each one of those would be in our AUIR and identified. So I don't have that AUIR in front of me, I apologize. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So a two-lane road wouldn't be less than a D? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could have a two-lane at an E. That's an adopted level of service standard that's brought to the board through the AUIR process. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My question is, if you're talking about a small town and the community perception of a small town is -- let's just imagine for the point of argument that D is not acceptable, where maybe it would be in the city. But in a town. Page 59 March 1, 2007 Has there ever been any thought about changing the level of service standards based upon the size of the community? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The problem you see when you up the level of service standards, you have to be in compliance with your overall master plan or comprehensive plan and your AUIR and CIE. So if you say you're going to adopt a level of service standard B or C, that means that you have to be able to fund that program to make that work. So the problem is, you raise those standards, you have to have the money to be able to say balance plan going forward. We can maintain that adopted level of service. So you could set a standard, but you'd have to be able to fund that standard. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My point just is that in a small town the public perception of what's acceptable and unacceptable might be different from what you would expect in a big city like Naples. And maybe the level of service standards that are adopted ought to take that into account. MR. CASALANGUIDA: In part of our long-range transportation plan update, we have those Town Hall meetings. Those are the things -- it's funny, we have half a dozen of those meetings and they're advertised and nobody shows up. And so that's -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I know, it's unfortunate. But yet, you know, when you hear people talking, you know, they may not go to the meetings, but they complain a lot, you know, when you just sort of talk in the store or on the street or, you know, inside the community. And it's a shame that those things don't actually get acted on, you know, when it comes to drawing up ordinances and things like that. When we do our Immokalee master plan, that doesn't -- because that's where, you know, people in the community really are sort of talking about these things. We don't have any say about the level of Page 60 March 1, 2007 service standards of the roads, do we? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe you do through your county commissioners and through the adoption process. You do have a say in that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: In the master plan you would be able to say that we don't want any roads that are, you know, at such and such a standard? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Through the master plan process, through the AUIR process, through all those processes, you would have an opportunity to speak up and say what you expected. And then we'd have to -- as staff responds in detail what -- if you raise that standard, what it would mean money-wise to maintain that standard. I can tell you, Commissioner, I've spent an enormous amount of time, especially in the last month, looking at Immokalee, because it is growing, and there are large projects coming in. And we are raising the same question you are, can your project sustain the road network or can the network sustain the project. And we'll be asking for improvements in that area based on that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I guess it's just kind of disconcerting to me and a lot of my neighbors and a lot of people who are saying, wow, it never used to be so hard to get out, you know. And now on certain roads it's very, very hard suddenly to make left-hand turns. And there's stacks of cars, you know, that are backed up two or three blocks just to make a left-hand turn onto Lake Trafford Road or onto Immokalee Drive. And we're just like -- we're stunned. We're not used to it. And it's scary to think of what it's going to be like in a couple of years. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I share your concerns. My biggest problem I have in meeting with my boss and my boss's boss and the commissioners is funding for projects to maintain these standards that you speak of. The Immokalee SR 29 bypass road we're looking at, things like that. Page 61 March 1, 2007 Funding and the costs are skyrocketing. And we appreciate your input. I don't know where I find that balance between growth that's been approved, growth that's coming and how to fund these things, but I'll keep it on my radar. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, before you leave, one more question. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On this plan that's in front of us, actually, Eden Avenue, it shows a connection to the project. But it looks like the connection is a lot that's covered with vegetation. Is the requirement part of this project to complete that connection? I didn't remember specifically seeing it referenced. I may have missed it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we work with what we can control. We wanted that connection to be put in there. I think the next step would be to deal with the project next door to make that connection come through. Same as that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll ask the staff when they come up. Thank you, Nick. MR. DURANT: We have property here, but I don't know who owns that piece. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll ask the staff. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? When you're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I thought that that connection was definitely in there. You're saying that it's not definitely in there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can only control what's within the boundary of the PUD in terms of what I can request for them to build. And I've done so, based on that connection. If that right-of-way is county, we're willing to do that. We'll ask Sam at SDP to connect Page 62 March 1, 2007 through to that. But I can only require him to do what's within his property . COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because on your traffic analysis, it showed a certain percent of the traffic going out that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that needs to be cleared up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good point. MR. NADEAU: To ease your concerns, Commissioners, if there's no road there now -- it appears to be a platted right-of-way -- we will connect. We will put the pavement down to make the connection to Eden Avenue. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I was going to say, if that is done, that would be a positive result of this project. Because that's a big problem now. If you want to get to the end of -- we call it the rat, the end of that development there. It's really a long roundabout route to get in there. And if you can get out through this Habitat project, it will really make it easier, you know, at least if you can find a time when there's not a lot of traffic to get in and out. MR. NADEAU: Sure. No, we made that commitment to you, so we will put the asphalt down to make the connection. Another important point to note too regarding Habitat projects: These are not new residents, these are residents that exist or currently reside in Immokalee. They have to live there for a year to be able to qualify for those homes. So what we're taking -- we're taking people that are living in much substandard housing and putting them into more respectable housing. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you're saying then that there definitely will be a road that connects to Eden Avenue? MR. NADEAU: We will make the connection from the project to the terminus of Eden Road. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And who's going to pay for the rest of it? Page 63 March 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can stipulate all that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Who's going to pay for the part that's not -- MR. NADEAU: Disconnection. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's not on the project, that's not owned by -- MR. NADEAU: Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. will build that segment of Eden Avenue to connect to the project. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So they'll pay for it, even though it's not on their property? MR. NADEAU: That is accurate. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, that sounds good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, before you walk away, just out of curiosity, does the county -- has the county acquired the right-of-way to expand Lake Trafford Road? I mean, I know that's been a question. I know that the expansion isn't even on your books. But one thing that always has to happen before you even consider that is the right-of-way. And that's just a very narrow right-of-way right now. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's open drainage right now, so I think we'd have to analyze what we do with the drainage. But there would be right-of-way required to expand Lake Trafford Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You haven't acquired any, though? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I was curious -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Isn't it a little bit late to think about that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was bringing it up now, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, sorry. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Got to bring it up sometime. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of Nick while he's up here? (No response.) Page 64 March 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question about your deviation number one. What this does is puts the break point closer to the shoreline. MR. NADEAU: That is accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason the break point is farther out from the shoreline is so people, if they fall into a lake, they have the ability to crawl out of the lake more easily. It's a safety measure. And the break points argumentatively could -- you could think in a lot of cases, especially a lot of possibly retirement communities where you may not have a lot of people playing out back in their yards and possibly tumbling into a lake. Maybe the break points would deviate a little bit there. But in a community that will undoubtedly have a lot of children, I'm wondering what the reasoning is and the increased liability for the developer to have a break point that's less than standard, to a point it might put the children more at risk and the thus the developer for potentially liability in the future. Do you know why that decision was made? MR. NADEAU: The decision was made to provide for a closer fill balance on the site. The lake slopes were -- in fact, the lake slopes were extended out because of some of the comments made by your fellow commissioners related to having the banks being so dry sometimes in the dry season. And therefore, they changed those standards in the Land Development Code to provide for these deeper slopes. Now, we felt that it was an appropriate deviation to pursue. If you would like us to comply with code, we'll do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just concerned about the reasoning. You know, you've just stated on the record the reasoning was monetary. That's an interesting precedent when liability is concerned. Page 65 March 1, 2007 I wouldn't recommend you do this. I understand your reasoning behind it, but I don't think it's a good thing, especially when there's so many children going to be in this particular -- in these kind of neighborhoods. MR. NADEAU: Would a physical barrier such as a fence make a difference to you, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would look hideous, to put it bluntly. Okay, I understand your position on that. I had -- may have one or two questions left on the PUD that haven't been answered. No, I think that's it for me. Does anybody else have any other questions before we go to staff? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I'll wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. NADEAU: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staff presentation. MS. ZONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Melissa Zone, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development. We passed out the neighborhood information meeting. I was not the original planner assigned to this, and the information was -- wrong information was provided. So I would hope that when you comment about it, that the neighborhood information meeting notes that we provided today, this morning that I passed out, you referred to that. Also, I wanted to talk about the applicant did provide -- it is an RSF -4 zoning, and they are going to residential planned unit development. And there is an affordable housing component here. The affordable housing component would allow an additional 38 dwelling units. On the southern portion of the land, which is 13.2 acres of low residential, which is -- potentially they're allowed to Page 66 March 1, 2007 rezone up to four dwelling units an acre, which would result in 53 dwelling units. And they're asking for the additional 38, which would make it 91. The high residential district of the northern portion of the property is at an eight dwelling unit is what the potential is to rezone up to. Which would result in 229 dwelling units an acre. But they are asking for 84 dwelling units an acre. The question that Commissioner Caron had about the preserve areas. The environmental staff also asked the applicant to provide in the -- this portion of the preserves to make it a little bit more substantial. And so they worked with the applicant extensively. And that's why we have those two preserve areas. Because they also felt that this section would be very important because of the preserves connected here. And the area that they would be taken off to, since it is somewhat isolated, that the preserves would be more appropriate in this area. And that was their reasoning behind why they asked for additional here. If there are any questions that I might be able to assist you with? Otherwise -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How many units are you saying there are supposed to be in this project? MS. ZONE: Well, they're asking for 175 residential units. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And that's what it's going to be? MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, just to make sure I have it clear in my mind. Page 67 March 1, 2007 Down near that south intended preserve, we have a cul-de-sac, so that allows vehicles to turn around and there will be no structures in there. And a true preserve -- MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I presume? And what I didn't realize, you're saying adjacent to it there's a preserve, and that's in perpetuity? That's a declared preserve, or is that MS. ZONE: We have that listed on our land use element map as that. So hopefully they keep it as that. It shows, when I did my research, that Collier County owns that land for that reason. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's good. Now, coming back up to the north. Because you stressed in your staff report about the wood storks and so forth. And I just wondered, you know, I mean, I realize people are trying to find a balance to things, and I don't have a problem with that. But since you stress that and since there is such a concern for viability of these creatures, I just wondered whether or not we're giving away one when we could probably preserve the other more effectively. So I'm going to leave it to you now to take that concern away from me, because you did stress it. MS. ZONE: I appreciate that. Well, if you look at the preserve areas, there's this area right here of wetland. It wasn't on their EIS. It shows that though it is of wetland, it isn't of highest wetland. And the wood storks, the potential is more up into this area, which connects to other areas. And so it is of your discretion if you would want to take away from this preserve area, but this area here was also of high preserve. And what you're looking at is the quality more so than the amount. And so when you remove this portion, which isn't of highest quality area as this area, that it makes more sense to go down here. Page 68 March 1, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, one final question with regard to that. North of that preserve you said it connects. Is that also owned by Collier County? And is that a preserve, a declared preserve? MS. ZONE: Well, I believe that is owned by -- I'm not sure if it's Collier Enterprise or Barron Collier. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's not going to be a preserve. MS. ZONE: Well, but it -- because it's all wet, and the county -- if they did come in to work with that area, if we could find it reasonable, we would want them to connect. But it is a very dense, wet area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So Melissa, you're saying the best use for the preserve area is the way it is? MS. ZONE: Right. And in fact, we had been going back and forth, and that was part of what the holdup was. Because if you see, it's 2004 application was working with their environmental staff, as well as ours -- or their environmental consultants and our staff. And we finally had sat down and we just, okay, let's look at everything we have. And I didn't provide an e-mail, but our environmental staff actually commended R W A and Passarella & Associates with Habitat for the fact that they were able to preserve really good areas of preserve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: One more question. They're requesting 175 units. MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What is the maximum they could come in and ask for? MS. ZONE: Well, just in the -- the maximum would be 229 dwelling units. If you stay with just the base density, the southern Page 69 March 1, 2007 portion of four dwelling units an acre, and with their acreage of 13.2 acres. And then if you go to the higher residential area of eight dwelling units an acre, the base density at 21.9 acres, the whole project together would be 229. But instead they're going with the northern portion. They're asking for eight dwelling units an acre. And part of that is to preserve that wetland and then brought down to bring the residential, the lower residential, increase the affordable housing bonus density agreement, and then put in the additional dwelling units at that area. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. So basically it's 50 units less than they could have come in for. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing no other questions then, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to move that this board forward PUDZ-04-AR-6921, Faith Landing RPUD to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second that. And one additional recommendation is that the road to Eden Avenue be installed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we had stipulations. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, I'll let you do them. Page 70 March 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some, too. But the motion by Mr. Midney, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Now, stipulations. We talked about three issues I think we may want to see stipulated. One is that there be a footnote added to the development standards table to clarify that they would have a 23-foot setback from any sidewalk that's put in. Second, that they will connect to Eden Avenue. And this means a physical connection in asphalt, a functioning road system to Eden A venue, where it currently terminates with asphalt. And the third one that I would like to suggest is that we remove the -- we deny the deviation, only because that is a liability and this is an area that's going to have a lot of children in it. I don't think that's a very good thing to be doing, deviating that particular one, this one, especially. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both the first and second accept those stipulations? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll accept it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm definitely voting in favor of this because the need for affordable housing is so great. I mean, these are all people that need a place to live or a better place to live. But I'm kind of disappointed in the traffic planning that -- I guess this is just kind of the normal routine traffic acceptability of what's going on. To me we already have a problem on Lake Trafford Road, and this is going to make it quite a bit worse. The other thing that I'm disappointed with is the preserve situation. I'm with the Collier County Audubon Society and we do bird counts. I've been doing them for the past eight years. There used to be scrub jays to the west side of Lake Trafford Road. I think one of Page 71 March 1, 2007 the first Habitat developments that went in was -- I don't know the name of it. It was near the Immokalee cemetery. There used to be scrub jays all along the northern tier of Immokalee. There are not anymore there. When they surveyed this site, they had already been gone. And what has happened is that we've had a lot of piecemeal development. You know, we've had Habitat projects, we've had Jubilation, we've had Timber Ridge, we've had Sanders Pines. And what tends to happen is that the lands that are more environmentally sensitive where they might not want to put or permit something that was sort of like a profitable venture. And my own clinic where I work, they knocked out a huge swath of scrub jay habitat. And it just seems to be that these sort of like socially worthy things tend to go into the more environmentally sensitive areas. I don't have a big problem with this going in, because there are no more scrub jays there, haven't been now for a few years. But I think that it's just a shame that all these things are just sort of getting piecemealed, nibbled at until, you know, the human disturbance is such that you have a preserve in name. You have scrub jay preserves that are in all of these developments, and they're preserved with the native scrub oak vegetation, but there aren't going to be any birds there. Whether there will be able to be gopher tortoises, you know, in a little piece here where the tortoises cannot communicate with other tortoises, they cannot reproduce, there's no genetic intermingling. These tortoises are going to, you know, one day probably very soon wander into the road and be killed and that will be the end, because they're not going to be able to reproduce. And the same thing with the scrub jays. There's just too high a level of human interference in these areas. I'm not saying cancel this project or not let it go forward, but it's just kind of -- I think maybe who needs to look at this better is Fish & Page 72 March 1, 2007 Wildlife Services when they develop their standards or guidelines that say that there's not an unacceptable meddling with endangered species. Maybe there needs to be off-site mitigation for things like this. Because even if you set aside a little preserve here and a little preserve there, in the end it doesn't really affect the outcome. The threatened species are going to be eliminated one way or the other. But I'm in favor of the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Took you a little bit to get there, though. Okay, any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 9-0. MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #8D PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR-9716 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next petition is PUDZ-2006-AR-9716, the Westview Drive LLC concerning a project called the Liebig Page 73 March 1, 2007 CPUD. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this project, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there disclosures on the part of the planning commission? I had a meeting yesterday with Mr. Arnold. I went through most of my issues with him at that time and will probably repeat them here today. Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor and Associates, representing the property owner in this case. With me today is Dean Smith, professional engineer from our office, as well as T.J. Miester, who's also representative for the property owner. Most of you are familiar with the site. You've been around here long enough. It the old Eagle's Lodge site many, many years ago. And that building has since been demolished and the site has remained in a state of vacancy for the last several years. It is an infill project, and we are qualified to rezone it to a lesser intensity use because of its positioning between other similar type intensity uses. And there was an extensive analysis prepared by comprehensive planning. But in support of that for them we provided a comparative zoning analysis of the site to demonstrate that a C-l through C-4 and limited C-5 uses that we were seeking were demonstrating a lessening of the intensity of the industrial zoned site that we have today. And that went through several different considerations. We looked at architecture. You have different architectural standards for commercial PUDs than we have for industrial zoned sites. Page 74 March 1, 2007 We have different standards for our building height. For instance, our building height, proposed zoned height of 45 feet is less than the zoned height of 50 feet that you qualify for under industrial. So we went through those type of analyses. And staff concluded that yes, the PUD with the limited numbers of uses that we're providing for represents a lessening of intensity from industrial down to commercial PUD, which is why they recommended approval. One of the issues that came up last month, Carolina raised our attention, was that the Airport Authority technically is allowed to review these uses. So I did have a conversation with a gentleman named Irving Dane, who is one of the engineers for the Airport Authority. He reviewed our application materials. I spoke with him. He was concerned about the relationship of height, obviously, to the airport. And he concluded that based on the FAA standard that we probably could achieve a height somewhere close to 150 feet before we became an issue for the airport. So the zoned height of 45 feet that we're seeking is well within the range that's acceptable to the airport. He did indicate to me that there are a couple other FAA forms that we're required to fill out prior to construction to demonstrate that if we're having temporary cranes or anything of that nature, that they're put on notice, and typical work hours. But that's all standard, regardless of whether or not we're rezoning the property or not. But a good conversation. And they're obviously not here today, so they seem satisfied with the conversation I had with them. In terms of the staff report, I did want to point out, and I mentioned to Mr. Strain when we spoke, I guess it was yesterday, that the staff report contains not the most current PUD version that was submitted to staff. And there were really two principal changes to the document that were made that you haven't seen. And one was to simply add an actual height in addition to the zoned height. And we established in the current version that staff has a zoned height of 45 Page 75 March 1, 2007 feet, which is in your document. But it established an actual height of 55 feet. Ten feet above the zoned height seemed typical for elevator shafts or any other appurtenances above the zoned height. I don't think we have any compatibility issues with our neighbors. Fifty feet's the current zoned height allowed in industrial, and the actual height could certainly exceeded that. The other change was with respect to transportation conditions. Staff, as you well know, has been trying to eliminate redundancy of different conditions that reference LDC sections. So there were a couple of transportation conditions that we eliminated to eliminate that redundancy in reference to the LDC. And the only other change that was made was simply to establish a setback for accessory structures that mirrored the accessory structures setbacks labeled as single story. So I think all in all very minor changes, but I did want to highlight that the document you had wasn't exactly the one that we submitted back on February 1 st. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, before you go too much further, while we're on this subject, why don't we for the record so that when we stipulate anything, we have this information accurate -- MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand on the height page you were going to -- we have an issue that right now you're suggesting an actual height of 55 feet. MR. ARNOLD: Could I put that on the visualizer? I have the page that I can just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. ARNOLD: -- put up there and maybe we can all review that together, if that helps. I don't know if that's legible to all of you. That's pretty good. You'll see under the maximum height on letter D, we have the zoned height of 45 feet and then it says actual height, 55 feet. Page 76 March 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is it -- where is this? You have two other items. One of them was the accessory use -- MR. ARNOLD: Right. And that's just above. If you see item three just above D there, we added an accessory structure setback for multi-story accessory structures. Again, it still -- it has a larger front setback than the 25 feet for accessory structures, which Carolina and I discussed. And she seemed satisfied with that. Obviously if you're not, we can talk about that. And then we established the same side setback. But again, the height is still restricted to 35 feet for any accessory structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the last thing you're suggesting is striking some language under the Page 3-1, I would assume, development commitments? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Under Item 3.2, transportation. I don't have this page in strike-through, underlined, but I went over that with Mr. Casalanguida before the hearing began. And I talked to Carolina about it. And I don't think staff has any objection to the deletion of those, but I do think that staff is going to offer a revised condition on that page, based on the conversation I had with Mr. Casalanguida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go any further, let's finish your part of it. You're suggesting that all of 3.2 would be struck. MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then what parts of3.2 would be struck, from what your understanding is? MR. ARNOLD: Okay, let me go back and look at the existing document that you have in your -- if I could take that off just to compare it for a moment. F or instance, Item A in the version you have talks about all traffic control devices, et cetera, meeting the FDOT standards, et Page 77 March 1, 2007 cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just give us the numbers. MR. ARNOLD: That was item 3.2(A) in your existing version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ARNOLD: And Item 3.2(D), referencing the road impact fee ordinance was deleted. And I believe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about E? Unless you think you can get away with working in a right-of-way without a right-of-way permit. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, you're right. Item E was also deleted. And I believe that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about J? MR. ARNOLD: J references all sidewalks located within public rights-of-way shall be designed and constructed to LDC standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can they not be? MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, I think that was also deleted, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And that should be all of those. I think Nick and I discussed, and when appropriate, he's going to come back and offer a revision to Item D. And he's going to read some language that he and I discussed into the record shortly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay now, I'm sorry I have interrupted your presentation, but I wanted to catch that part of it while we're on it so-- , MR. ARNOLD: That's fine. I apologize for the situation, but I don't think there was anything there that was of such great consequence that we would need to hopefully not continue this for another two weeks to get the right one in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're fortunate, it was minor stuff. Page 78 March 1, 2007 MR. ARNOLD: Appreciate your indulgence. The other item that I wanted to mention is that this version of the document represents one of the more recent stripped down versions of this. And I think that in doing so, a couple of things occurred. One is that we need to add a reference to a commitment that we've told staff we would make and one that I need to tell you, and that would be that we would add an affordable housing contribution. I know that's something that with the linkage fee discussion and all that has gone back and forth. But the standard request has been 50 cents per square feet. We've asked for a gross leasable area of a maximum 50,000 square feet. And we can work with staff to add the language that's been offered by others that would have a credit toward any future linkage fee, et cetera. But I did want to mention that and make that commitment to you. We've not asked for any deviations from the code, and we're prepared to move forward on a project that will have obviously a pared down list of uses. We believe it's compatible, it's consistent, and we hope that you can make a favorable recommendation of staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, thank you. There's also standard language that we usually put in to clear up any controversy, if there's a change, that the land development control in effect at the time of site plan or plat or whatever development order it is that relates to that develop order controls. And that's just to take care of any argument that they were vested for what the standards were when the rezone was adopted. And I would like to see that. That's standard. But in this stripped-down version it's not in there, and I would like to see that in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. In an array of uses, including heavy commercial, what are they? Or give me some Page 79 March 1, 2007 examples of what they're going to be. MR. ARNOLD: Well, the references to C-5, I think there were -- I'd have to go back and grab my LDC and go through the list. But I do know for a fact automobile dealerships are one of the uses that are permitted in C-5 that allows new and used. C-4 allows new with accessory used car sales. I think C-5 allows both new and used car dealerships. And I also believe that under -- I think under -- there was one of the business services that I believe was more of a C-5, and I think that related to contract -- if I'm thinking of the right location, it was contract offices. But very few. And it was primarily for the auto dealership component. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Those are considered heavy commercial? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, for that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Relative to that, is it clear that this is intended to be an automobile dealership? MR. ARNOLD: It's one of the uses. And obviously the property owner is the Liebig family, who has developed Regency Auto House to the south, and they have other car dealerships. I don't think we're ready to say that this is the only use that could be there. That's why we've asked for a fairly limited other list of retail and office type uses together. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I noted that, minimum lot widths and so forth. But you also have your representation is a large structure, so it's kind of hard. But that relates to -- I noted that the 7,500 gallons water peak comes out to about 6.66 gallons per square foot. If there were a Page 80 March 1, 2007 dealership there, I presume there would be a car wash facility as well or some kind of prep place. And I just wondered, if we don't know, how did we come up with the numbers if we don't know what we're using, how we're going to play it out? Because if we go to the retail uses in your zip codes, you have them -- they come out to be some questions. So I don't see how we got to that number. How did we get to that number? MR. ARNOLD: We use a fairly standard number for nonresidential uses when they're -- I think it comes out to be about .15 gallons per square feet I think is the calculation that we go through. It's typical of that use. I think the one comparative that I have, you know, one of my good friends owns Captain Jerry's Seafood. And they're in the industrial district not far from here. They're an extremely high water user. But if you just looked at them from a perspective of okay, they're a wholesale food purveyor, but they wash and create their own ice and they're a huge consumer of water. But typically industrial users like that could be high water users, typically of retail and office. And probably even an auto dealership, the usage is very low, and in fact probably lower than a lot of other residential uses because of the consumption. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would have presumed that. So that I wondered then. So this number I would then say is assigned as a safety. MR. ARNOLD: I think so. I think it's a fair assumption. I don't think the usage rates would be extremely -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. MR. ARNOLD: -- high compared to that number. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I have another question with regard to the Cascade 2001 version 10 file, and it has to do with the base and the lane. And I just -- this is a fascinating document to me for the reasons that -- have you got there yet? Page 1 on that. And Page 81 March 1, 2007 Page 2 is where I'm going to ask the question. Very simple -- well, I think it's a simple question. I'm going to start out by -- when you get there. MR. ARNOLD: There, we're there. This is Dean Smith, better to address that, since he -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Certainly. I understand. MR. SMITH: Good morning. For the record, Dean Smith. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And my question is more for my education, perhaps, but maybe it will reveal something. Because we are all concerned with the impervious surface issues. If we have -- the way I saw this plan of a building and all of the parking all around it, we basically have lost almost all of our pervious. So when we look at this document we're seeing here one-day rainfall at 8.6 inches, area 3.91 acres. And then we talk about the initial stage four feet ofNGVD. And then my question was, does this correlate to the applicable and stated NGVD that's in here, as opposed to it simply being a baseline chart? And then the second part of that question is, I found it fascinating when I went down the line to get ratios that as the -- I guess the time and hours, if you have 60 hours of rain, it facinated me that you would have -- for instance, starting at 15 hours, you would have a .18 ratio between cumulative and instant runoff. When you get down to 62 hours, with 10.12 and 3.25, you have a third in a ratio. I just wondered, how all do you guys figure this stuff out? How do you work this kind of thing? MR. SMITH: Well, we don't figure it out is the answer to that. The Cascade program that this was run with is a software program that was prepared by South Florida Water Management District. And the distribution of the rainfall amounts and the runoff is based on historical data that they've collected over a long period of time. So the distribution and how the rainfall comes and the stronger Page 82 March 1, 2007 periods of rainfall and the lighter periods is based on former storm events. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I can appreciate that. But where I was going is I'm visualizing -- remember I'm using the document that's in the packet, and it relates to a large structure and all this parking area. And I'm saying this is all impervious surface. And does this table correlate directly to the program that we're being shown? Or is it something that -- because you've said we're not sure what we're doing. MR. SMITH: It does. Although on the master concept plan it looks small, there is a water management area that everything will be directed to. That's shown on the east side of the site in that scenario. And it's going to be something on the order of eight percent of the site area. So everything will go there first and then the outfall from that will -- the discharge will be controlled. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that dry retention or wet retention? MR. SMITH: It's dry detention, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's not really a lot. It's not a lot of space there, right? MR. SMITH: No. I think it was something slightly less than .2 acres for this site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's it on the right there on the visualized? MR. SMITH: That's it on the right-hand side of the site plan, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So it will be directed there and then it will percolate out. Is that what the intent is? MR. SMITH: No, it will have a controlled structure that controls the discharge. And for a site this small, it will probably all be controlled through a small bleeder -- Page 83 March 1, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so that's -- MR. SMITH: -- in that structure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I apologize for interrupting. So then the water in an event rainfall, the water would collect in there and then given -- it would be on a continuous basis drain out? MR. SMITH: That's right. On a controlled basis. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I was just wondering, my gosh, with all of that impervious surface, where is it all going to go? MR. SMITH: Right. And the purpose of this calculation is to establish how high a level that water will build up to as it's slowly discharging. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's the reason why I questioned about that four feet ofNGVD, because I don't know that it correlates to four feet where you're going to build there. I didn't see it where it was four feet NGVD. MR. SMITH: This is all just very preliminary, based on what we're asking for in the zoning at this point. It will all be redone again at this -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if you engineers are happy, I'll have to be happy, won't I? I think. Unless my fellow Chair, who's also an engineer, would be unhappy. MR. SMITH: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: And Mr. Murray, if I might, that plan is very conceptual. We haven't depicted really the foundation plantings and the landscape islands and things of that nature that do get established once you get farther along from a concept drawing to the real site development plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But it is a concern that we all share. MR. ARNOLD: Sure. Absolutely. Page 84 March 1, 2007 Well, keep in mind too, the site right now, it's about 100 percent impervious and there are no buffers or any water management facilities on site. So I think whatever the situation is, it's going to be improved. And we've been working with some of the other Westview Drive to establish positive drainage to the south toward Rock Creek that is beneficial to a larger part of this area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did have some other questions, but I think that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. We're here to ask questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, but I think perhaps Mr. Kolflat would like to -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Go ahead, that's all right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. I just -- and I think we've asked this, but I did mark out several of these things because it correlates again, or at least I hope it correlates to the traffic study. Where we get into Page 2.1 of the Section 2, commercial district, and it references the permitted uses, and I looked at these and I wondered, general merchandise stores, health services, miscellaneous retail, tax return preparation. My comment is there is it's as high intermittent. Probably not much during the course of three-quarters of the year but then at one point it could be intense. But I don't have an expectation you're going to have tax preparation there. But you don't really know yet what it is that you want to have there. MR. ARNOLD: No, sir, I think it is fair to say that the current property owner would anticipate trying to establish an automobile dealership here as their principal idea. But then again, if he decides not to construct his automobile dealership, he needs to have some reasonable use of commercial uses on there. But I think when we looked at this, I think the idea was do we really want four acres of potentially heavy industrial zoning at that Page 85 March 1, 2007 location in a fairly prime location with respect to the airport and the traffic patterns. And I think our answer was okay, we're going to offer a lessening of intensity with a bundle of uses that can make a reasonable use of the land for either the Liebigs or whomever might be a successor property owner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would not ordinarily advocate the loss of industrial, but given that this was by policy and not really a good fit in the area, I could appreciate that. But we had somebody come -- pardon me. We had a gentleman come through not too long ago who wanted also to put a second story on and do another kind of tech operation. And above -- in conceptualization, is this -- could that be included in this type of thing? A dealership with other accessory or other -- MR. ARNOLD: I guess that's a possibility. I'm not sure of the use, I didn't quite catch what use you indicated was one of the other -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It was a high tech. It was something to do with the Internet. It was something that this particular landowner has the scale and business interest in. A secondary activity. MR. ARNOLD: I don't think the property owner would be opposed at adding some other uses. I would only be concerned that -- I am getting a little bit crossways with your comprehensive planning staff, thinking that now I'm not lessening my intensity but I'm sort of trying it out, get the best of both worlds. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's exactly the reason why I'm asking it. So in other words, that's not conceptualized in this plan. MR. ARNOLD: No, it is not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And then you've already established the height. And that's it for me. Mr. Kolflat wanted to have something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? Page 86 March 1, 2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, please. On Page 5 of the staff report it says that the overall intensity is decreased. That's correct, isn't it? MR. ARNOLD: I won't try to answer for staff, but it's my recommendation to you that we have lessened the intensity of the site by trying to remove the industrial zoning on the site and reestablishing a commercial plan development with the limitation of uses that we provided. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Further down-- MR. ARNOLD: I think staff is agreed. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- on that same page the report states that there are no roadway segments impacted above three percent by the proposed development. They're not above three percent, but what are the road impacts on the segments between zero and three then? MR. ARNOLD: Can either have Dean Smith who prepared our traffic analysis answer that for you, or if you would rather hear from your transportation staff, whichever your preference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick is probably -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I just want the answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Nick could respond, that would be helpful. Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. What we've done -- and Dean, if I could borrow your report real quick. What we've done when we looked at this -- and we're trying to take guidance from prior meetings with you -- is we asked what they could put in based on existing zoning, highest and best use, and what they could put on with the future zoning highest and best use. So there was a reduction on there. As a percentage of service volume, with some of the projects we looked at, it was less than three percent, approximately two percent of Page 87 March 1, 2007 the project that would be on there, on the adjacent roadway network. What we looked at when we've done this is that there is a reduction between the highest and best use of existing zoning as compared to highest and best use of the current zoning. And obviously even with the car dealership, if that comes through, it's even much lower as well, too. So to answer your question, it's about two percent, and the change in zoning produces less impacts, highest and best use in both . scenanos. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What is the level of service of Airport Road about there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe right now that is level of service D. I don't have the AUIR table in front of me. I can confirm that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I beg your pardon? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You've got it right here? It's D. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm sorry, I didn't hear. MR. CASALANGUIDA: D, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: D as in David? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, I have a few more. I just have to find them for a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Are they transportation -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, not for transportation. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But these accessory structures that are referenced in there, can you give me an idea of what those would be for? Page 88 March 1, 2007 MR. ARNOLD: Accessory structures in -- there's a definition of accessory structures, but in the context of what we're proposing, certain accessory structures could be things as covered parking. You could have awnings, car ports. You could have -- potentially if you had an auto dealership, for instance, potentially a car wash facility, it wouldn't be a commercial car wash, but it would more of a detailed oriented car washing facility. Depended on the use. If we ended up being a standard office building, for instance, or a retail facility, accessory structures can range from things again, I think even garbage dumpsters and things like that are considered accessory to the site. We couldn't just establish a recycling bin on the site and have people come to it. It would have to be accessory and secondary to the principal uses that are permitted. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the uses are defined as far as what they would be. MR. ARNOLD: Very generally defined in the code. There's -- I don't think you're going to go to -- it's really defined as something that's generally accessory to a business. But they don't define specifically what accessory uses are, per se. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You wouldn't be talking about a McDonald's or anything like that. MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All right, another question I had is in the staff report it says the perimeter buffer along the east side of the property would be IS-foot type D buffer. On the east side. The plot shows that it will be 15 feet on the west side also. Is that just an omission in the verbiage there, and does the plat apply? MR. ARNOLD: I believe so. Our zoning to the east is actually industrial, and I believe we only have a 10- foot type A buffer requirement between commercial and industrial. There is a I5-foot type D buffer adjacent to Airport Road, and it's a 1 Q-foot type D buffer adjacent to Westview Drive. Page 89 March 1, 2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, the IS-foot D is shown on the drawing. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And that's what's going to be provided. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I just have a few more here, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On one page of the staffreport it talks about a deviation that's -- can you describe that a little bit? The sidewalk deviation. MR. ARNOLD: Maybe Carolina can best answer that. MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development review. Commissioner Kolflat, on Exhibit A, which is attached to your staff report, you are mentioning item six. It says in the pro and con discussion, the con is my mistake. That shouldn't be there. It should just state none. And I was going to state that for the record when it was my turn. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. MS. VALERA: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Then also looking at Item 15, in that item it's referred to as far as the industrial sites in the county will be diminished if the proposed rezone is approved. What is the significance of that effect or impact? Is it substantial? Have you done any -- MS. VALERA: I couldn't tell you exactly. But I will guess that it's very minimal. But I needed to point it out to you as part of your evaluation today. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But it is minimal. MS. VALERA: I don't have data to substantiate what I'm saying Page 90 March 1, 2007 right now. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: This question is probably for the petitioner more. The uses are in the PUD. Would you agree to those being stipulated? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. If it's in the PUD, it doesn't need to be stipulated, it's part of the document we would recommend approval or denial on. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's what I meant, that you would include that as a stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wouldn't need to. If it's in the PUD, and we recommend approval, it's part of the approval. There's no stipulation needed. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It's incorporated then as automatically stipulated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Every word in the PUD is what we'd be voting on. It automatically gets incorporated. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All right. I just wanted to be sure it was defined someplace so it would carry through that it would stay with that. Now, can you turn to your transportation report. On Page 1. That's the petitioner's report. Up at the top of that paragraph under introduction it describes the property as .1 miles north of the intersection of Airport Road and Radio Road. MR. SMITH: That's obviously a typo. It's south of Radio Road. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I was going to say, the drawing shows it to be south. MR. SMITH: It's at Westview Drive-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But it is north. MR. SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. Page 91 March 1, 2007 That's all I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is a question for you, Wayne. There's a word that's scaring me. You have parking field. That doesn't in any way mean that it wouldn't meet the landscape requirements for a parking lot, right? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. No, I labeled it parking field so that it was understood that there was going to be parking in front of that building. Maybe we could relabel it to something you're more comfortable with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As long as there's no expectation of being able to just park in it without the landscape. That's it. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, neighborhood information meeting, how many letters were sent out, and to where? MR. ARNOLD: I have my neighborhood file and I can count those, but we notified all property owners within the radius of the project. And of course you saw it and the staff report was correct, we had no attendees. So we waited 15 or 20 minutes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand it, but how many letters actually went out? MR. ARNOLD: I can go count. I have a property owner list in my file. If you'd allow me to actually count those, I will. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, I mean-- MR. ARNOLD: It wasn't many. Honestly, it wasn't. Just because we have the airport as the largest user directly to our west. And then in that radius of the industrial lots, I think it was probably less than a dozen notices, for certain. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The problem with that is of course that there were homes beside it -- behind it, rather. And in this situation I can understand what's going on. But the idea is that it's Page 92 March 1, 2007 supposed to be, I thought, approximately a mile area around -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, out in the rural. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: A quarter of a mile. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, 500 feet. That's always been. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 500 feet is what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 500 feet is one more than 499. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Good, we got that figured out. 500 feet in one direction. And that's three directions there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be about one lot around there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Boy, that's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There was some talk a while ago about 1,000 feet or a mile out going into the rural -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm not trying to put this off. I just -- in other areas lately we've been finding that nobody's showing up on this and nobody's showing up on that. And down here in this area, which is basically down this street, I would have assumed that at least more than a dozen letters would have gone out. MR. ARNOLD: You're correct. And my error. It looks at though we sent out 44 total property owner letters. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: At least that's based on what -- looked like we got billed for 19 property owner letters on one and then 44 on one. And I think that the zoning notice was a lesser distance than the neighborhood informational meeting notice. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. MS. VALERA: And Commissioner, I did receive a call from one of the owners on Westview Drive. He was interested to know what kind of uses they were proposing and where their access to the project was going to be, and he seemed satisfied with that information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Page 93 March 1, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then staff report, or whatever's left of the staff report. Carolina, did someone mention that you were leaving? MS. VALERA: I'm not leaving. I'm just going down the hall. Going to comprehensive planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you? Okay. Well, we'll miss you on your presentations. MS. VALERA: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: She'll be very much missed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You get to work with Mr. Bosi. MS. VALERA: Actually, with David Weeks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's good, too. Very good. Thank you. MS. VALERA: Thank you. Again, Carolina Valera, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development review, just for a while. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Counting the minutes. How many seconds? MS. VALERA: As noted in the staffreport, we did find the project consistent with the GMP . You do have the analysis of the compatibility of this project with the surrounding property. And we are recommending that you do forward this petition with a recommendation of approval. We did add one stipulation, that the height that they're proposing, if the Airport Authority finds during their certification process that the applicant has to go through at the time of site development plan, if that analysis shows that it's less than what they're proposing, that that will be the height that they will have to abide to. And with that, I'll be glad to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Carolina, the word parking field Page 94 March 1, 2007 doesn't give them any liberties, does it? MS. VALERA: No. Since there are no deviations as part of this PUD, they will have to meet the minimum code -- landscape requirements of the Land Development Code, you know, landscape, violations and so forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Carolina. Ray, do we have public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think Nick has a change he might want to suggest to one section. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners. With regard to the sketch that's shown in your monitor right now, there's three driveways on Westview currently. We've reduced that to two. The petitioner is asking for a driveway on Airport Road. We would like the ability to close that driveway, reduce it to egress only, and also ask that they show an interconnection now to the north. And all of these things have been agreed upon by the applicant. The idea being that right now there's a driveway about 60 feet to the north at that property corner. If there's a way we could share that drive with a neighbor and close that down and make it a better circulation, we would. But we would like to have that ability to close that driveway with no repercussions to the applicant. And they've agreed to do that. So we've offered to maybe modify the language that county has the right to close or reduce the driveway on Airport Road at its discretion, that that driveway, if allowed to remain would be shared with the neighbor. And that they would provide an interconnection point to the neighbor to the north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, you want to -- do you have anything to submit in writing, or do you want to make some of thoseN Page 95 March 1, 2007 points a little bit more so when we stipulate we can make sure we get as much of this in there as we need to? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. That the county has the right to close airport access with no repercussions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's the other part of it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Interconnection, as shown on the master plan to the north and provided for at the site development plan stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And it could be a shared driveway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the applicant is in agreement with all those? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. I don't think that we've seen a formal written text of the entire sentences, but in concept we're perfectly fine with what Nick has said. And hopefully we can at least take the liberty of taking his comments and putting it into the document for Margerie's review. Based on your positive recommendation, we hope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, there's no public speakers, so we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, stipulations, comments? You want me to read what I've written? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think I've got about a half dozen. First one is the language that was suggested for actual height of 55 feet will be added to the PUD. Page 96 March 1, 2007 The accessory setback language that modified 3-A to be 35 feet will be added of. The following sections of3.2 will be deleted: A, D, E and J. They will add a language for the affordable housing contribution of 50 cents per square foot. The language that Margie wanted added, that the LDC at the time controls will be included. And that Collier County will be -- another section added, 3.2, pursuant to discussion we just had with Nick that conceptually says that Collier County has the right to close the driveway entrance onto Airport Road and seek interconnection to the property as shown in the north. And that they will also look at utilizing a shared driveway. I believe that's all the stipulations I have notes on. Does anybody else have any others they want to add? Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor of the notion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Page 97 March 1, 2007 Item #9 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moving on. Ray, the old business. Has compo planning responded to you? I saw Mr. Bosi was in here earlier. And Carolina can maybe be inaugurated into her new position by responding today. I'm just kidding, Carolina, I know you can't. Oh, good morning, Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: Good morning. I'm sitting in the back doing work, going through e-mail. F or the record, Joe Schmitt. Yes, we're hoping we will get through G . We doubt we'll even get through that many on Monday, quite frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'd like to then make it clear today, and we'll probably announce it Monday morning as well, that the intent of the planning commission is to not go past G -- MR. SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at this time. MR. SCHMITT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That way anybody waiting for one later will know enough they can go home or not even show up and at this point we'll limit it to G. MR. SCHMITT: And the note I got, the rest of the books, you'll get your packets for the -- they should be going out today for meeting, what is it the 25th, I believe, the next meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 22nd, I think. MR. SCHMITT: Maybe the 22nd. So it's -- but yes, that's -- again, we're hoping we get to G, but I doubt we'll even get that far, given the interest in these camp. plan amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. Is there any other old business? Page 98 March 1, 2007 Item #10 NEW BUSINESS New business? (N 0 response.) Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No public comment. Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :32 a.m. Page 99 March 1, 2007 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 100