CCPC Minutes 03/15/2007 R
March 15, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida March 15, 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
JeffKlatzkow, Assistant County Attorney
Page 1
AGENDA
Revised
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 15,2007, IN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Not Available At This Time
6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS-FEBRUARY 13,2007, REGULAR MEETING
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 I A: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-Pnlling Road and Golden Gate Parkway, io Sections 24, 25
and 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County and the City of Naples, Florida. (Coordinator:
Kay Deselem) CONTINUED FROM 3/1/07
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 1,60 I.H 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) CONTINUED FROM 3/1/07
C. Petition: BD-2006-AR- I 0900, Kent Hall, represented by Jeff Rogers, of Turrell and Associates, Inc.,
requesting a 12-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in LDC Section
5.03.06.E.I to allow a boat dock facility protruding a total of 32 feet into the waterway and accommodating
two vessels. The subject property is located at 267 3rd Street West, Little Hickory Shores, Unit 3 Replat,
Block G, Lot 5, Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: AsWey
Blair)
D. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-8997, Elias Brothers Commnnities Two, Inc" represented by D. Wayne Arnold,
AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning district
to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for 220 single-family and multi-family
residential units for project known as the Bnttonwood Preserve PUD, The subject property, consisting of
55 acres, is located south east of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard intersection on Tree Farm
Road approximately 0.7 miles east of Collier Boulevard, in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz)
E. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-9150, Kerry Knbacki for Livingston Village, LLC, and Tannny Turner Kipp of
Vanderbilt Holdings II, LLC, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., is requesting a
rezone from the currently zoned "A" Agriculture with a Conditional Use (CU) overlay to "MPUD" Mixed
Use Planned Unit Development. The proposed rezone request is for up to 100,000 square feet of retail or
office space and ten multi-family units; the project is to be known as Bradford Sqnare MPUD. The subject
property is 9.18," acres located at 14258 Livingston Road, north east comer of Livingston Road and
Vanderbilt Beach Road, Section 31, Township 48 South, and Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Melissa Zone) CONTINUED TO 4/5/07
9. OLD BUSINESS
10. NEW BUSINESS
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
13. ADJOURN
3-15-07/CCPC Agenda/RB/sp
2
March 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. If you'll
please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And welcome to the March
15th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
We'll have roll call by our secretary.
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 is here, coming in
right now.
Ms. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we had bets on Mr. Midney,
whether he'd make it on time or just a minute later, so looks like I won
that bet.
Page 2
March 15, 2007
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
The addenda to the agenda. Staff had sent a notice around.
Petition E, the PUDZ-2006-AR-9150, it's the Bradford Square MPUD,
has been continued. It will not be heard today. So if any body is here
for that one, it's not on today's agenda any longer.
Is there any other addenda to the agenda?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to accept the
continuance of agenda Item E?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Adelstein.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Caron.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
Item #4
Page 3
. March 15, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Planning Commission absences.
Next week, and the week after, every Thursday this month, virtually,
the 22nd and the 29th, we have meetings on the Growth Management
Plan amendments that are remaining. There are -- I believe, Ray, both
meeting locations for those have been set for the developmental
services building; is that correct?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So next Thursday at 8:30 we will
all be meeting at developmental services building. We will start with
Petition 2006-4 and try to get through as many of them as we can in
eight or nine hours. That was the one we left off with -- or the one
that got continued from last meeting, left over from the Golden Gate
area.
So is anybody planning not being here on next Thursday?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have to leave before 4:00.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I do, too.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I'll be here otherwise.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we might -- I don't know what
time we're going to -- we'll decide next week how long to take it. And
if we still have a quorum after 4:00 to finish up, we may continue that.
Item #5
APPROV AL OF MINUTES
Okay, approval of minutes. There's none available at this time.
BCC reports?
Item #6
Page 4
March 15, 2007
BCC REPORT - RECAP FEBRUARY 13,2007 REGULAR
MEETING
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, last Tuesday the Board of County
Commissioners heard the rezone for the Copeland community. That
was approved on the summary agenda. And that was the second
hearing for that item, so that was a formal action approving that
rezone.
The board also heard the PUD amendment and DR! amendment
for the Pioneer Lakes, and that was approved -- both of those petitions
were approved 4-1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
Chairman's report. I am going to be good today and not say what
I'm thinking.
Item #8A
PETITION: DOA-2005-AR-7136
So we will move on to the advertised public hearings.
First petition today is one that was continued from our last
meeting. It's the Grey Oaks -- Naples Grande Holdings LLC for the
Grey Oaks Development of Regional Impact.
There are two petitions involving this project. The first one is
DOA-2005-AR-7136. And the second one is Petition
PUDA-2006-AR-I0157.
Since it's a DR!, we have a separate agenda item for the DR!
Page 5
March 15,2007
portion of it and a separate agenda item for the PUD. We will discuss
both of them simultaneously, but we'll vote on them separately as we
get to the end of our discussion.
And with that, we will allow the petitioner -- oh, disclosures. I'm
sorry .
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since the last meeting I've had
discussions with Bruce over the unit count.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any others?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had an e-mail and I think some
discussion with Mr. Tyson over different aspects of the PUD
document, which we will discuss today.
And ifthere's none others, then we'll ask the court reporter -- all
those wishing to testify on behalf of the petition, please rise and be
sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Tyson.
MR. TYSON: Thank you very much.
Good morning, Commissioners, one more time here. I'm a
certified planner and landscape architect with Wilson-Miller. And
with me this morning, I have Margaret Perry and Steve Sammons,
both of Wilson-Miller; Margaret a planner and Steve a landscape
architect. And Steve Leung, a transportation planner with David
Plummer & Associates, mainly to answer some questions I know Mr.
Strain has.
And I believe it was clear when I was here last week, as I'm
representing Naples Grande Holdings, owners of about 55 acres in the
southeast quadrant of the PUD.
That area is shown in blue. Ray, you might just want to try to
focus in on that just a little bit more.
What may not have been clear is that Wilson-Miller and I only
represent Naples Grande Holdings and therefore can only make
Page 6
March 15, 2007
changes to the PUD that relates to the land owned by Naples Grande
Holdings or those who consent to changes. We're not authorized to
make changes to portions of the PUD north of Golden Gate Parkway.
And I have created this little map that shows you. This is about a
55.5-acre holding that is part of Naples Grande Holdings.
Our hearing was continued on March 1 st because we discovered
some inconsistency in that 2000 approved version of the PUD and the
version that was presented to you in your packet. We've corrected this
problem, and I believe everyone has received that updated
strike-through/underlined version to make it easier to determine what
the changes were.
And because we are under this covenant not to make changes to
the PUD as it relates to the property, other than what we represent, I've
made a few additional changes and handed those out to you this
morning. It's a full document. And those changes are made in red.
And when ready, I'll be happy to discuss those changes with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know I've gone through the
document and there are still a lot of questions to be asked. But you
talked about not making any changes outside the area of the 55 acres.
Do you own all of the 55 acres in that yellow rectangle in the bottom?
MR. TYSON: Well, the 55 acres is what's outlined in blue. The
total area of what's in the yellow is approximately about 260 acres.
We do have consent from the owner of Orchid Run, which is the piece
that's about a 22-acre piece; the easternmost parcel as we've referred
to it, to make some modifications on their behalf. They are happy
otherwise with the deviations and with the other setback restrictions
that we have incorporated into the document.
But in terms of changes basically north of the Parkway, as it
relates to any dimensional requirements, any intensities, I cannot make
any changes there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe, in reading the staff report, this
is considered a substantial deviation?
Page 7
March 15,2007
MR. TYSON: No, it's an NOPC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'll get into that then.
Okay, I have some questions on the PUD, but I'll defer to my
commissioners first.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, it's back to unit count
again. Why do you need the additional 175 units?
MR. TYSON: The unit count is required because this property,
when it was transferred from Barron Collier to Panthers Grey Oaks, I
believe it was in 1999, at that time they were conveyed 75 residential
units and 250 hotel rooms. That's what they were authorized to use
within the PUD.
While there are some additional units within the PUD, they are to
the PUD originator and holder and so we have no rights to those. And
therefore, we need to get the additional 175 units in order to
accomplish the program, along with the zoning change.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, I mean, the sheets you
gave me, it shows that -- I mean, there's 1,600 units throughout the
whole thing.
MR. TYSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're changing the unit count
for the whole thing, correct? Remember, you were saying you're only
doing things that affect your quadrant, yet that table one change
affects the whole PUD.
MR. TYSON: Well, it changes it to the point of where the 1,600
units remain intact. And the 175 units that we are gaining then wind
up being committed to this parcel.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this parcel will be building
250 units?
MR. TYSON: It's going to build -- right now the plan is for 235.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What else has to be built in the
whole PUD?
Page 8
March 15,2007
MR. TYSON: As what's left?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Because from the
numbers you gave me, and you fixed it in the conversation so I'm not
subtracting that other number that I was, there's like 255 units left to
be built, using 75 for Naples Grande. I know you want more than that.
MR. TYSON: Correct. And that's where we're looking for the
175.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And are there other vacant lots
in the project? Or where are the other units going to go then?
MR. TYSON: Well, there are 300, if you noticed, of that number
that are committed to the easternmost parcel. That went as well in the
transfer. And then the balance of units are for projects that are north
of Golden Gate Parkway, the northwest and northeast quadrants.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that will leave -- the 255
units will still be available north of the Parkway?
MR. TYSON: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there 255 vacant lots north of the
Parkway?
MR. TYSON: I really don't know that answer. I couldn't tell
you. But those are units that we can't, by covenant, touch or affect.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What maybe would be nice is if
you built housing in the commercial area and used them there. But
that's not something you can do.
In other words, there's 255 units that essentially if you built out
this quadrant and they built out the commercial, there'd be no need for
it, other than maybe in the future. And the question is that you really
didn't need the 175 to keep it under the 1,600.
MR. TYSON: But that's -- those are agreements between
owners. And that's the way in which the owners chose to deal with
this. And so those units continue with the parcels to the north, the
northeast and northwest quadrants.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, the way
Page 9
March 15, 2007
you've worded this and swapping the hotel units is such that you don't
diminish any units that would have been available to the northern part.
MR. TYSON: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 40. That would be F under
utilities. There's a new statement in here. Just to have it clear for my
mind, the second sentence in there, developer shall be responsible for
providing on-site piping and pumping facilities from the county's point
of delivery to the project and negotiate with the county to provide full
or partial on-site storage facilities.
Storage facilities in that case would be what, a lake or
underground or piping or what?
MR. TYSON: No, I believe they're talking strictly about the
public utilities as they would relate to water or sewer.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is not water that would be
used for lawns and so forth?
MR. TYSON: No.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not reclaimed water.
MR. TYSON: No.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I wanted to be clear on
that.
MR. TYSON : Well, it could be, excuse me, because that is part
of the public utility system. I'm sure it could be interpreted that way.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, but it's not intended -- it's
not declared to be that that would be --
MR. TYSON: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- deliverable to you or to that
group at large?
MR. TYSON: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you would be in a queue if
there were -- if that water were being sold, that would be in a queue.
Page 10
March 15, 2007
MR. TYSON: That would be correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to see that there
was no particular preference involved.
This may be a small request, but in the sales centers, I find it
interesting, and maybe this is common, sales centers, that's under Page
12 under 2.14. Sales centers may be constructed prior to the recording
of the plat. And then it goes on to say, sales centers may be serviced
by a temporary utility system, a dry well or septic.
Is that fairly common? You're going to keep this land open, put
in a septic system and then you'll plat it later and then put in your
sewage; is that what the whole idea is?
MR. TYSON: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fairly common practice?
That's all I needed to know, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? Go ahead, Mr.
Adelstein.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: In the same situation, on Page
12-B, it says here they cannot be permanently occupied. Can they be
occupied at all at this stage?
MR. TYSON: Typically the way that works, if I'm not mistaken,
is that in order to be occupied, they have to then be fully compliant
with the county's ordinances. Then be hooked up.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To a sewer.
MR. TYSON: You would have to be into a sewer system, or be
part of an approved septic system.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, on that same page, what is
a dry model?
MR. TYSON: It typically refers to a model home that would be
placed without having a connection for a water or a sewer system.
That they could have -- if they have any kind of systems for that,
Page 11
March 15, 2007
they're temporary in nature. And the county has very stringent
restrictions on that, quite frankly, in the way in which that's done.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: May I go on?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely, sir, go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On the PUD, not the
strike-through version but the other version, do you have a copy of
that? On the front page there, it says Ordinance No. 07, and then it
goes on to state Ordinance No. 04-41 as development code. That's the
one that's amended.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, could you bring your mic a
little closer to you, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right.
On the top page there, see where it says amending Ordinance No.
04-41 ?
MR. TYSON: Are you referring to the --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm referring to the --
MR. TYSON: -- PUD that's currently in effect?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, did you have something
you wanted to add?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Somebody asked Mr. Kolflat if he
was referring to the ordinance that the PUD is an exhibit to.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It's the one that was in the
packet that I got. And it says up there that it's amending Ordinance
No. 04-41, which I can't find.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is on the resolution, or actually the
ordinance number, the draft ordinance that -- the legal document.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, that's typically there. That's
the Land Development Code. Because each PUD is an amendment to
the Land Development Code. So that's why we -- that's standard
language that we used to put 91-102, when 91-102 was the land code.
But each PUD is an amendment to the land code.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But this page is attached to the
Page 12
March 15,2007
first page of the planned unit development document which references
90-48 ordinance.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That may be. Because in mine--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, I--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I think the problem is the
way it was presented last time; the ordinance was stapled to the cover
of the PUD, which made it hard to find the PUD. But Tor's problem I
think is that he thinks it's part of the PUD. And it's not. It's just the
way the staff stapled them.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, I think that's what it is.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: They should be separate then.
They shouldn't be attached as one.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, it should be on the cover and
the PUD document attached as Exhibit A to that.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Okay, thank you.
I had a few other questions on the strike-through version of the
PUD. On page number seven, the Golden Gate Parkway, as described
in OR Book 465 up there underlined, can you show me where that is
on the plat?
MR. TYSON: All right. Without having a very -- a detailed
piece of this, what had happened was that there -- on the Golden Gate
Parkway, and I don't have the exact acreage, but there were quantities
of land that had been dedicated through the -- or been requested to be
dedicated through the PUD and DR! processes that have given lands
that are north of the existing yellow line that is here, and south of that
existing yellow line, to the county.
They total -- and by the way, they're on both sides. There's
approximately 13.3 acres between what is on the section in Grey Oaks
and what is in -- what's considered The Estuary. And then
approximately, if I'm not mistaken, about two acres that were donated
on the south. I mean, people were compensated for this, but it was a
requested situation. So I guess in total, about 15 acres were part of
Page 13
March 15,2007
that transfer.
I don't know exactly how many were requested in that. There
were two separate ones I know at a minimum.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
On page number 11, there's another deletion there. I'm curious
where that land is. It's up there in the top paragraph.
MR. TYSON: On Page 11 with the lake siding? I'm sorry;
maybe we've got different pages.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, on the lake siding.
You've got there that the requirements described in those units there
were reduced -- may be reduced.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One is the references to the old code
and I think the other is references to the new.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Oh, they're just putting them
together?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just clarifying that we've changed
codes. And you'll find through the document, there's been a lot of text
clarification for our different codes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right.
Then Page 14, Bruce, if you could, please.
Second paragraph under B. Could you show me the location of
the wall along Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road that you're
talking about there?
MR. TYSON: Sure. That is from about -- a location, it will be--
that will be right about where my pen is over to this location. And
then this is total -- that's what we're referring to in the document. How
that gets constructed as far as this portion, meaning over on this
easternmost parcel, is totally up to them.
But we're allowing that to occur by this change. But at least I can
tell you that that wall from a standpoint of location as far as we're
concerned will be right in this location, which would be opposite of
the one that exists over in Grey Oaks.
Page 14
March 15, 2007
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
On that same page you say, within that quadrant the cul-de-sac
will be 2,300 feet in length, providing that roadway and cul-de-sac
lengths do not conflict with the county fire protection ordinance. My
question is, does it conflict?
MR. TYSON: It does not.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It does not conflict. Thank you.
MR. TYSON: By the way, that refers to the radius of the
cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right.
Then the next one is Page 18. Under 3.04, item one, can you tell
me the difference between a townhouse and a town home?
MR. TYSON: I think they're one in the same. I think that was
just a -- to be consistent, we left it at a point of where we called it a
town home.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: There's no distinction then
between the structure and the construction of it?
MR. TYSON: No.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On Page 21, under the
multi-family townhouse, under height, it indicates it can be six stories,
apparently, plus two stories of parking; is that correct?
MR. TYSON: That's exactly how I read it, yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Brad had some comments on
that at our last meeting and concerns about that. Did that allay that,
Brad, or did you have anything you wanted to mention on that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it says what it says. It
could be an eight-story building.
MR. TYSON: That is true.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's really part of the old
PUD. You're not changing that, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think he could change that
without the consent of the balance of the owners of the PUD, so that
Page 15
March 15,2007
wouldn't have been a problem to do.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So that would be -- enable to be
anyplace else in the PUD, correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As it always has been, yeah.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Okay, thank you. That's all the
questions I have, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any others?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, let's go to Page 14. The -- you
refer to a 10-foot high wall, and the last sentence suggests that it's to
match existing. Are the existing walls 10 feet high?
MR. TYSON: The existing walls are eight feet. But the way in
which the code roads is that they -- you have to get the top of the wall
height based on the elevations of the lot. In many cases, they've been
raised up so that they're on a water management berm, as ours will be.
So that the elevation ofthe top of the wall will be approximately
somewhere between right about 10 feet above the average grade of the
site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will they appear any different than the
existing?
MR. TYSON: No. That's exactly what the intent is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Turn to Page 32, item number 12.
MR. TYSON : Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering if that conflicts with
the reference in any way to the wall requirement on Page 14 that we
just discussed.
MR. TYSON: Well, the difference between that one, as you'll
notice, is that it is in the commercial section. And it refers to walls
that exist between the commercial and residential districts within the
PUD. It is not for walls that are out adjacent to the rights-of-way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If the PUD allowed the walls to
be measured -- eight-foot walls to be in essence 10 feet, based on the
Page 16
March 15, 2007
language that was previously determined, why do you think it needs to
be changed?
MR. TYSON: I'm just trying to clarify. Because I don't think in
the past -- I can't tell you whether that distinction about the wall height
being as measured from the average site of the -- or the average grade
of the lot was ever in the code when this was con -- when this was
placed here.
So consequently I'm trying to get it to the point of where it's very
clear for the reviewers when they look at our plans that they will
recognize what the elevation of the top of the wall is as it relates then
to the grade of the lot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 15, up on top under the
commercial, you have 1.2 million square feet. On the bottom under
commercial you have 100,000 square feet. And below the 100,000,
you have office and retail broken down. I'm assuming that the 1,640
is a breakdown of the 100 and not addition to the 100; is that correct?
MR. TYSON: I believe that is exactly the case for both of them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because this is leading into another
question on Page 16 and 17.
MR. TYSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I know this is existing language,
but I'm trying to understand how it fits in.
If you notice on Page 16 under cumulative project year seven
through 13, you have commercial gross leasable space and office at a
half a million.
MR. TYSON : Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you turn to Page 17, you look at
commercial, you have square feet and office at 1.3 million. 1.3
reflects the addition on Page 15 of the 1.2 and the 100,000.
Now, if you take the 1.3, is that a cumulative total including the
500 from before, or is that -- that does include the 500 from before so
we're not talking 1.8?
Page 17
March 15,2007
Yeah, it does. I just noticed it said cumulative up on top, so
we're fine. I answered my own question.
Page 22, your additional language is talking about how you
cluster buildings around parking garages. If you have adjacent
multi-family buildings, you can reduce the distances and the last part
of it says of the two multi-family buildings. What if you have more
than two clustered together? What ones do you measure from for your
setbacks?
MR. TYSON: They would all wind up being identical. I mean,
no matter how many you had.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your heights aren't going to vary within
the cluster then?
MR. TYSON: No. No.
If you can appreciate what we were faced with is a driveway that
would serve two buildings, basically, that would enter into, and then
you would have them come off of the roadway. In other words, you're
going to have one curb cut for two buildings. It would come in and it
would -- then they would then feed into the buildings.
What happens is as your buildings get higher they have to be
spread, according to the code. And then what we have is a whole, you
know, series of pavement out there that just wouldn't be attractive. So
what we did is created a situation where we could get them to a
reasonable distance, and it would make a far better project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, do you have
enclosed garages?
MR. TYSON: Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd be coming in the common
driveway going left and right --
MR. TYSON: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to your closed garage, and the
backing radius is all you need to come out on them.
MR. TYSON: We have at least 30 feet between the structures.
Page 18
March 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 29. This is under the commercial
section. I mentioned this to you in my e-mail that you previously have
proffered that you're taking out the hotel/motel -- the hotel uses and
transient.
But it looks like under H on Page 29 the hotel uses are still in.
And I'm wondering if that is intentional.
You didn't think it was when you e-mailed me back, but I kind of
knew it would be, so --
MR. TYSON: It just leaves the flexibility for the -- and again,
this is now for -- this is -- this is the commercial area. I don't think
there's -- I can't tell you what the intent is on the north side for ever
making a change. But the point is that I think at this stage of the game
hotels are out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm concerned, because the whole
premise of your whole project today in front of us is that you're taking
out the hotels, reducing density, saving traffic, and it looks like you
can put it all back in.
MR. TYSON: Well, I think for clarity, since it's very specific as
to where those are to be used within the project, which is on the
southeast quadrant, I have no problem taking them out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but you don't control that
property .
MR. TYSON: Southeast quadrant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This commercial piece they're talking
about isn't for just the southeast. This is under the commercial --
MR. TYSON: Well, if you read the top, what's going on here,
you have office commercial and you have retail and then you have
commercial hotel.
As it relates to the commercial hotel, which is what is on the
southeast quadrant, we can remove it. There appears to be, when I
look at this, if you're looking at a distinction between office and retail,
it does not include hotel. So I don't think there's any problem in
Page 19
March 15,2007
removing it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But under the permitted
principal uses and structures on 602.1, it says for the C and O/C
sections of the project. So if you take hotel out of that item that I'm
pointing out on Page 29, wouldn't you be taking out the right of the
area for C and O/C to use hotel then?
MR. TYSON: Well, if you'd -- I'm looking under the land use
summary. Which page are we on again? I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Page 29.
MR. TYSON: Okay. But if you go back to 15. You take the
northeast and southeast quadrants. We've listed that hotel as a separate
use is now being eliminated. So there was never the opportunity to
have any hotels in the northeast quadrant, because they were strictly in
the southeast quadrant. Those 250 hotel rooms --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go further.
Ms. Student, under the commercial criteria, according to 602.1,
principal uses and structures for C and O/C and town center tracts
have a listing that start from A and go through V. In my previous
readings of PUDs in front of us is anything in that listing is a
permitted use by right in those particular designations. Would hotel
be a permitted use by right in those designations?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, in my mind it creates a
conflict and I'm not sure I understand the total explanation yet, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is what I e-mailedyouabout.Itis
in here. And we -- I think it needs to be resolved. Because if you're
telling us the purpose of this whole thing is to take out the hotel uses
but they're still allowed in other parts of the project, we really haven't
done that.
And now if you want to add a little more confusion to it, look on
Page 32, No.8. The density conversion for hotel and transient lodging
has been struck, which seems to indicate even stronger that all the
transient, lodging and hotel uses ought to be struck. You don't have
Page 20
March 15,2007
control over striking those, because they're on properties you don't
control. I'm wondering how we're going to accomplish that.
MR. TYSON: Well, I believe I do in this case. As I was going
back to the chart that I was saying I -- let me find that again, which is
on Page 15.
The hotel use that's shown there, if you notice, there's 250 hotel
rooms on 20 acres. There's only one location where those could go on
the PUD map, the existing one. It's in the southeast quadrant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, you're going to have to
rule on this, because I want to make sure we don't make mistakes.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I guess I'm concerned about--
because on the face of it, it appears to be a conflict. I understand what
he's saying, that on the quadrants that remain that are vacant, you
know, you couldn't build this because of the language.
But I guess my concern might be some day down the road if this
is ever all redeveloped, then do we have a conflict where, you know,
there'd be some land that would -- let's just say we had the -- you
know, the big one, a hurricane come through and everything's
destroyed.
I mean, I don't know, I'm assuming there's other properties that
are in the hands of homeowners associations and such where they
would probably rebuild. But I think it does create -- what's the word I
want -- I guess almost a philosophical discussion about if they wanted
to come in and redevelop or the thing was destroyed and it was
brought up by a new developer and they wanted to redo it, then you
don't have development on the ground anymore. So there could be
created a conflict in the document in that eventuality, as I understand
it.
So that would -- to me the simplest thing to do would be to gain
permission from the owners of that piece, if that's possible, to just take
it out.
Because we sort of have a hamstrung situation here where that
Page 21
March 15, 2007
applicant is not -- or that entity is not before us today. So we would
be tinkering with a part of the document that he doesn't represent, yet
he's taking hotels out as they apply to his pieces but it's still in here in
the broader concept.
Have I stated that correctly?
MR. TYSON: Well, I believe you have, but at the same time I
also believe that you'll notice, if you go to -- if you have a copy of the
development order, we have removed 250 hotel rooms, and there's no
opportunity for any additional hotel rooms anywhere on the project,
because at that stage there's only, what is only left is commercial and
__ meaning you have retail and you have office square footage. It is
the only thing left in the development. The hotel rooms have been
eliminated.
And as I indicated before, the only place, if you go back in and
look at what's referred to at the top of the commercial section, you'll
notice that it says specifically C/H. The only designated area for C/H,
which is the commercial/hotel, is in the southeast quadrant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but Bruce, the other areas that
could have hotels, and we've been focusing on the northeast and
southeast quadrants. The northwest quadrant, which I know is in the
City of Naples, I'm just wondering, does this application apply for that
quadrant of the Grey Oaks PUD as well? Not this application, but
does the language of this PUD apply to the northwest quadrant?
Because there is some O/C in the northeast quadrant that is currently
undeveloped.
MR. TYSON: There's O/C, but there's no C/H.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. But the permitted uses
under O/C could allow a hotel then on that parcel.
MR. TYSON : Well, I have no problem with removing the ho --
because I believe in that case it is construed through the way in which
this is all worded to remove those uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bruce, I know you don't have a
Page 22
March 15,2007
problem with it. I'm glad you don't. I don't -- maybe nobody else
will. I just want to make sure legally that we can resolve the issue.
That's all I'm trying to get to. I don't have an objection to it, I'm just
trying to get there.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, prior to you coming
today, could they in the commercial area convert some of their
residential density to hotel and build a hotel in that commercial area,
along with commercial?
MR. TYSON: No, I don't think so. I mean, there's a statement
back in here, but we've struck through any kind of opportunity to get
units for hotels. It's the other way around.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do you have the authority to
do that? Because it might be good design to have a hotel mixed in
with a mixed use.
MR. TYSON: But I think at that stage of the game, someone
would have to come back with a completely new plan and a new
opportunity and revise the map and revise whatever needs to be done
as an amendment.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the question, prior to you
striking it through, and you struck it through, could somebody convert
rooms to hotel and build a hotel in that commercial area? Which one
is in Naples and one is in Collier.
MR. TYSON: I think it's more of a question for staff as how
they would interpret it when you look at the map.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go there, though, Margie,
we've got some again strike-throughs that are in sections of this that
may apply to sections of this PUD that are not controlled by the
applicant for the piece they're talking about today.
Have you reviewed the strike-through version we're reviewing,
and have you found that all the strike-throughs can be done without
the consent of any other owner of the Grey Oaks PUD?
Page 23
March 15, 2007
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I asked Mr. Tyson this question
yesterday or a couple days ago about the removal of the hotels and did
that affect anybody else's parcel. And I thought I -- you know, I'm
grappling with what I remember. But I thought that it was -- would
not be a non-issue (sic), but I did raise the question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but that doesn't -- Margie, we
need to figure out how to proceed here today.
Are we proceeding with something that can stick, or can the
property owners outside the 55 acres or whatever in the southeast
quadrant raise a legal concern later on if they wanted to build a hotel
on another part of this project?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, it's being taken out of the
PUD and the development order, except where you see it.
And I was assured, and Bruce, correct me if I'm wrong, but you
remember we had that conversation, and I think you told me that it
was okay or the other property owners didn't have an issue, or -- I
remember the sum and substance was that it wasn't a problem.
Because I did approach it.
MR. TYSON: Well, as you can appreciate in going through one
of these, and the reason for all of these -- some additional
modifications that we have is because of this final coordination.
I have a verbal statement that was given to me by the owners of
the PUD saying let's go with it. I mean, there's a lot of changes in here
that affect the entire PUD, whether they're typos, whether they're -- no
matter what they are, that they will affect the entire PUD.
So, you know, those things do occur, there's no question about it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, if we were to come to a
recommendation on this project today, could the recommendation
have a stipulation that the consent of the ownership of the balance of
the unoccupied or unutilized development areas of this project be
obtained prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, I think so. As long as that
Page 24
March 15, 2007
consent related to portions of the document that may affect their
interest.
And as far as typos and changing language from the zoning
director to the board of zoning appeals and removing references to old
provisions of the land code and just saying the land code, I don't think
that's really a problem. We're just trying to clean up that document to
make it be consistent with what we do.
But as I said, I did raise the issue about the hotels, so -- and if
there's anything else that need be, I think that's entirely appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I'll go through and
continue, and then you guys can figure out how to get that language, if
this goes forward.
Mr. Bellows, you had something?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, zoning manager.
I just had a discussion with Kay Deselem, a Principal Planner,
and as you can see on the originally approved Grey Oaks master plan,
the only occurrence of the C/H which would allow for the hotel use is
on the south side, on the southeast part that's subject to this
amendment. It doesn't occur anywhere else.
So eliminating the language for hotel and zeroing down the units
to zero would not impact development potential elsewhere outside the
scope of this application. It's not shown anywhere else on the original
approved master plan, where it could be allowed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ray, since you wanted to weigh
into this, if you turn to Page 28, 602.1, it says, permitted principal uses
and structures for C, commercial, O/C and C/H in town center tracts.
Now, it lists a whole pile of three pages of permitted uses, including
hotels, motels and transient lodgings.
I'm just trying to find out, if it says that, how would you not
believe that you couldn't have hotel, motel and transient lodgings in C,
O/C in town centers when it seems to be clear that it's a permitted use?
And maybe I'm -- if I'm reading it wrong, please clarify that. Am I
Page 25
March 15,2007
reading it wrong?
MS. DESELEM: If! may, for the record, Kay Deselem,
Principal Planner.
My understanding of how this is supposed to work is you notice
at the top of Page 28, in 601, they've struck through C/H, commercial
hotel. And in conjunction with that, it probably should have had a
strike-through through hotels and motels in H on Page 29. That would
have been the consistent way to do it.
I would suggest to you that it was an oversight not to have struck
it through. And you found what should have been done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is where I was originally going.
My concern, though, goes back now to the ability of this
applicant to take out a principal use from somebody else's zoned
property where it's zoned commercial and zoned O/C.
I understand what you're saying. Those sites that were C/H most
likely could only have commercial hotel. But that does not negate the
ability for C and O/C to have a hotel with their other uses as allowed
by the permitted uses by right shown on this PUD document.
MS. DESELEM: The document -- the map that Ray put on the
overhead is actually map H from the DR!, and that shows that C/H
tract. And we also have map H-l, which will replace that.
And if you go up to the key, the legend at the very top, it shows
you in definition that C/H is the only one in the DR! that allowed that
hotel use.
So in combination with the approval of the DR!, I think it's
appropriate, and it won't affect anybody else's rights. But I'm not an
attorney, but I think it's appropriate to remove the use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: But Kay, once this change is made,
then that notation of C/H goes away. So the C, the regular
commercial portion, could potentially say that because it's a permitted
right under here, we can put it on just the commercial property now.
Page 26
March 15,2007
Because it's listed here as a --
MS. DESELEM: I understand how they might say that, but I
think it would be contrary to the DRI development order approval.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But we're just about to change that
and wipe that part of it off the map. C/H is going to go away.
MS. DESELEM: Right. That's what I'm -- I guess I'm not being
clear. The C/H is going away because this petitioner was the only one
that had authority under the DRI development order to build a hotel
unit. Therefore, he's removing it from --
COMMISSIONER CARON: If you leave it under H, after
you've taken it away, but if you leave it under H, then anyone of these
commercial areas could potentially build a hotel, because it's a
permitted right. That's not going away here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Donna, isn't that a good
thing? I think it's a good thing. So I think if we leave it without
striking through the word hotel, somebody in the future could come in
and do exactly that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But it's --
MR. TYSON: If I can --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, now. We've got someone
trying to take our words down.
Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The developer also has to follow
the DRI, and it sets up a conflict. And the DRI of course is because
there's a regional impact, it has to go through the DCA and the
Regional Planning Council as well as the local government. And then
the PUD addresses our local concerns.
And I still think the safest course of action is to take it out of the
commercial and just to be conservative and safe get an okay from
whomever you need to get it. And that way you've think dotted all the
I's and crossed the T's.
Page 27
March 15,2007
MR. TYSON: Just for the record, we were in touch with the land
holder of the northeast and northwest quadrants. They have given me
the approval and the authority to go ahead and strike through the
words hotel from my -- let's make sure we're right here. Under
paragraph H on Page 29, take out the words hotels, motels and
transient lodging facilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that Mr. Varnadoe sitting there,
wishing --
MR. TYSON: Mr. Varnadoe and Mr. Sansbury (phonetic), yes,
thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, cell phones are wonderful, aren't
they?
MR. TYSON : Yes, they sure are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 34, it's talking about the .89 acres.
MR. TYSON : Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know there's an issue involving
another property owner or maybe a contract holder, whatever, of that
piece of property. And I know you -- in the red changes you've
recently given us, you've taken out the word minimum. Because it
previously said minimum .89 acres.
By taking that word out, what was your intention? Because I had
circled that as a question, as a concern.
MR. TYSON: From -- and I'll let them speak to it specially, if
you have any questions beyond this.
The intent was to get to a point of definity, let's say, of just
saying how much do we really have to give and commit. And so it
was to the point of saying if we need to give .89 acres, we'll give .89
acres, and they'll make it very specific.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the note that I had. I was -- you
know, if you have a minimum, that means if you were deficient
somewhere else in the project, that project would have to make up the
deficiency and it could be above .89.
Page 28
March 15,2007
So right now that .89 is all they're going to have to provide?
MR. TYSON: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 36, transportation, 705.1 and 2.
Just what you added, might take the A and the long and put them
together in both sentences. Just it will make it a little easier to read.
MR. TYSON: Oh, I see what you're saying. Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A long, versus along might be construed
to be different.
Page 37, you had some strike-throughs there. In the center part of
B you have a strike-through, and I'll read it so you can find it. It says
__ starts with the word aforementioned on the left-hand side. It says
aforementioned right-of-way. Then the sentence says, said additional
property shall, to the extent it exceeds 25 feet, be in the form of an
easement for drainage, water management, landscaping and bike path
use.
You go down to number four. And the reason for the
strike-through is apparently because number four says -- the additional
language says, all right-of-way dedications involving Livingston,
Airport and the north side of Golden Gate Parkway have occurred.
Well, an easement isn't a -- I didn't know if an easement is
considered a dedication. So what I'm concerned about is if you take
out all the -- you strike through all that stuff and there are easement
requirements, do we know if they've been met or not? Because 4
seems to indicate and affirms only dedications have been met. Does
anybody -- has anybody looked at that?
MR. TYSON: I think from the standpoint of transportation and
their overview of this, I would suggest that they felt that they were
comfortable with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're not paying attention to the
meeting right now, so I don't know how I can get their attention.
Nick's studying something on the Internet. Ah, here he goes.
We're going to have to repeat our questions so that he or Don can
Page 29
March 15,2007
answer them then, because they will need to be addressed.
And Nick, we're talking about Page 37 of the PUD document. If
you have it, you might want to bring it up, or use Bruce's version.
Nick, the question was that this language they've added kind of
acknowledges that all the dedications have been taken care of. But in
the strike-throughs there were more than what are maybe considered
typical dedications; there were a lot of easement requirements. And
the question now is if that's all struck through, have you got
everything you need regarding all those items in there for drainage,
water management, landscaping and bike path use? So if you haven't,
we need to put that -- leave that language in.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida. I
have not been sworn in.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can tell you we wouldn't have
released the design to be under construction if we didn't have
everything we need for that, but I can't verify that everything's been
done to this section of strike-through. So I would like to get a copy of
the plans and take a look at it. Maybe we could say that between now
and, say, a board hearing we just recommend that we confirm that
everything's been taken care of for that design.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if the applicant will agree,
then between now and the time of the board hearing, ifthere's any
easements or things or language -- if you feel more comfortable the
language should stay in, then through no objection of the applicant it
should stay in.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
On Page 38, on the very top, the very first strike-through, it's
talking about the water management system will accept, then it says
shall accept drainage from both the quality and quantitative
standpoint. And it's looking for the drainage assistance in the Golden
Page 30
March 15,2007
Gate Parkway. And you struck through it.
So has that been -- again, it's not a dedication, that's another use.
Has that been --
MR. TYSON: Again, I would assume that transportation was
satisfied with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe if Nick can look at that one prior
to board hearing, that would be helpful.
And the same with number seven, it's about the runoff of the lake
system.
On Page 41, you struck the word somewhat. And I'm kind of
glad you did, because it didn't mean a lot, but I'm wondering what it
means now. I thought it was odd you'd strike it, because it didn't make
it any clearer whether it was in or not. And I just was -- I mean, it's
odd it got in there in the first place, but --
MR. TYSON: I believe that was a strike-through that was
requested by the county.
Margie, I believe that you may have requested that, just to take
out a little bit of some ambiguous language?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't know what the
circumstances on the ground are about the existing vegetation so we'd
know what objective standard to put in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't have a problem with you
striking it. I was just curious as to why it was. It didn't make a lot of
sense, because the sentence is no clearer with that in or out, so -- but it
doesn't have any impact that I can see.
Bruce, that's all the questions I have from the PUD document. I
have just a couple of others, as I mentioned to you. One is in the
neighborhood -- not the neighborhood meeting but the staff
pre-conference meeting, there was a notation, it said, must notify all
persons internal or external within the PUD.
Have all the residents within the PUD been notified?
MR. TYSON: As relating to what? This hearing?
Page 31
March 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, this hearing, the change.
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem again.
That's the county responsibility, and yes, they have been notified.
Many, many, many letters have been returned due to inaccurate
addresses. But we use the property appraiser tax collector records,
which is required.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I just wanted to make sure.
Also, Kay, while you're up there, in the back of this document
was a letter -- on the back of the copy I have was a letter addressed
from the Department of Environmental Protection concerning the Toll
Brothers Rattlesnake Hammock project. I couldn't find any weight
that has any bearing on this one, so I'm assuming it was in error.
MS. DESELEM: I'll have to assume it was in error, because the
two projects are not connected.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's what I thought.
MS. DESELEM: One of those the staple got hooked to that
paper clip kind of things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. I just wanted to make sure
it didn't have some bearing that we were supposed to know about.
And then Bruce, my other question is the transportation. The last
transportation study that was done provided shopping centers in retail
areas one and two. And in the new transportation study that was done,
they've combined those two shopping centers into just retail one. And
retail two does not seem to have any applicable traffic allocated to it.
I'm wondering where those are and which ones aren't -- how this
pans out. Because you -- we have two -- it's in the Exhibit 2 to the
Grey Oaks DR! PUD. Your traffic engineer is right behind you.
MR. TYSON: I got him right here, thank you. This is Steve
Leung from David Plummer.
MR. LEUNG: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record I'm
Steve Leung with David Plummer & Associates, traffic consultant for
the petitioner.
Page 32
March 15, 2007
To answer your question, we provided with the parameters in
where the retail would be situated within the three quadrants.
Depending on the plan, we do the trip generation estimate in reference
to the traffic study dated July 19th, 2006.
And essentially if we know where the retail square footages are,
we do the trip generation based on whether there's collectively one
quadrant or separated in three separate quadrants. And that's why the
trip generation changes, even though the overall square footage is the
same.
If you have development on three quadrants, for example, the
trips will be -- cumulatively be slightly higher than if you had all your
square footage in one quadrant. That explains the difference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and that's what I thought, and
that's kind of what spurred my question.
Can you show us on the plan -- there were two Exhibit 2's. There
were two traffic studies done. There was one done which probably
was done in -- well, I don't know what year, but it's based on the ITE
trip generation, sixth edition. And that was is Exhibit 3.
MR. LEUNG: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then there's Exhibit 2, ITE trip
generation, seventh edition.
MR. LEUNG: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sixth edition one breaks down three
separate retail areas for a total retail of 649,000. We don't have to get
into the office, but let's just focus on the retail.
The new one -- or not the new one, the seventh edition one
breaks down -- shows three retail areas, but only two are being used.
And I'm just wondering why that was -- are you moving all the
commercial now to one retail center basically? Because you've taken
almost all of it, 609 out of 649 and put it all in one retail center.
MR. LEUNG: That's my understanding ofthe plan. The Exhibit
3 represents the 1998 NOPC. And at that time we relied on the trip
Page 33
March 15, 2007
generation rates, based on the sixth edition of the ITE trip generation.
And my understanding at that time, there were three separate
retail components, while now the proposed use reflects only two
separate retail components, most of it in the northeast -- I'm sorry,
most -- correct, most of it in the northeast and some in the northwest.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. By doing that, it actually
reduced the trips or increased the trips by --
MR. LEUNG: It will decrease the strips. And you also have to
look at the difference between the sixth edition versus the seventh
edition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So by showing the retail focused more
on the northeast quadrant, the trip generation rates improved?
MR. LEUNG: It increases at a decreasing rate. So yes, it did
have a slightly less trips than the previous 1998 or 2000 NOPC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Part of the argument here today is that
we're going to take away the hotel uses and go to residential uses and
show a decrease in tips.
MR. LEUNG: And it will continue to show a decrease in trips.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but the decrease also can be
contributed to their reallocation of retail to only the northeast
quadrant.
MR. LEUNG: It can be, yes. I think that you may see a slight
difference when you look at it, whether you have the retail all in one
lump sum or distribute it elsewhere.
Unfortunately, that's how we have to do in terms of NO PC. We
have to look at the project as if it's a brand new project at the time of
the application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just not as obvious as it seems
sometimes.
MR. LEUNG: We try to identify as much as we can, and as you
correctly mentioned in Exhibit 2, 3 and 4, we tried to highlight where
the trip generation source came from. And under the title, the Exhibit
Page 34
March 15,2007
2 shows seventh edition, while the other two reflects a sixth edition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir.
Are there any other questions of the applicant before we go to
staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. Again, for the record, it's Kay
Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development
Review.
And you have received the staff reports that are actually dated
March 1 st for the original hearing. And with the detail that we've
already gone into, I won't belabor the point other than to say staff is
recommending approval of the PUD document, believing that it is
consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And we have gone
through several renditions.
There is, I believe, one other change that the petitioner wanted to
make to the PUD document regarding the vegetation and the wetland
issue, and he has new text that he still has to decide if he likes,
because we're still negotiating text.
And as far as the DR!, the staff report does reflect that staff
recommends that you forward a recommendation of approval to the
board for this petition.
The RPC has determined that it is not a substantial deviation, and
staff concurs with that finding.
And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't have any. Anybody else
have any?
Mrs. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'd like to hear more about
what the vegetation issue is with environmental staff.
MS. DESELEM: Okay. I'll let Bruce discuss it, because I think
he's prepared to discuss it.
Page 35
March 15, 2007
MR. TYSON: One of the things that we may want to just talk
about for a second, just so that we get a total wrap on the PUD, is that
I handed out this morning just a few changes that you've probably
noticed, if you went through that document that bring it up to date, so
to speak.
And I'd like to make sure that those get on the record and you've
had a chance to look at those before we totally finish this. And what
environmental issue -- or the environmental question that you have
we'll build that right into it at the same time.
Okay, if you want to go through with me, I'll do this very
quickly. On Page 6 we made some changes, simply to get it to the
point of where the ownership is current. And that's -- we removed a
number of the -- we moved -- well, the only one about the Halstadt
(phonetic) Partnership, because many of those parcels have been sold.
And the -- some of these have been cleaned up, like I said. If you
go to Page 11, we just got it to the point of where it simply says now
applicable county ordinances instead of some of these other
ordinances and what was in there. I think they're just cleanups.
I wanted to make it very clear on the deviations on Page 13 that
they did apply only to the southeast quadrant. And it would be clearer
as that red point down there on Page 13 to note that the -- as a setback
is measured from the property line to any point on the building. It was
just a point of clarification. And if you flip to Page 14, you'll notice
that the asterisk referred to both the deviations that -- or all the
deviations apply to the southeast quadrant.
Page 19 also has a simple cleanup of simply talking about the
Land Development Code instead of zoning and signage.
I wanted to make it clear on Page 22 that the sentence that was
added dealing with those buildings and the driveway and the setback
between them only applies to the southeast quadrant. So we have a
sentence in there that indicates that that does apply to the southeast
quadrant.
Page 36
March 15, 2007
On Page 24 again we took out the word zoning ordinance and put
in Land Development Code. Did that as well on Page 25, and at 27 as
well.
We will, just for the record, make it clear, on Page 29 take out
under H, hotels, motels and transient lodging facilities.
On Page 33, just to clean it, we just removed those objectives.
That was a request of environmental, since those are no longer in
existence as part of the Growth Management Plan.
And while we are here, I handed out to you as well a single sheet
of paper that -- and this is right to the point of Ms. Caron's question,
dealing with the native vegetation.
We wanted to get it to the point of where there was some
flexibility. And I worked with the environmental team yesterday.
And the -- they have worked with me here this morning, and we've
just kind of modified what you have.
And I'd like to read into the record a statement here. As these
two sentences would be added at the end of paragraph one, right after
see drawings E-l and E-4 -- E-l through E-4 for native vegetation.
Would read as follows: The required retained native vegetation
shown on the preserve drawings Exhibits E-l through E-4 can be
modified administratively by the environmental review staff,
providing that an equal area of existing native vegetation of equal or
greater habitat value is set aside in a preserve. To accomplish this, the
property owner shall apply to the county and obtain approval for an
amendment to the underlying SDP or plat and construction plans.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Does that allow that preserve area
to be off-site?
MR. TYSON: It could. It could only if that's allowed in the
LDC and the Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MR. TYSON: You can't -- obviously you've got to follow the
rules. That's what we're saying. But ifthere's some opportunities,
Page 37
March 15,2007
then that could happen. We're providing some flexibility is what we're
trying to do.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll ask environmental staff to
comment after.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, did you have something you
wanted to contribute?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I just wanted to say that I'm
probably going to have to tweak this a little bit, you know, to just put
it in more ordinance type language, and perhaps to add, that meets the
requirements of the LDC in effect at the time of, you know, the
application for the amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you have a question of
environmental?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted environmental to
comment on what they've been working on.
MS. GIBSON: Okay, as far as going off-site, that's not allowed
currently within the LDC or GMP. And I think there is an amendment
going through currently through the GMP to allow some off-site
mitigation. But it would not apply to this PUD right now as it's
written.
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, may I have your name,
please?
MS. GIBSON: Oh, I'm sorry, Laura Roys-Gibson,
Environmental Services.
And as far as everything else, they're meeting their 25 percent
requirement, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have -- Bruce, I've got--
MR. TYSON: Let me just -- if we just want to continue real
quick.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, go right ahead, I'm sorry.
Page 38
March 15,2007
MR. TYSON: On Page 36, I will take care of the along. We'll
get that taken care of. And we'll ask the questions and we'll make sure
of what happens in paragraph Band 5 and 7 of the transportation
section and see if that's -- get that worked out.
And I hope that's it. That is it. Just wanted to make sure that
everybody was clear on those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the gist of this whole argument is
that you've reduced the traffic impacts by going from hotel to
residential. And I agree, you have. And I think you had without
modifying the retail reconfiguration to get to even a lower trip
generation number. I'm just curious as to why you went there. I
mean, you already had the ability to show a reduction in trips by
taking out the hotel use and converting it to residential. And you went
to a -- I mean, it's a major change, because you're going from 32,800
trips for your retail areas down to 25. So the bulk of your trip savings
was not the conversion that you're here for today, but it was simply the
movement of retail around.
I don't disagree with it, and you have every right to do it, I was
just curious as to why you used today to do that. Why would you --
was there -- what was the thought behind that? Or was it -- I'm just
CUrIOus.
MR. TYSON: Me, too.
MR. LEUNG: For the record, Steve Leung. Maybe I can offer
this: I think when we look at NOPC, especially with the current
proposal, we have to compare that to the original approval back in
1988, '89 of the original Halstead DR!. Right now we're seeing a
decrease of approximately 850 dwelling units, a decrease of about
144,000 square feet of retail.
And with the issue of the legality of the hotel, whether it can be
back in or not as a permitted use, in terms of traffic even if you add
the hotel back in with the proposal we have now, we're still showing
about a minimum of three to 17 percent decrease in overall traffic. So
Page 39
March 15, 2007
if that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, and I agree with you. I just didn't
understand why you went there. But that's fine. I'm not -- it was just
interesting. So thank you. I appreciate your explanation.
MR. LEUNG: I can't answer you why the hotel is not there.
We're told the parameters.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you used 820 for trip generation
rate. Does the hotel have a higher trip generation rate standing alone
than an 820?
MR. LEUNG: The 820 is part ofthe retail, I believe. That's the
shopping center trip rate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. LEUNG: So I'm not understanding exactly what--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to build a hotel, you
wouldn't use the -- a standalone hotel, you would not apply the 820 to
the hotel.
MR. LEUNG: No, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what I'm asking is, is the trip
multiplier for a hotel higher than a multiplier for a retail shopping
center?
MR. LEUNG: I guess in terms of square footage, definitely not.
Because the hotel is generally based on number of rooms, while the
820 shopping center is based on 1,000 square feet. So it's comparable
-- I guess if you're building a hotel, you would displace some other
use, and a hotel is one of the lower trip generation type land use in this
development.
So I think it would be maybe a good thing to have the hotel in
there, because you will displace other uses that will also have a
comparable decrease in trips.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. LEUNG: If that helps you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll have to think about it. Thank you.
Page 40
March 15, 2007
Okay, Mr. Tyson, did you have anything else you wanted to say?
MR. TYSON: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the
Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any public speakers,
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one public speaker. Doug
Lewis.
MR. LEWIS: For the record, my name is Doug Lewis. I'm an
attorney with the law firm of Roetzel and Andress, and we represent
Opus South Development, they're the parent of C (phonetic)
Investments, LLC. They own the land, the undeveloped parcel in the
southeast quadrant.
We -- on behalf of the client, we're -- we do not oppose the text
that was presented today. It's obviously a wait to see any revisions
that come between now and the planning -- the Board of County
Commissioners. But for the record, we do not oppose the PUD
amendment.
We did have a question as it relates to new text that was added on
Page 43,7.13. It's entitled Development of Regional Impact. And it
reads, the developer, its successors and interest and all future assigns
or designees shall adhere to all commitments made in the development
of regional impact application for development approvals, sufficiency
responses and attachments for this amendment, and all previously
adopted DRI Development Order actions for this project.
And we're just trying to understand why this was added from
staff. I know there was some discussion for the record. If we can
understand why this was added and how this may impact our
development, if anything.
We are assuming that this would be applicable only to lands.
There are some changes throughout the document related to developer
Page 41
March 15, 2007
versus applicant, and there's the use now of developer. And it's not
totally clear in the document itself who will be responsible for which
particular items under the PUD or the DR!, and we just wanted to
make sure that these changes only impact lands applicable to lands
owned by the applicant or developer and those obligations that were
assumed. We want some certainty. When we bought the land there
were certain undertakings if any related to the PUD from our seller
(sic). We want to make sure that this doesn't in any way alter those
assumptions under the DRI or the PUD. Ifwe could get some
clarification from staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Margie may want to--
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I can answer that. And that
language wasn't added at my request. I think that's something that
staff now does to have a way of tracking a PUD to know there's a DR!
associated with it.
And it states in my mind what the law already says, and that is
any of the requirements in this document or the DRI, you know, are
applicable to the developer of that parcel to which they relate to. It's
not, you know, any broader than that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whether this language was there or not,
Margie, would it still apply?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, you're still bound by the
DRI Development Order. And the DRI development order has been
amended. It hasn't been replaced with a new development order, it
just has certain pieces that are amended.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Kay, did you have anything you wanted to add?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, just for the record, to confirm what
Margie said.
This language was added in conjunction with discussions we've
had with Dan Trescott of the Regional Planning Council and other
staff members.
Page 42
March 15, 2007
We find that some staff, especially as we get new staff on board,
is not always aware that a PUD is also a DRI, and this is a mechanism
to link the two projects together so that anyone that sees this PUD will
also know there's other commitments and quantifiers that may need to
be addressed before they undertake anything as far as development
within the site.
And you will probably see this on most DRIs that are amending
their PUD from now on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Lewis, did you have anything else?
MR. LEWIS: No. I appreciate the comments by the county
attorney, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Ray, were there any other public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public
hearing and entertain a motion.
Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I move that AR-7136 be
forwarded to the County Commissioners with a recommendation of
approval, subject to staff recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Commissioner
Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. And this is for the
first petition, which is the DRI portion of the project, for
recommendation of approval.
Margie, we have brought up a series of issues that need to have
some clarification before it gets to the BCC. I think they're mostly
involving the PUD, so I would assume the stipulations would be best
on the PUD side of this?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct. And you'll need
Page 43
March 15, 2007
two motions, one for the DRI and one for the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, the motion that was just made
was for the DR!.
Is there any comments to the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Is there a motion for the PUD?
Item #8B
PETITION: PUDA-2006-AR-I0157
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-I0157
be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval, subject to staff recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded it again.
Discussion. There were three comments that I picked up during
Page 44
March 15, 2007
the discussion that I'll repeat to everybody, so we'll see if we like
them.
One is that the applicant today will get a written consent from the
other development owner or owners concerning the vacant lands in
regards to the issue of the striking of the hotel, motel and transient
lodging.
Two, that the language in the transportation section that's been
struck through, especially that language involving non-dedications
like easements and things like that, is reviewed and assured by
transportation department that those strike-throughs are consistent
with their understanding of their needs.
And lastly, that the PUD that we were reviewing today includes
the red line versions that we received, with the fact that Ms. Student is
going to, as she says, legally tweak part of it.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Just to put it in ordinance
language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put it in ordinance language.
Those are the three stipulations that I have from our discussions.
Are there any others that anybody thinks are needed?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will accept those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion maker accepts those. Does
the second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second accepts those.
Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
Page 45
March 15, 2007
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously. Thank
you.
And before we get going on a whole other, hopefully short, but
maybe lengthy discussion, it's 9:50, so why don't we take a 15-minute
break and resume at 10:05. Thank you.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five after 10:00. The meeting is -- time
to resume.
Item #8C - Continued to later in the meeting
PETITION: BD-2006-AR-10900
The next subject is a boat dock petition, BD-2006-AR-I0900.
The applicant is Kent Hall, represented by Jeff Rodgers of Turrell &
Associates. The address is 267 Third Street West, Little Hickory
Shores.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this request, please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of
Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll hear from the
applicant. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a bit ofa problem.
Page 46
March 15, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Adelstein.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You said that the applicant is
Kent Hall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just reading what the paper in front
of me --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that.
The owners are listed as two separate corporations. Now, is Kent
Hall an owner? Because ifhe is, it's not specified.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we don't know if -- a staff person
or the applicant can answer it. Somebody can. Do you have a --
you're the consultant, sir?
MR. RODGERS: I know there's a--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: State your name for the record, please.
MR. RODGERS: For the record, my name is Jeff Rodgers, with
Turrell and Associates.
I know there are two names on the actual property itself, but Kent
Hall is acting with permission from both parties to move forward with
this. And there are two names on the property appraisers, but Kent
Hall is the one acting on behalf of this application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you have written
documentation to authorize that that allows that to happen?
MR. RODGERS: When we submit the actual application to the
county, we have to have both parties sign the affidavit, if that's part of
their requirement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, maybe the county staff person
can tell us if the applicant -- show us where that is in our packet and
we can -- we normally don't start out the chute with an issue, so might
as well get it resolved while we're starting.
MS. BLAIR: Ashley Blair, Planner for Department of Zoning,
Land Development Review.
Let me just look through my packet and let you know.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Bellows, could you please
Page 47
March 15,2007
turn the volume up? Because this is not working here, and I'm having
difficulty with such soft-spoken persons.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That makes two of us.
MR. BELLOWS: Ashley soft spoken?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where is Mr. Kent?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This doesn't help any, it says somebody
else, who we don't even know about it, authorizes Turrell &
Associates to talk about this.
MS. RODGERS: That is actually the other owner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I think we're looking for
something that says the owner or owners has given Mr. Hall the right
to submit this. I think that's kind of what we're trying to find out.
MS. BLAIR: I do have something from the CD Plus that has
both names on it. I don't know if that would work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It needs a signature, I would assume.
Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLA TZKOW: The -- there are two ways to go here. We
could continue this matter to another day till we get the corporations
to give the proper authorization to move forward, or we could simply
move forward here, conditioned on getting that later.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, unfortunately we're the last there
is on this one.
MR. KLATZKOW: You could condition it so that your order
wouldn't be valid until they actually presented the sufficient affidavits.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in the past we've required
applicants to come forward properly. I think if we set a precedent
here by doing it differently, we're going to be setting a precedent for
everybody.
I know this is just a boat dock issue, but needless to say I don't
want a -- I would not want to see a precedent set that's different than
anywhere else.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I would also ask,
Page 48
March 15,2007
because it's noted that commercial use is prohibited, and I think we
would probably find out more as we go along, but I would hope that
because there's two corporations involved that we're not looking into a
potential commercial use involved.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you guys have been conferring.
Do you have a consensus?
MS. BLAIR: What we do have on the affidavit at the bottom is
James Kent Hall, but he's as the notary, so he's not -- he hasn't signed
it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that to clarify this, the
corporations need to authorize Kent Hall and someone -- and I would
imagine that someone has to authorize Turrell & Associates to
represent them here today and those --
MR. KLATZKOW: We could require that they get corporate
authorizations for their representation for both corporations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would assume the applicant wants to
request on the record a continuation of this until our next meeting, if
they can get the paperwork together?
MS. RODGERS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a request by the
applicant to continue this -- Mr. Scofield? You need to use the
microphone if you're going to speak, Rocky.
MR. SCOFIELD: Rocky Scofield, for the record.
Ray just talked to me a minute ago and asked if we could maybe
hear this later today after the other ones are done, and maybe we can
get it --
MR. BELLOWS: The faxed version.
MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, get hold of the owner, Kent Hall, and
have them, you know, get an affidavit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, we can -- you need -- first of all
you're going to need two. Apparently there are two corporations?
Page 49
March 15,2007
MR. SCOFIELD: We have one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this next appli -- we've only
got one more case to hear and it's probably going to not take us past
lunchtime.
Mr. Adelstein, you had --
MR. SCOFIELD: That's -- if I can't meet it by that time, then it's
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: My problem is that the owner
is specified on the document. Now we're finding another owner in the
situation here, and this would have to be redone in order to get it
started.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, there's not another owner, it's an
agent. That's all.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, he says it's the owner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hall is the owner or the agent?
MR. SCOFIELD: No, there's two -- we're the agent. Hall is an
owner. And Kent Hall -- there's two owners and two corporations.
We can -- we have an affidavit for one. We can supply it. We can get
the other one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you want to attempt to clarify it
in the next hour, hour and a half, whatever it takes, before we adjourn
after the next one, I have no problem with that.
Does anybody else have a concern?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to find out who the
owners are of each corporation.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And also --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- if! may, Jones Kent Hall, or
Page 50
March 15, 2007
James Kent Hall, whichever, he's the notary acting as agent for the
corporations? Has he -- I'm wondering if that has a problem in any
way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing you can't notarize is your
own signature.
MR. SCOFIELD: Right. So to get his signature, we'll have to
obviously have someone else notarize it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, something's strange there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you guys want -- some one's going to
have to hang around, because when we get done with the next --
MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- hearing--
MR. SCOFIELD: I'll let Ray know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'm going to have to ask you for a
continuance.
MR. SCOFIELD: I'll let Ray know if we can do it today or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move this one to the next--
after item C. That's an addendum to the agenda. Is there a motion to
accept that?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Adelstein. Seconded by --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Commissioner Murray.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
Page 51
March 15, 2007
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, Mark--
MS. MAGGIO: Mr. Chairman, my name is Emily Maggio, and I
live in Little Hickory Shores.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ma'am, are you -- what are you
trying to address us on here today?
MS. MAGGIO: Well, in addition to the corporation business,
there may be a problem with notification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a reason you can't wait for
another --
MS. MAGGIO: There may be a problem with the way the thing
was notified. The sign on the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, ma'am, we closed the public
hearing. We're done with that one. Can you -- we're going to bring it
back up here within a short period of time. Can you stay with us for a
little bit longer and present when it's back in front of us?
MS. MAGGIO: Well, I understand what you've done, but what
I'm saying is there may be an additional problem aside from who owns
the corporation. They didn't advertise it properly. And if something
isn't advertised properly, should it be heard?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, I don't disagree with you, but
the applicant's out doing something else because we gave them a
continuance for probably 45 minutes or so. And you're more than
welcome to speak as soon as they get back up here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, in that vote you
forgot to ask if anybody was against, and I am. Because I'd rather
continue it to another meeting. I'd rather staff look at the corporate
ownership of it. So Cherie', mark my vote as opposed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any -- you had a no vote
on the recommendation to continue?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
Page 52
March 15, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, it was an addendum to the
agenda. All we simply did was say we'd give them the hour or
whatever it takes to come back and either ask for a continuance then
or try to represent it to us. If it wasn't satisfactory, we could reject it at
that point.
But if you don't want to give them even that little bit of time, I
understand.
Is anybody else in agreement with Mr. Schiffer?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so Mr. Schiffer did have a
negative vote to the addenda to changing the agenda to allow them to
come back.
Okay. Ray, let's move on to the next petition, BD-2006-AR-I09
-- I'm sorry, that's the one we just finished.
Item #8D - Continued to later in the meeting
PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR-8997
Petition PUDZ-2006-AR-8997, Elias Brothers Communities, II,
Inc. And it's for the Buttonwood Preserve PUD.
Will all those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition please
rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I spoke with Mr. Arnold I think
yesterday and went over my issues with him, and I'm sure some of
those will be re-discussed today.
Okay, Mr. Arnold, it's all yours.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. For the record, Wayne Arnold,
representing Elias Brothers Communities II, the Buttonwood --
Page 53
March 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One other clarification. I'm sorry,
Wayne.
I got a -- I spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich on this one, too, because I
got an e-mail from Mr. John Wilkins, who's a member of the
Vanderbilt Beach Country Club, indicating to me some concerns they
had that mayor may not have been resolved. And we'll bring those up
today.
Thank you. Sorry.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
With me today is co-agent Rich Y ovanovich. We have Reed
Jarvi, who did our traffic analysis from Vanasse Daylor, Michael
Delate, from Q. Grady Minor & Associates who's site civil
engineering. We have Elena Hoffman from Passarella & Associates
here today as well, who did the environmental analysis for the site.
And we have Roni and Rami Elias, the brothers of the Elias Brothers
here today with us, as well as Rick Mercer from Elias Brothers
Communities.
So I think we're able to answer any questions that may arise
during the hearing.
It's a fairly straightforward application. The staff report is fairly
thorough and I think it has a lot of good graphics that will orient you
to where we are in the world.
We're asking for a four unit per acre residential community. I'll
put the master plan up on the visualizer.
The project is about 55 acres. We're asking for four units per
acre, 220 units.
Our access would be along the extension of Tree Farm Road,
which is a roadway that's being developed in conjunction with the
Collier Boulevard improvements.
There's been a developer contribution agreement that we're a
participant in, as well as this application. We've agreed to donate 30
feet of right-of-way and accept drainage improvements for the
Page 54
March 15, 2007
extension of Tree Farm Road that will ultimately connect to the
Massey and Crestwood alignment. That's a north-south road that runs
on the edge of our designated urban boundary for Collier County.
The master plan that you see before you, we have preserve areas
that exceeded the county's minimum preservation requirements.
The site was a former residential agricultural operation, had some
stabling and landscape nursery components on it.
We have preservation area next to Bristol Pines. We have two
areas of residential. We have an R-l designated area that limits us to
single-family detached and attached, single-family duplex type
dwelling units. And then we have an R-2 area that's more the darker
color on that exhibit that allows for also single-family but then steps it
up to allow town homes and multi-family as well. But those were
placed away from our adjoining property boundaries so that there was
no issue of compatibility.
I know that the Elias Brothers have spoken directly with
members of the Vanderbilt Country Club, residents who are southern
boundary, and it's my understanding that they're satisfied with the
master plan.
You did receive I think a corrected PUD document from Mr.
DeRuntz that probably arrived a few days ago for you. I received it in
the mail a couple of days ago. And there are two changes to that that
we probably need to highlight and -- on the master plan. And I can
show you a little more clearly on a black and white version.
After meeting -- after meeting with the Vanderbilt Country Club
homeowners and I believe they'll confirm that, but we were asked to
make commitments for a wall and chain-link fence commitment along
our property line that's in common with them. And on that master
plan we have noted where there will be a wall section of about 400
feet adjacent to their residential component on our southern boundary.
And we've also agreed in text to make that consistent with the
wall character and architectural features of the adjoining Bristol Pines
Page 55
March 15, 2007
project, so that it looks like it's a cohesive wall alignment.
We've also agreed for chain-link fencing for security purposes
that will be adjacent to some of their other areas that they don't see
because it's obscured by berm, et cetera. And those are noted on the
master plan.
We've added a new Section 6.9 in the PUD document that puts
into text that language. And if you don't have it, I do and I can put it
up on the screen so we can all read it together, if you all did not see
receive the corrected copy from staff.
Did you receive that, Mr. Strain? I'm not certain if you --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I did not.
MR. ARNOLD: Would you all like to see that language that
verbalizes the fence and wall commitment? We can do that for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The copy that I received was the one in
my packet. I haven't received a separate copy, so if the one in the
packet happened to have it, then that's fine.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: We managed to get -- three PUDs
were delivered to my house.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you got mine.
COMMISSIONER CARON: None of which -- not one is
marked revision or revised or has a new date. So you'd better go over
everything, because I'm not sure which one we're supposed to be
looking at.
MR. ARNOLD: The language that we have, it's on the screen
before you, but it puts into text our commitment to construct a
masonry wall and where that would be located, as identified on the
master plan. And then our commitment to extend a chain-link fence
along the balance of that perimeter outside of the preserves adjacent to
Vanderbilt Country Club.
And I hope that text is self-explanatory. I don't have additional
copies to hand out, but I'm certain we could have copies made in the
Page 56
March 15,2007
board office and do that, if you need to see it closer.
COMMISSIONER CARON: What page is that on in the PUD
document?
MR. ARNOLD: Six-five. And that's a new section, 6.9.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's -- the copy I have doesn't have
it at all.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Hang on, let me see if! have what
I need.
MR. ARNOLD: I know Mr. DeRuntz indicated he had mailed
out a revised copy to everybody. But I think it went out after the first
delivery of your documents.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got one of the extras. Don't worry.
She seems to have a whole squadron of them over here.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm good.
MR. ARNOLD: But I think that puts in the text the commitment
that has been extended to the Vanderbilt Country Club community by
the Elias Brothers Communities.
So I don't want to belabor that point, but it is a change that we
want to have incorporated into the PUD document that you've -- you'll
act on today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put your plan up that showed
that chain-link location versus the wall location?
MR. ARNOLD: I can even do that on an aerial, if that helps
orient you where it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was going to point out that the
aerial has an issue.
See where you have the chain-link on the -- it would be the
eastern side?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you have masonry on the
southwestern side.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
Page 57
March 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know Richard's not following this,
because it's directional.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was actually with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Obviously, I think the chain -- the wall
is more of a protection for the residential. And you have it on the
southwestern side. Why wouldn't you have a wall then up on the
eastern side?
And I understand the chain-link against the golf course, but if the
wall was supposed to be protective of the residents, you're only
protecting some of them. Or how did you reason that?
MR. ARNOLD: That chain-link in that particular area, that does
not abut the residential directly. There's a road alignment inside
Vanderbilt Country Club.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. ARNOLD: And there's landscape buffer that exists there.
And we'll have our landscape buffer and then the chain-link fence
would be obscured in our landscape buffer.
I think their issue was purely in that location a security issue of
continuing to make sure they had a secured community. They're here
and they can speak for themselves, but that's my understanding of why
that commitment has been made.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The comment that I had from a
resident there said they understand that the developer has agreed to
build a concrete wall along a substantial portion of our common
property line and a fence along the remaining portions of our common
property line where none of our homes are near the property line.
So if they're here to speak today, maybe we can find out if they --
MR. ARNOLD: And they are. I just talked to Mr. Y ovanovich,
and he reminded me that the reason for that is there's a substantial
berm in the areas where we have a chain-link, and it's 12 to 14-foot
high in places. So adding a wall that can't be seen seems like an
expense on our part that wasn't necessary, and I believe that the
Page 58
March 15, 2007
community adjacent to us is happy with that. But they can speak for
themselves, obviously.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
I'm sorry, you can go on.
MR. ARNOLD: I appreciate that.
I think the staff report was fairly thorough. Obviously there's a
recommendation not to accept one of our deviation requests, which
was for a cul-de-sac that exceeded 1,000 feet in length.
And staffs concern with that was that we were not
interconnecting to our neighboring property to the west, which is the
Bristol Pines PUD.
And the Bristol Pines PUD, the reason -- one of the reasons that
we can't access it is they are now under construction, they have plat
approval.
And what I've tried to do with this exhibit was to show you the
recorded plat to our southwest corner. They've platted and they're
building a wall. They have a landscape buffer and they have their
own road network and lots. And they didn't contemplate
interconnecting with us. And staff has asked us to interconnect to
them. And I don't think that's a commitment that we could achieve,
even if we wanted to. They're a gated community, they have security
issues.
We did meet with Mr. DeRuntz and Mr. Casalanguida in the
hallway prior to the meeting. And I think we have a compromise
position, which would simply be to label the end of our cul-de-sac a
potential interconnect. Simply meaning that if for some reason Bristol
Pines comes back in and there's an ability to make an interconnection,
we then would at least have on our master plan an opportunity to do
so.
Because I think that Marjorie would tell them since they didn't
show an interconnect on Bristol Pines, in order to ever get one they
would have to come back through a PUD amendment to add a new
Page 59
March 15,2007
access point. And I think as they start selling lots, that would be an
increasingly difficult thing to do.
The second issue for us was simply we all access Tree Farm
Road. It's not as if we gain a new access point to another road
corridor. We all access the same length of Tree Farm Road that we're
participating in building 660, 700 feet down the road. So from that
standpoint, I don't think we achieve much through the interconnection.
Staff had a potential security issue and health and safety issue
associated with that, but I think having shown them the plat for Bristol
Pines, if we can label on our master plan a potential interconnection
location, I think they're happy and it's my understanding they can now
support the deviation with that notation on the plan.
So Mr. DeRuntz can share with you that information later.
The other point that I wanted to bring out was we had our EAC
hearing this past month and we received a unanimous
recommendation of approval for that.
They did add one condition that I do not believe is in your
document because of the time frame between the EAC and today.
Staff did have a handout. And maybe I should wait to discuss
some -- it has been handed out. You have it. It was item 6.6(H) on
the handout Mr. DeRuntz provided to you.
And while I don't have the minutes, I did have an e-mail from
Ms. Student's office forwarded to us this morning, so I could read it.
Because this language didn't quite track with that.
I think we're fine with the idea that we need to do soil sampling
in a certain location because of the past agricultural operation on the
site. Staff was concerned that there could be soil contamination in
areas of the site. The LDC does make provisions for doing those on
old fallow farm sites, if they believe there's evidence that it's
warranted.
Phase 1 analysis has been done for the site. It didn't determine
that there was need to do further analysis, but we're willing to do that.
Page 60
March 15, 2007
But I do suggest one change: The second sentence that reads
Collier County Environmental Staff will determine the appropriate
parameters for soil sampling? We're okay with this if we could just
add language that says, the applicant shall utilize a qualified soil
testing service in conjunction with staff to determine appropriate
locations.
Because we think that we're going to have our own soil specialist
involved, we would like them in conjunction with staff to help
determine where any soil sampling would need to occur, rather than
staff tell the soils scientist that they need to go sample 10-foot grids
across the entire site or something to that effect. Because we're not
sure that given our Phase 1 that any of it's necessary, but we're willing
to do limited sampling based on what a soil testing service tells us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, this has been cropping up
lately, and it's an awfully unnecessary added expense, if you've
already gone through the proper due diligence to obtain a Phase 1
environmental audit. I think we've experienced this now on a couple
PUDs.
The staff is not capable -- has the professionalism that a soil
geologist does in this regard, and I don't see why they can impose this,
nor how they can possibly be better than someone who is professional
in the field of doing those kind of soil samplings and knowing whether
or not it's needed.
And as far as an environmental audit, there are professional firms
that do that, I'm sure. As long as that's been done, I'm just surprised
that this is popping in here again. It's just an added expense that I
don't see the necessity for. But I guess we'll go on with that as we go
into our discussion.
MR. ARNOLD: Again, we're responding to the EAC
recommendation. And, you know, with the modification we've
proposed we should be able to live with that. And Planning
Commission can delete it if they wish. But I think that inserting some
Page 61
March 15, 2007
reference to the soil -- qualified soil person would be an appropriate
thing to do.
I really don't have -- there aren't a whole lot of issues associated
with this. I know that there are probably questions from the Planning
Commissioners, and I'd be happy to respond to those, or any of our
team members. But those were the two issues that didn't really make
it into your staff report because of the timing of this issue. And if we
need to clarify anything further, I'll be happy to, and I'll respond to
any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Comments?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And Wayne, when the
neighboring Bristol Pines was in here, we did discuss what they
showed on their -- and if you look at the staff report on Page 9. And
that was for a potential interconnect.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I was the one that
questioned them. And the intent was that based on the design next
door they could do that.
The concern is really the length of the cul-de-sac. The reason the
length's limited is obviously it's a fire apparatus. If it goes down the
wrong turn, you're going to make it run all the way down to the end to
turn around and come back. So if could break into Bristol Pines, it
could hit Tree Farm faster.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think there are also some ownership
discrepancies between the two property owners. Not that the two
property owners are contesting it, but I believe that in our
investigation and survey work, there's a physical gap between the two.
We don't physically abut them. There's almost a 30-foot wide
separation between us and them at that location.
If you look at the survey that they've prepared and the plat, it
references a 30-foot dimension. And our survey work that we've done
Page 62
March 15, 2007
for the Elias Brothers also indicates that there's probably a 30-foot gap
between the two property lines. These two PUDs don't physically
abut at that location. And I think that -- I don't know the reason for
that.
There are some very odd sections around Collier County where
there are these gaps, and they can be inches to many feet. And I don't
know the history of it, but that's what our surveys tell us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To solve Brad's problem, why don't you
from the end of that cul-de-sac take your dead-end -- we're mostly
concerned here with a water line and pressures to retain a loop system
for fire protection, I would assume.
Why don't you run north from that cul-de-sac along that western
property line, put an easement through the two contiguous lots in R-2,
go back and loop it back over to the road? Wouldn't that give you the
water pressure increase that you would need to assure that there be
some loop system in there?
MR. ARNOLD: I'll defer to Mike Delate who's the site civil
engineer to tell us if that's feasible or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Brad, does that get --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm not done yet. I'd like
to continue on.
But Mike, go ahead.
MR. DELATE: For the record, Mike Delate, with Grady Minor
Engineers.
We've coordinated with Bristol Pines' site civil engineer, RW A,
to loop the water mains through both projects. So there will be a loop
connection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't need the dead-end issue,
the 2,300-foot dead-end connection point then. You don't have to
worry about dead-end lines then. You're going to have --
MR. DELATE: Water main.
Page 63
March 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good.
Sorry, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mike, wouldn't -- from an
engineering standpoint, this concern over the 30 feet, wouldn't it
ultimately be resolved with each property getting half of that area?
MR. DELATE: Potentially. But I don't believe that Bristol Pines
currently owns that 30 feet. There's some underlying property owner
that's independent of the two.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So some third property owner
owns 30 feet of land.
MR. DELATE: Possibly. Deed transfers through the years.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you finish?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think -- yeah, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, let me just go through a
couple of minor questions here, if I could.
On the PUD on Page 3-3.
Do you have that, 3-3?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I do, sorry.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Under maximum building
height, you have tabulation there showing maximum building height.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: If you'll turn to Page 4-2, Item
C, also addresses maximum height of structures. And they take
exception there to clock towers that will exceed the permitted 45 feet.
MR. ARNOLD: Ifl'm not mistaken, that reference goes into our
recreation tract. To that language that talks about 35 feet except for
clock towers, I think that's under Section 4, which is for the recreation
tract for the clubhouse component.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But doesn't that follow the
maximum building height? Shouldn't that be limited to 45 feet?
Page 64
March 15, 2007
MR. ARNOLD: I think it's 35 and 45. So it's -- really, the
clubhouse structure for instance could be 35 feet. But any clock tower
or architectural feature could achieve 45 feet.
Under the table on Page 3-3, that only references the residential
structures themselves.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What would be limited to 45
feet, the clock tower?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the buildings could be?
MR. ARNOLD: Thirty-five.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thirty-five.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, I've just got these little
notes I've got to find here.
Could you describe for me the examples of outdoors/indoors
recreation activities, and incidental personal services, what that
entails?
MR. ARNOLD: You're looking at the recreation tract?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes.
MR. ARNOLD: I think what we're hoping to achieve here is
fairly standard recreational amenity tract where we would have a pool
potentially with some indoor/outdoor recreational opportunities. We'd
have community meeting space, things like that.
The incidental personal services are things that some of these
communities develop. There have been over the years questions that
arose whether or not you can have an A TM in your clubhouse. I
mean, we have portable A TMs at gosh knows how many locations
around Collier County. But we think it's better to go ahead and
specifically reference we could have a small personal service like that.
Some of the dry cleaning services, for instance, around town
offer pickup service at your community. It would be an opportunity to
have a centralized drop-off for dry-cleaning, things of that nature. It
Page 65
March 15,2007
wouldn't be to conduct that service on-site, but it would be a drop-off
location.
Mail kiosks are becoming more popular in some communities
where you have a mail function that's centralized, as opposed to
everybody having their own mailbox. So we've made provisions for
those kinds of things in the community.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
Now, also in there you talk about uses for 60 percent of the
project area, which is described as useable open space, you call it.
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What are the uses that you're
thinking about in that usable space?
MR. ARNOLD: The usable open space is an actual definition in
the Land Development Code. And it includes preservation areas, it
includes lakes, our landscape buffers. It includes common open space
areas. It includes yards, things of that nature.
So they are just a component of everything that's required in the
community that get counted toward that usable open space number.
The LDC requires that all projects that are residential PUDs have
a 60 percent open space -- 60 percent usable open space standard. It's
pretty common that we reference it. We defer to the LDC, I guess.
You know, it's one of those things, but it's pretty common that we
have it.
I think that when we get to the newer format PUDs, I'm not sure
how that's going to be treated. It is something that's standard in the
LDC, and unless we ask for a deviation, I don't think you're going to
be seeing that in the future.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So these will be what are
specified in the LDC?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, the average density of
other developments surrounding Buttonwood: Vanderbilt Country
Page 66
March 15, 2007
Club is 2.48 dwelling units per acre, Bristol Pines is three, Warm
Springs is 3.78. If you total those up and average them, you come up
with 3.1 dwelling units per acre for the surrounding -- all the
developments around Buttonwood.
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, that's compared to
Buttonwood at four dwelling units per area. That's a 30 percent
greater density than the surrounding neighborhood.
MR. ARNOLD: I think there is an error in the staff report on
Page 9 where it goes through the surrounding community. It says that
Bristol Pines has a density of three and 450 dwelling units -- or 298
units. But there was a bonus density approved for that, and they
actually have a density of 6.85. I think it was an error in your staff
report.
So the Bristol Pines density is 6.85, and we're pretty consistent
with Warm Springs at 3.78. And I think the distinguishing factor
between us and Vanderbilt Country Club is that they are a golf course
community. So when you use up so much of your area with a golf
course, fairways and those improvements, your density automatically
goes down. It's hard to achieve the four units per acre density on a
project of that size.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, when we receive the staff
report, I'd ask that they confirm that that higher density in fact exists
for Bristol Pines.
MR. ARNOLD: We'll do so. We have the -- a copy of the
Bristol Pines approved ordinance that lists that, and we can read that
into the record, if you wish.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, there was discussion
about interconnecting roadway network. Is it correct that there is no
interconnecting roadway network with the other surrounding
developments at this time?
MR. ARNOLD: That is correct; there is no interconnection with
Page 67
March 15,2007
the other communities.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And there's none that's
definitely contemplated?
MR. ARNOLD: No, sir.
I think the two adjoining communities that we have, for instance,
Vanderbilt Country Club and Bristol Pines, they're both -- one is an
existing gated golf course community, the other is going to be a gated
community.
I know staff made a reference earlier to Warm Springs, but we're
separated from Warm Springs by the extension of Tree Farm Road, so
there wouldn't be an interconnection opportunity there, of course.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I'm sure you're aware of
this, but I do want to read it, because the -- in the Growth
Management Plan, under transportation element, the county shall
require, wherever possible, the interconnection of local streets
between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout
the network.
And also in the FLUE element it states, all new and existing
developments shall be encouraged to connect through local streets and
their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods of other
developments, regardless of land use type.
You can concur with that as being a requirement of the GMP?
MR. ARNOLD: I do. It says two things in there: One, it's
encouraged; and two, where possible. And I think we've demonstrated
that it really isn't possible.
And one of the things that the county has been trying to achieve
with the roadway network like Tree Farm Road is that these
communities will funnel onto this local road network that they've all
contributed to, rather than having access points out onto our collector
and arterial network. That is the areas we're trying to move traffic
more free flowing.
So we are trying to share access onto Collier Boulevard, for
Page 68
March 15,2007
instance, by coordinating and joining into Tree Farm Road. So that
almost is our interconnection, having Tree Farm Road, as opposed to
interconnecting through communities that all go to Tree Farm Road.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But in reading this, it does
appear that it doesn't meet the GMP.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I there -- as I said, there are two
significant words in there, or phrases, and one is that it's encouraged.
And it's not mandated.
And secondly, it says, where feasible. And I don't think it's
feasible, given the fact that we're abutting gated communities and a
Comcast cell tower site.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But isn't the option to deny your
petition encouragement?
MR. ARNOLD: I think that's always an option you have is to
not approve the petition. But I think in this case hopefully we've
demonstrated that by adding a note on our master plan that we'll put a
potential interconnect at the end of our cul-de-sac, that at least, you
know, as we move forward into the future -- I can't predict what
Bristol Pines may do. But at least at that point if they came back in
and if there was an ability to do that connection, then at least staff and
the Planning Commission would have some teeth there.
But I think where we are today is we don't really have that ability
to mandate a connection to our adjoining communities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, just wait a minute, let me
make sure Mr. Kolflat's finished first.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I had another question, but --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, can I give you -- Mr.
Kolflat, I can give you an example of where this happened fairly
recently.
The Briarwood project. The owner of the Briarwood project
bought some property, I think it was about 40 acres immediately
adjacent to the Briarwood project. Because the Briarwood PUD did
Page 69
March 15,2007
not have on the master plan an interconnection arrow, it was a
requirement that they come in and amend the Briarwood PUD master
plan to show that interconnection in order to actually be able to go
through that project.
We're in a similar situation. There's no interconnection arrow
with our neighbor to the west, so we don't have the ability to
interconnect today.
We will put the arrow on our master plan so that in the future if
there ever is an opportunity to change the master plan for the property
to the west, that we will do that interconnection.
By denying our project because we don't interconnect to try to
encourage us to interconnect is impossible, because we cannot force
an amendment on property to the west in order to be able to develop
our property.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's an answer to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you guys got a rebuttal to that, yeah,
go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, were you the attorney for
Bristol?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Was I?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because in that hearing, we
discussed that issue, because I brought it up, and that's why I
remember it. And the intent was that that would be a potential
available interconnect.
So if our minutes reflect that, would that not be allowed then?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: To be honest with you, I don't remember
the details back to that hearing. I don't know what the ultimate motion
was and what the ultimate decision was. I can only talk about what
was approved, and the PUD master plan currently doesn't have an
arrow showing an interconnection. Weare providing an opportunity
Page 70
March 15,2007
on our property to interconnect.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But ifthere was testimony that
said you would interconnect, would that be --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'd have to go back and look. But, I
mean, that's a different hearing and we'll go look at that.
But we're providing an opportunity to do that on our PUD. So if
there's -- if you're correct and there's an opportunity to make that
happen, we're not standing in the way of that happening.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this about the interconnect, Mr.
Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Question, Rich. There's a
30-foot parcel between developments here that neither one of you
own?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Do we know who owns it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I haven't done the title work on that, so I
don't know who owns that 30-foot strip.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But neither one of you two
own or control that piece.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We know we don't own it. And we
believe that the owner of Bristol Pines does not own it. So there's a
gap. I mean, we couldn't get there anyway without acquiring that
30-foot strip.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, did you want to finish your
questions?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I had another question.
You asked for a deviation of 60 feet right-of-way down to 50
feet. And the only basis that I see that have for it is, well, other people
got it so I should get it. Now, that to me doesn't seem like a very valid
reason to make an exception to the rule that we have.
Page 71
March 15,2007
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think part the justification for us
requesting that is, you know, for sites like we are, I mean, it's a larger
site to be calling infill, but it still in infill.
And the county standard of 60 feet was a standard that should be
utilized throughout the county for probably what would be public
interconnecting streets.
Our roads are not destined to be public dedicated roadways, so
the deviation to allow us to have our right-of-way cross-section
narrowed gives us a little bit more site flexibility and design to make
the project work the best it can to fit in-between the surrounding
communities.
It's a standard that works. I mean, obviously you can do it.
We've done these in right-of-ways down to as low as 40 feet. If you
were in the City of Bonita Springs, they have a 35-foot roadway --
road right-of-way cross-section that's acceptable.
So physically we know we can engineer it to work and we can
help the sidewalks, the utilities and everything fit within this
right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, to me it seems calling the
county to have a 60-foot right-of-way useless if we never adhere to it.
And we always say, well we've done it before in 50 feet so we ought
to get it now. And if they wanted to qualify and make it one for
interior roads and one for so-called exterior roads, they could do that
in changing the standard.
But it seems to me part of our responsibility is to support and
enforce the standards of the transportation department in developing
the best interests of the county.
MR. ARNOLD: I guess I don't disagree with you, other than
your transportation staff has reviewed it and they're concurring that
the 50-foot wide right-of-way is acceptable to them, as well as to the
planning department. And again, it is a standard that we successfully
utilized in other sites, so it works.
Page 72
March 15, 2007
And I think part of -- you go back to the Land Development
Code, and it's written generically to apply county-wide. But we also
have the PUD process that allows us to tailor the project to fit a
specific piece of property. And I think that's what we're trying to
demonstrate to you, that we have a project that's trying to build within
confines of having surrounding development. We don't have an
unlimited amount of land to go and grab. We don't have thousands of
acres; we have 55 acres to try to make all of this work.
So we're comfortable with the 50 feet, and we hope you can
support it, too.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I have no more questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning.
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a could have/would
have/should have thing, I'm thinking.
And what am I referring to? The issue of inter connectivity. You
know, it occurs to me the activity centers, which were originally
intended to have retail, office and residential, if we'd ever enforce that
we would have had a heck of a lot less traffic on the roads, calming
things up.
But that didn't happen, and this is obviously not going to happen
for many, many, many years forward as well, based on this.
The absence of sidewalks being mentioned means that there's no
deviation requested, so along those cul-de-sac roads there, there will
be sidewalks on both sides?
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I have a few questions,
so if you could be patient with me.
Okay, my comment was the neighbors need to cooperate about
that issue of interconnectivity.
With regard to that, I noted that there was one for pedestrian
Page 73
March 15,2007
connectivity. Is there a commercial enterprise that there would be a
reason for them to have pedestrian and no vehicular interconnectivity?
MR. ARNOLD: Are you referring to a specific reference in the
staff report, or --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There is a specific reference.
And ifl have to go digging for it, it's -- if you're not familiar with it,
I'm surprised. But there is a reference in there to pedestrian
interconnectivity .
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think the pedestrian interconnectivity
goes to being within the community and then access to Tree Farm
Road. We have a pedestrian network internal that's going to get
people throughout the cul-de-sac network and into the clubhouse, for
instance, and then out to Tree Farm Road.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think of that as
interconnectivity in the context of PUD to PUD, PUD to whatever, but
okay, if that's your statement.
Let's go -- let's see. I'm looking at the PUD 2-2. Under 2.3 (C)
and it says, unless a deviation is approved as part of this RPUD or by
subsequent request. You don't -- I guess that's just the use of a word,
you wouldn't think (sic). But just because you requested it you could
get it, right? You would be (sic) subsequent approval, right?
MR. ARNOLD: Correct. That's something that's correctable. I
think you will also find that these kinds of statements will be coming
out of your future PUD documents. But that only means that we
wouldn't be prohibited from coming back and seeking a variance
separately --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understood the intent, but I
thought that perhaps we would make that statement.
Let's see. Okay, I think this is also a small probably maybe not a
significant point, too. On 2-5 it talks about ago uses through
December 31, 2006. I guess because of the process you're still doing
the ago there. Or have you stopped?
Page 74
March 15, 2007
MR. ARNOLD: I don't believe that we have ongoing
agricultural operations at this moment.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that was -- I thought that
was a small point.
But I do have a point on 3-3. When I opened that page, I started
to smell what I thought was fish, and I wondered why. And then I
realized it must be sardines, because I'm looking at 12 feet between
single detached families. And I'm thinking if my feet were to smell
somebody 12 feet away, might actually get the fragrance.
We're packing them in, aren't we, for 12 feet?
MR. ARNOLD: Six-foot side yard setbacks?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I mean, we -- I know that
if you live in a condominium, you certainly have to live, you know,
carefully in consideration of your neighbors. But with regard to
detached single-family homes, can we not give folks a little privacy?
Six feet doesn't strike me as -- 12 doesn't strike me as very much.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that if you compared it to the
standard single-family residential districts in the LDC, you end up
with fairly standardized either five-foot setbacks for some of those
districts to seven and a half feet is standard. And I think the six feet is
something that for communities like this, it gives them flexibility.
They may well choose to put in because of the ability to sell them
seven and a half foot side yard setbacks for 15 feet, for that matter.
But I think going toward a smaller lot format, six foot works, and it's
something that has been successfully done for other Elias Brothers
communities.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I agree that it works because
it's made to work. And as long as we continue to sell it to families or
-- not families but people who are aging and who do not have children
crying, we'll probably be all right. But if we ever put families in there,
that sure is going to be a challenge. That was my view on that one.
And I just think that when we take and try to utilize every square
Page 75
March 15,2007
inch of the parcel -- I recognize there's money involved, but after the
money is spent and people live there, there ought to be something that
they can say I really enjoy my property. And I think we live far too
close in these communities, and so I'm really not happy with that 12
feet business there. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one more.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Wayne, it's on the same
table, Page 3-3. In the multi-family, would you have a problem
putting the greater than symbol in front of 10 feet and 20 feet at the
bottom, in accessory 10? There's a building code thing that will
reward you for that.
MR. ARNOLD: Ifl -- I'm sorry, just to make sure I follow,
under the accessory uses under --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where it says -- just
multi-family.
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where -- all the side setbacks, if
you would put a greater than 10 feet, your -- the ability to put
windows and stuff will be greatly benefited. If the guy put it at 10
feet, he going to have a restriction he won't have at 10- foot one
millimeter.
MR. ARNOLD: So ifl just put a greater than sign in front of the
10 feet? Is 10 feet greater than 10 feet? I don't know. I mean, I don't
know if we're going to have zero walls, but --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you're setting it to be 10
feet. So if the -- I'm just saying, make it greater than 10 feet.
MR. ARNOLD: That could be a problem.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It can't be a problem. I mean,
that's -- make it 10 foot, one-sixteenth. If that sixteenth has got you
going, then watch out for your stucco thickness.
MR. ARNOLD: That's not a problem.
Page 76
March 15, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That little comment of Brad's just saved
you guys a lot of hassle in the field, I can tell you from experience.
You don't want to be 10 feet or 9.99, you want to be 10.00001.
MR. ARNOLD: And that's going to be only under the
multi-family on --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
MR. ARNOLD: -- the side yards?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're the only things that will
be built under the building code. The other things will be the
residential side.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay, great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, we'll go to the PUD for just a
few issues.
While you're on the table, under your single-family detached and
two-family and duplex, under your front setbacks you have 20 feet,
but you don't have asterisk six as a reference. I think you'd want that,
because that gives you two things: It gives you a side yard garage -- or
a side entry garage to be able to be closer to the road, but it also
requires the 23 feet that we have as a standard for the front setback or
front entry garage.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. That would be my omission.
We should footnote that as footnote six as well across the board on all
the front yards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think you ought to do that for the
accessories where it's missing --
MR. ARNOLD: I would agree, yes. Thank you for pointing that
out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, and I heard Wayne say this, this is
one of those with a lot of redundancy. Can you -- why are we still
getting these? We've been going on with this issue for years. I mean,
Page 77
March 15, 2007
I believe that the applicants are discouraged from removing it. Why is
that happening? I thought we -- there was some consensus from staff
we were going to have a more refined PUD document. Is it ever going
to happen or is that gone away now?
MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners has
adopted our LDC amendment. There are three or four petitions that
have been submitted that are in the pipeline that will be coming to you
in the few months that are in the new format without a PUD
document.
In the meantime, staff has been directed to work with all the
various reviewing departments to eliminate redundancies. However,
some departments have been fighting that. Unfortunately they're in a
different department I don't have supervisory oversight.
But the planners are directed to remove it wherever possible, and
we are attempting to fulfill those requirements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as I know you're still trying,
Ray, I appreciate it.
MR. ARNOLD: Could I maybe just pipe in there? Because Mr.
DeRuntz did make a request of us several weeks ago to maybe
reformat this. And because we were already scheduled for EAC, and
it was so far along, I think it was our hesitation, and I think staff
concurred that maybe this was one of those that had gone so far along
the older format that it wasn't prudent to now start making changes,
because there could have been some unintended consequences of that.
But I can assure you that the newer ones that we're working on
that you've yet to see are in a revised format that's very streamlined.
And I think everybody's going to be pleased with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was just trying to make sure that
there's been no change that we're going back to something. So I'm
assured of that, thank you.
I had a question about the property owner list. I had asked Mr.
Y ovanovich, since I think he was involved in some of the title work or
Page 78
March 15,2007
something, to clarify it. And that involved the references in the
property owners list that you all supplied saying everything was
owned by Elias Brothers Communities II, Inc. Yet the county
appraiser's site had it just plain Elias Brothers Communities. And I'm
just wondering if that got clarified.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We did. We went back and looked at the
property appraiser's records. And as you can see, it looks like on the
-- what they did is they dropped the II, Inc. down into the address.
They had owner name and they went Elias Brothers Communities, and
then if you go down in address it continues to II, Inc. So it looks like
they dropped it down on a couple parcels on a couple. And on the
others they fit it all on the one line. So that was that issue. And the
deeds are correct in your packet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I notice, remember, I told you
that, I just wanted to make sure.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, we went back and looked at that,
and that's what we discovered was the issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Now, Mr. Arnold, the timing of this project. One of the
comments that I received back from the Vanderbilt Beach people was
that they believed that the project was going to be developed when the
roads were completed. And you know that's been something that this
board has at times asked.
And what's your intentions? What do you think you're trying to
do?
MR. ARNOLD: I'm going to allow Mr. Y ovanovich to respond
to that, because he's --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know what we would like.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you got it on Target.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What we're willing to agree to is the
substantial completion of 951, which is where our project essentially
has its traffic going to, for the most part. We would agree no COs
Page 79
March 15,2007
until substantial completion of the 951 project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the 951 project, just so you know,
starts at Immokalee Road and is under construction all the way down
to US 41 south.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We were talking about from -- thank you
-- Immokalee Road to the phase that goes just south of Vanderbilt
Beach Road. I believe that's the one phase, Nick; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It goes from Golden Gate Boulevard to
Immokalee Road, that's the phase you're working on six-Ianing now.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, that's the one that the contract was
recently let for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any problem also
tying it to Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Of course we do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, those two are -- right now they're
ahead of 951, so why would you have a problem?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, if I knew that things wouldn't
change, sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's exactly why I'm bringing it
up, Richard, because you had stood there and nobody thought that the
Target mess was going to change, and we approved that project before
the DOT told us they wouldn't put that cloverleaf in until they
expanded 1-75. That was a big mistake to this day.
But I don't want to see it -- I would not like to see that happen
again. So I don't know why you couldn't tie your completion of your
project, your COs, to the completion of951, Immokalee Road to 75,
and Vanderbilt Beach Road to 951.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I would appreciate if we're going to
go to that extent, if we could possibly put in a date certain --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- so we would better know what is going
on.
Page 80
March 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, this board may decide to, but
you know this is the same issue I've had on every project that's going
on, on 951, and I still have it. Date certains have been proven not to
work. We have that on Davis Boulevard, 951 and Immokalee Road
and 1-75.
And from my perspective, that's not where I am going to go. So
when it gets to it, everybody else as we discuss this can make up their
own minds.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to rely heavily on your staff
to make sure that the schedule they have for Vanderbilt Beach Road is
going to be met, so we will begrudgingly add that to our
commitments.
But keep in mind our project is helping solve the transportation
network issue by giving additional right-of-way to make the Tree
Farm/Woodcrest/Massey bypass road actually happen. So we are part
of the solution to the transportation problem out there as we go
forward with our project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what? Every single
project that's come in here has said that to us. Every project has a
solution to our traffic problem and we don't have one. I'm so glad.
Thank you for that statement.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think if we develop everything,
there will be no more problem with transportation, huh?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I hear.
Okay, any questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're talking about substantial
completion, correct, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm going to get Nick to make
certain that substantial completion means all the road lanes are open.
Then if says yes, that's where I'm trying to go.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's going to be '08.
Page 81
March 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care what year it, if it's 2012.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida,
Transportation Planning.
When we talk about substantial completion, we mean the through
lanes are up and running. And we don't expect the landscaping to be
completed or the final cleanup of the roadway, but the through lanes
are up and running.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So substantial completion of
Vanderbilt Beach Road, Immokalee Road, 1-75 and 951 between
Immokalee and Golden Gate Boulevard. That's the area that I am
targeting.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Vanderbilt Beach Road, can we talk
about from what point to what point?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 951 to Airport -- well, 951 to Livingston
to Airport. It's already from Livingston to Airport. 951 to Livingston.
And the six-Ianing ofl-75 to Tampa.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just kind of slide them in there,
that's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the
applicant before we hear from staff?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, in your -- in the staff report, it
says we have 13.45 acres of preserve and 7.20 acres of storm-water
management. But in the water management report it says we have 15.9
acres of preserve and nine acres of water management. How did we
lose out on preserves and storm-water management?
MR. ARNOLD: I think what happened is the storm-water
management report was not modified as the master plan evolved to
deal with some of the preservation issues.
What happened is the staff -- we're giving more preservation area
than is required under your code, and that's something that we
Page 82
March 15, 2007
negotiated with staff. There are some other areas we had to modify
and deal with some lake modification, and we also had to
accommodate the county's well-field easement that they desired to
have on our frontage on Tree Farm Road.
I think Mike Delate's been working on the South Florida Water
Management District's submittal with Passarella & Associates, and I
think that it's simply something that was not corrected as this project
evolved through the zoning process.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But everybody is on -- everybody
in storm-water management is on board with the reduction?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, ma'am. It's going to be subject to
permitting with the Water Management District anyway. And that
permit application is -- and we already have our permit for that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I had had a note about Bristol
Pines and affordable housing. It was 6.8 is what the actual --
MR. ARNOLD: I believe the number was 6.5 actually was the
density, wasn't it, Rich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. There was a concurrent affordable
housing density bonus agreement that went through the process.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, that's all I have for you all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know when it's appropriate, but on
the interconnection issue, we have been working with Mr.
Casalanguida, so I don't want to speak for Nick, because every time I
do we get another stipulation. So I'm going to let Nick speak for
himself.
But I believe he doesn't need or really want the interconnection
between our project and Bristol Pines.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The good part is I've been here long
enough now, two and a half years, I have a little history on projects.
The original Bristol Pines that came in to the west of the property
on Warm Springs had their own right-of-way permits on 951. That
Page 83
March 15,2007
was one of the first projects I rejected and said you've got to come in
and share access, interconnect and do all these things that we're
fighting for.
And I really applaud you all bringing up interconnection.
Because as Mr. Schiffer knows, for the last LDC cycle, I made a
mandatory requirement to do interconnection as one of my LDC
amendments.
As far as this project is concerned, that loop road that we're doing
is our interconnection. Without getting every developer to come in and
play nice, share water management, provide right-of-way, we've never
gotten that road to work.
I have no transportation benefit vehicularly by interconnecting
these two projects. Taking them out onto Tree Farm Road to Collier
Boulevard at a signalized intersection is my connection road that
provides that level of service increase that we have there.
Mike Delate, the engineer, has worked very well with the
waterway management right-of-way design of this roadway project
with me.
There are no ponds on this whole loop road that is being
purchased by the county. They're all being taken in by developers.
They're all coming in at location points that the county has determined
where they be. They line up, they're spaced, they have turn lanes.
I couldn't have asked for a better project. And don't get me
wrong, it was not easy. You had to pull teeth to get this done.
So I encourage you to keep bringing up the interconnection. It's
important. I lose the fight a lot of times, but with this one it's exactly
what transportation wanted. The issue Mike DeRuntz had was more
of a safety issue, but it was not -- it didn't increase any traffic benefits
by interconnecting the two projects.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick.
Is there a staff report?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Good morning. My name is Mike DeRuntz.
Page 84
March 15, 2007
I'm a Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land
Development Review.
Quite a few things were commented on. We have the revision
that was associated with the EAC stipulations, we have that copy.
And subsequent suggestions for revision of incorporating the applicant
with their consultant to work with the county for soil testing.
We talked about the issue of the interconnection with Bristol
Pines. This future access that is proposed, myself and Nick are
supportive of that by just having that arrow there for a future
interconnection.
And with that, we would change our recommendation for
deviation B to approval.
The issue of the fence and the wall addition was shown on the
conceptual plan. And Donna, in the future -- I hated to send that out
after the fact, but it came in, and I thought it was important. I will
mark those revised. Thank you very much, and I will do that.
And as Wayne has mentioned, in Section 6.9(A), the dimensions
were identified. And I also spoke with the people -- representative of
the Vanderbilt Beach Country Club, and they were satisfied with what
was proposed for the wall and the fencing.
We did hold a neighborhood information meeting on the 21st,
2006 of -- let me look here, sorry -- August. Excuse me, August. And
at that meeting there were -- as mentioned in the staff report there was
discussion of what the heights were going to be. And there were
representatives from Vanderbilt Beach Country Club that was there.
And at that meeting they were talking about having, you know,
continued meetings with the homeowners association there to work
out any potential suggestions or agreements that they may propose to
address their needs. And this wall and fence is an outgrowth of that.
You have a copy of my -- the staff report dated March 15th. In
that report we recommend -- or it was found to be -- that the proposed
PUD rezoning was found to be consistent with the Growth
Page 85
March 15, 2007
Management Plan, and we're recommending approval. It is compatible
with the adjoining properties.
And if you have any questions, I would be more than happy to
try to address those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? Mr. Murray,
then Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hi, Mike. I have only one
question. The 12 feet issue that I raised earlier, that's part of the LDC.
Has any amendment ever been brought forth with regard to expanding
that to a better number? I call it a better number. I think my friends in
the development community would not. Has that ever been brought
forth?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, we have standard setbacks. But as was
mentioned, this is a PUD document, and they can deviate a little bit to
the -- because of the unique plan that they're presenting to the board
and the commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand your answer. So it's
a matter of judgment, thank you.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm back on the cul-de-sac.
Mark, you suggested a redesign of the site plan. Is that going to
happen, or is that just a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was responding to you, but you didn't
follow up, so I didn't know if you cared about it or not, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I still think we can
interconnect. But the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They said they're going to loop their
water main, though, through over to Bristol Pines, so that seemed to
take care of it, rather than working its way north on the project.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But how does that water supply
jump the 30 feet? We'll deal with it.
Page 86
March 15,2007
But anyway, Mike, the question is why do you think we have
1,000 feet in the cul-de-sac? And I'll answer it for you: It's a fire
regulation.
MR. DeRUNTZ: That's right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the concern is that if a
vehicle goes the wrong way and these vehicles can't turn around in
your driveway, that they've got to travel quite a distance. So why is it
that you would accept a cul-de-sac that long?
And it's really a health, safety and welfare issue for the person
who the thing went the wrong way on, so --
MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, it is longer than the 1,000 feet, there's no
question about that. And having the future interconnection, then, you
know, there'd be another way to get out of that subdivision.
It also addresses the point of the interconnection that Tor was
talking about between developments.
The -- you know, the site is very tight with the developments on
-- you know, property on -- residential development on both sides and
the water management areas and so forth. And moving a cul-de-sac
further up, they would be losing some of their density, but that would
be a question that they would, you know, need to try to address.
But my concern basically was trying to get that interconnection.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And the suggestion
Mark made is really a good one, and maybe when we do the motion,
could we do the motion based on -- first of all, I would not like to
allow that long a cul-de-sac. So can we do the motion such that it
either goes to the redesign that Mark mentioned or an interconnection?
Is that something we'd be able to do, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, my suggestion was for the
water line. Are you suggesting for the roadway?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The roadway could go back up
and do the same thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could.
Page 87
March 15, 2007
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the concern is that, you
know, nobody in this room really is representing the reason we have
1,000 foot cul-de-sacs and we're making all these decisions based on
that. So, you know, I think it's fair that we start tidying up the length
of these cul-de-sacs. A thousand feet is a long distance.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I believe your staff report
recommended denial of that deviation two, didn't it?
MR. DeRUNTZ: It did. But with the future interconnection, I
was recommending that we would change that to approval.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Oh, you're changing your
recommendation now?
MR. DeRUNTZ: If they provide that future interconnection.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, would you tell me what
the density is at the Crystal ( sic) Pines?
MR. DeRUNTZ: The Bristol Pines?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Bristol Pines.
MR. DeRUNTZ: With that, the affordable density bonus
agreement, it's 6.8.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Eight-five, excuse me. 6.85.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, by the way, I haven't forgotten
your question about the road, but I want to bring that up to the
applicant when we finish with staff.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Mike, thanks for saying that
in the future you will stamp these revised PUDs revised.
But it's also, I just want to note, up to the petitioner too, because
at the bottom of the PUD on every page it says Buttonwood Preserve
RPUD 2706 clean doc. And they should be noting as well that it's
Page 88
March 15,2007
revised or when you get it, how do you know?
But at any rate, we just need to make sure, because we should all
be looking at what we're supposed to be looking at, not --
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The interconnect situation for
changing the denial on that deviation is really kind of a -- I mean, it's a
phony thing. We've already discussed today that it's just going to be
an arrow on a map. It's not really going to accomplish --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not a thing.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- anything with respect to a fire
hazard on cul-de-sacs longer than 1,000 feet. So, I mean, I just --
again, I think that is one of those things that -- I don't know how they
get fire approval. Perhaps Brad, you could tell us that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure. But I have heard
that they say that we overrode all the code, when the commission
reviews numbers. They're not really pointing out what's happening
up, and then it turns around. I mean, it's -- even the dimension of a
cul-de-sac isn't correct in the Land Development Code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You see, at the end ofa cul-de-sac they
need to have two things in a dead-end cul-de-sac: They need to have a
flushing device, which there are automatic flushing devices on the
market. They need to have the pressure needed sustained for power
flow.
So length of a cul-de-sac from the fire purpose and protection
maybe isn't as big of an issue. I hadn't heard the argument you made
that people turning in the wrong direction wouldn't know how to get
out.
But I think there's a solution to all this, and if the applicant agrees
to connect that loop road back up, I don't think it will hurt their master
plan even by one lot. And I can show you why.
MR. ARNOLD: I'd be happy to look at your potential solution.
I guess part of the review for PUDs, it goes through fire district
Page 89
March 15,2007
review and they had no objection to what we're offering.
And certainly we haven't submitted for a plat. But I guess if we
could -- you know, as a compromise maybe the alternate is that if the
fire department requests that we loop back into our internal road
network, we'll make that happen.
Mr. Strain just drew on there. I haven't looked at that yet, but I
certainly will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move the rec. up alongside that new
intersection, you don't lose anything as far as having a lot that is now
against an intersection of two roads. You expand your R-2 to where
the rec. center was. And you've got a road going up at the end of a
cul-de-sac that was dead-end anyway, so you haven't really lost
anything. Especially with your six-foot setbacks.
How is that, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, sir.
MR. ARNOLD: I appreciate that effort.
I think we would, from a site planning standpoint, be much more
comfortable to even commit to providing some stabilized turnaround
at the end of a cul-de-sac to stabilize the interconnection potential into
Bristol Pines ifthere's a fire access issue.
Because I'm not quite sure I understood Mr. Schiffer's comment.
I thought it was going into the wrong subdivision. But if it was meant
that the long distance for a turnaround -- I'm not quite sure what that
issue is. Because I think from a fire safety standpoint, we'll have fire
hydrants and firefighting capability throughout the road system and
the subdivision. I guess it's one of having your fire apparatus turn
around. And I guess I've never known them to necessarily stay on the
pavement if they don't have to.
But I guess our solution would be providing and making a
commitment to stabilize a potential interconnection to Bristol Pines, as
opposed to mandating that we loop back into our road network, since
the fire department didn't seem to have a problem with this.
Page 90
March 15,2007
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I don't know what fire
review -- we didn't get any information about fire reviews in our
packet, so --
MR. ARNOLD: I just know they're on the list, and we get
checked off where there are comments. But I don't believe we had any
comments from them whatsoever.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would just relate to you that in
furtherance of the conversation, fire doesn't have any boundaries when
it chooses to really make its way. 50-foot road as opposed to -- and if
people are down there and they can't get out for whatever reasons, it's
not a good thing.
I'll tell you, I wouldn't be able to support what I see there. What I
see there now I could certainly support, but I certainly have a
difficulty with the cul-de-sac as it was presented, and the 12 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this resolves a couple issues for you,
possibly.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Murray actually brought up
a good point. With the 20-foot setbacks and the 50-foot right-of-way,
you don't even have enough distance to do a turnaround that the fire
department requires. It requires 40 feet on the center of a 20- foot lane.
So you need 80 -- you need 100 feet. I mean, between front of house
and front of house on the 50-foot right-of-way you couldn't even pull a
vehicle around.
MR. ARNOLD: The cul-de-sac that was shown I know meets
the fire apparatus turning radius. But you're talking about --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you mentioned earlier, oh,
I've never known to them to be shy. I mean, you know, they couldn't
even take out all the landscaping and make it around that because
you're so close together.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
Page 91
March 15, 2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to -- so there is some
interest in this suggestion, are you saying no to it or yes, so everybody
in here knows it's real clear on how they're voting.
MR. ARNOLD: I think I'm saying I don't know yet. I really
haven't had a chance to speak to the client. I mean, if it's not
inappropriate, that we could have a few minutes to look at your
revision, or proposed revision, and then --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's finish with the process. Because
we need to find out about this lingering one. I don't want to keep
everybody including the public and the staff here for the boat dock if
it's not going to happen. So let's finish with everything on this one
except for your comment, and we'll go forward with the public
speakers.
MR. ARNOLD: I'll take the version that you marked up off the
visualizer so we can study that, if that's okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's copyrighted.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question.
Ray, is there a way to get access to the minutes to see? Because I
think step one, if they did mention that there was an available inter-
connect from Bristol -- now, I know there's a hiatus piece of land, but
that could be solved by each of them getting it. Is there a way to
access those minutes quickly?
MR. BELLOWS: It would be through the clerk--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think quickly is the word. I
know that the clerk's site, the pages are slow to come up. It would
take a while to probably zero in on a part of it that you would need.
The fact that they have a 30-foot strip between them makes it real
difficult. It puts the -- them hostage to that owner's pricing, which --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But from my experience, those
hiatus trips, unless it's a grudge strip that's there for a purpose, those
are normally just surveying errors and they ultimately get blended to
Page 92
March 15,2007
each property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, we've had testimony from
transportation that that doesn't make a lot of difference
construction-wise to them, or traffic-wise. And to be honest with you,
if they've got the big loop roads as the interconnections, this isn't
really that -- it shouldn't have a lot of meaning.
Anyway, let's move on. Is there any other questions of staff? If
not, we'll move on to public speakers.
Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Just on the two languages that
were submitted, I did a little tweaking on the environmental, and it
won't change the substance of either. But I notice in the language
about the wall and the fence, there's some redundancies where foot is I
think written in one place, and also it has the indicator. And at
ordinance, that should always be written out as foot or feet. So just
things like that, but it wouldn't change the substance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on it, I'd like to -- rather
than wait for discussion, because we may need an input, on the
recommendation from the EAC which was actually probably from
staff on H where they submitted the soil sampling issue, I would
suggest that we allow an applicant to submit a Phase 1 environmental
audit.
Or in lieu of that, because that's a due diligence item that any
good property owner is going to do automatically. And those are done
professionally by geologists and scientists who are hired by firms to
look these things over.
In failing to have a clean Phase 1 environmental audit, at that
point then staff could interject as far as require additional soil
sampling pursuant to the needs of a -- or pursuant to the review of a
geologist or someone of that stature that knows what they're looking
for.
Does anybody have any problem with that kind of a modification
Page 93
March 15, 2007
on H?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, it's a good modification.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's called for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When we get there for
stipulations, we'll worry about it at that point.
I think we can go into public speakers now.
Ray, how many do we have?
MR. BELLOWS: Just one speaker. The first speaker is
Chappell Wilson.
MR. WILSON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Chappell Wilson and I am one of several committee members from
Vanderbilt Country Club who has been appointed to work with our
neighbors to review any type of development that may adjoin
Vanderbilt Country Club. I have four of our committee members here
with us today.
We had the opportunity a while back to meet with Rick Mercer
from Elias Brothers, had opportunity to review the plans and to talk
about any concerns that our members had expressed to the committee.
For your information, the committee is satisfied with the nature
of the development and with the construction of the fence as proposed
here this morning.
Elias Brothers has shown to be a cooperative neighbor, and our
committee has no objection to the application as it is presented.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir.
Okay, Ray, that's the last and only public speaker?
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any -- is the applicant in a
position where they want to address this issue of the plan?
MR. ARNOLD: I need to probably -- if we could have a couple
more minutes. I haven't had a chance to speak to Mr. Y ovanovich. I
think we have maybe a solution.
Page 94
March 15,2007
I think the direction we're had headed is to say yes, we think we
can make a connection internal to our other road system, but we have
another alternative we'd like to discuss with Rich that may give us the
same result.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to have to take a
break for the court reporter anyway. I don't think -- based on the fact
we have one case left, and we're not going to be taking lunch, so what
we'll do is take a IS-minute break, we'll finish this up and go straight
into the boat dock and get done with that. Is that --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: With a publication.
Publication's wrong. It's got to be redone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Boat dock. I'm saying we
won't get to that, because basically they can't present it today if they're
going to change the frontage of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's wait till we get to it. Right now
what we're going to do is take a IS-minute break. We'll be back here
at 11 :45.
(Recess.)
Item #8C - Continued from earlier in the meeting
PETITION: BD-2006-AR-10900
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to try to finish this
up.
And before we go back to the Buttonwood PUD, the applicants --
or the staff has indicated to me from the boat dock request that there's
-- they've come to a resolution on that. And I'm just wondering if --
who's going to briefly tell us what they've decided so we can maybe
not make anybody wait any longer than they have to.
MS. BLAIR: Hi. Again, for the record, Ashley Blair.
Page 95
March 15, 2007
We'd just like to request a continuance so that we can further
research the affidavit and the advertising.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a very good idea.
Is there a motion to recommend?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait, I have a comment to make
first.
I would like to hear public speakers who have been waiting here
all morning to speak on this issue. It's fine to continue, I have no
problem continuing this, but there have been people sitting here all
morning waiting to speak and I think that they should be heard.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Or ask them if they're willing to
come back. Ask them if they're willing to come back, whatever the
continued date.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's calm down here.
Ms. Student, I just asked you during the break what was the best
scenario. I think Mr. Weigel expressed that the best scenario was not
to have a disjointed record with part testimony this week and part two
weeks from now, and that the best thing we could do is continue it all
to one time and have it all at once. Is that a consensus basically of
what he said?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's what I understood him to
say.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like the speakers, by
raising their hand, in the audience agree with that. And I think that
would be the best thing to do for the record. So thank you.
Is there a motion to recommend approval for the continuance.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
Page 96
March 15, 2007
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, seconded by
Commissioner Adelstein.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Thank you.
Item #8D - Continued from earlier in the meeting
PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR-8997
Thank all of you for your patience in waiting for us this morning,
and we're sorry it had to get continued, but this is probably the best
solution for everybody. Thank you.
Okay, Mr. Yovanovich, did you and your clients come up with a
conclusion for --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have. And recognizing that these are
very professional quality drawings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we have -- I wish I had a green
pencil to indicate what we want to do.
Page 97
March 15, 2007
We have worked with your -- briefly with your staff. And in this
general vicinity of this loop road, we would like to provide a stabilized
emergency access interconnection. It will be grassed, but it will be
marked. And the fire departments will know that this is available for
them to continue on and not have to use the cul-de-sac and go back.
So there will be -- it will be a green area, but it will be stabilized for
the use of emergency vehicles. So it will loop.
We do not want an -- we don't believe an interconnection is
appropriate, so I think that resolves the safety concerns people had.
And therefore, there really wouldn't need to be the arrow that says
possible future interconnection, because I don't think that's necessary
anymore with this proposed solution.
So we'll do this in this general vicinity, as generally drawn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray, you had a comment?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to qualify the
information.
So I take it the cul-de-sac would be out and then there would be a
curb.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, the cul-de-sac will stay. But there
will be -- it will be marked. The fire department will know that if they
somehow passed where they were supposed to be, they can continue
on, use this stabilized area to get back to our road without having to
use the cul-de-sac to go back. We will still have residents living there
that will need to use the cul-de-sac to go back, and the fire vehicles
could also use the cul-de-sac, if they chose to.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about on the more northern
area there where the rec. facility will be replaced, if that's the way it's
chosen?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't think we're going to need to
move the rec. facility under this scenario. But we're going to -- you
know, these are all general locations anyway. There's the flexibility to
move the parcel boundaries either way.
Page 98
March 15,2007
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're seeing it as an emergency
use only.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. And that was the issue, really,
was emergency vehicles.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rich, now the cul-de-sac
can be built to LDC standards, not fire standards, so you can make a
smaller one at that point. A reward. Tiny reward.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's the spoonful of sugar.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we've had public speakers, we've
had staff, we've had applicant. Is there any other questions at all
before we close the public hearing?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public
hearing and entertain a motion which will have some stipulations
eventually added to it.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion for
approval, pending the stipulations and the change in staffs
recommendation for approval on the one deviation.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded.
Now, for stipulations. If you all want, I'll read what I've written
down and go from there.
The first one is that we would accept the change to the PUD
language with the addition of paragraph 6.9. The deviations are
approved -- staff recommended approval for both deviations. We
would concur with that, except the second deviation will be caveated
only in the sense of the reference to this emergency access routing that
was just proposed and accepted here today.
There were some corrections noted on the table; one in which
Page 99
March 15,2007
Mr. Schiffer suggested using the greater than sign to save the applicant
a lot of problems in the future. And also the asterisk six for the
reference to the front setback and garages would be added. So all the
side areas -- or all the front areas were noted.
That they would not receive any certificates of occupancy until
substantial completion of the following road segments: 951 -- or
Vanderbilt Beach Road, between 95] and Livingston Road,
Immokalee Road from 951 to 1-75, and 951 from Immokalee Road to
Golden Gate Boulevard.
That the paragraph (H) that was recommended would apply only
if a clean environmental Phase 1 audit was not performed. And that
the soil locations, should any be needed, have the concurrence of a
professional geologist in regards to getting the locations.
And that the fence and the wall as proposed by the applicant in
the plans presented today is acceptable and will be incorporated into
the PUD.
And lastly, the loop road connection that we show here would be
utilized for the purposes of emergency vehicles, with a hard
under-surface and a grass topping.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, just a quick --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When it was first offered to me
to visually see what Mr. Y ovanovich had indicated to me what the
drawing -- his view of it, he didn't stipulate it. Of course it would be
for emergency conditions, but not -- he didn't restrict it to emergency
vehicles. So that others could use that road to get out if there were an
issue. I don't know how critical that is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Murray, without having the
adequate asphalt services and the underlayment and all the other any
particulars that a road has, I'm not sure the county would ever approve
such a use for public in a general nature.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'm saying for emergency
Page 100
March 15, 2007
uses. Wouldn't that be part of it? You said emergency vehicles only.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, emergency uses instead of
emergency vehicles. I'm sorry. I wasn't understanding.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, emergency uses should be
substituted for vehicles.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think you can note that it
has to meet the fire lane requirements of the fire prevention code.
That would give you the weight, the compaction and all the allowable
stuff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that roadway -- and the stipulation
will include that the fire particulars needed to make that road usable
by emergency -- for emergency uses will be adhered to.
Okay, any other comments, stipulations?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
You guys went from a borderline to a positive, so --
Page 101
March 15, 2007
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, would you care to have your
exhibit back?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's -- I can't leave that. If you
want to buy that from me later, you're more than welcome to.
COMMISSIONER CARON: They want to show it around,
what, are you kidding?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Give it to the court reporter as
part of the record, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody knows I'm kidding.
Okay, old business. I don't have anything on the agenda. I don't
know of any. Anybody else?
Mr. Koltlat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, we had a petition named
Fawzy, which was at -- they were going to dig out about 300,000
cubic yards of material. We heard it, and then it was continued.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I can't hear.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: We had a petition before us
from Fawzy which consisted of excavating about 300,000 cubic yards
of material for some kind of a fish pond. And then we put that aside
and we continued it for a later time. Do we ever put any sunset time
on the continuances? Because I've got several of these things, packets
in my file, and I don't know how long to keep them or when we can
destroy them, or if they're coming back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, I don't believe you can
ever destroy public records. You have to turn them into the county or
leave them here.
Second of all, as far as that one, it was remanded back to the
EAC for their review before it comes back to us again. So the -- it has
to get scheduled and heard by the EAC, and then their
recommendations on that project will come back to us.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Do we ever follow up on these
to see ifthere's one back a year and a half ago that were never brought
Page 102
March 15, 2007
back?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, staff keeps track of the timing of
these. And ifthere's any violations of the Land Development Code
from a timing aspect, I'm sure staff will make sure they adhere to it.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
We do have a time limit for petitions to remain active. If they do
not meet, I believe it's six months for a conditional use, and they're not
proceeding to keep the project active, then staff will initiate a
withdrawal process for it. It will be kicked out and they'll have to
reapply again.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I wasn't aware of that. Thank
you, Ray.
Item # 10
NEW BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any new business?
Okay, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a comment to make.
We already discussed the marking things revised when they get sent
out as revised.
One of the things that we got this time around was a single sheet
giving us the revised agenda. I would think with a single sheet of
paper we could all get that electronically. I don't think DHL has to
deliver to my house.
MR. BELLOWS: I didn't realize you got a single sheet of paper.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it was a single sheet.
MR. BELLOWS: That should not have happened.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And that seems like an excessive
use of --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't know what the mail
Page 103
March 15,2007
cost was, but boy, that's --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Putting our tax dollars at work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other new business?
(No response.)
Item #] ]
PUBLIC COMMENT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, there's certainly not any
public comment, unless Jeffs got something he wants to say.
With that, motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Adelstein. We are adjourned. Thank you.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1] :57 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented or as corrected
, as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
Page 104