Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/19/2007 GMP April 19, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE GMP MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 19, 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 SPECIAL 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 Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Kay Deselem, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Page 1 April 19, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Welcome to the March 5th -- actually it's not March 5th, I'm reading the wrong agenda -- planning commission meeting. It's not on, Ray. The sound's low for the BCC hearing, I understand. Would you all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I am going to go over with you for scheduling is something that I certainly did not originate, but I was told that had to be the process today. Today's meeting for the regular planning commission is the meeting that we just opened up. We're going to go through some preliminaries for that and then we're going to continue that meeting and then open up another meeting and then go back -- then close the second meeting and then go back into this meeting. So bear with me while I try to go through this. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE CLERK First of all, roll call by the clerk. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? Page 2 April 19, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: We're 100 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Addenda to the agenda. The regular meeting for today's agenda had six items on it, the first of which was a boat dock issue in Little Hickory Shores. That particular agenda will be changed. We have two items: Item D and E. The Grand Inn of Naples is Item D. It's known as the Pine Ridge mixed use center PUD. And the number E is the Home Dynamics of Naples, LLC, known as the Boxwood RPUD. It's my understanding that both of these are being requested to be continued; is that correct, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a -- other than that, when we get into our regular agenda, there are no other changes to the agenda. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Both continued until the 5th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there date specifics on those continuances? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it's my understanding that both D and E want to be continued to -- or are requesting to be continued to May 3rd. Page 3 April 19, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, May 3rd. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: May 3rd? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other changes or suggestions to the agenda of to day's regular meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the agenda as so noted with the two continuances? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, is that sufficient for those two continuances? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, it is, thank you. REGULAR MEETING CONTINUED; GMP AMENDMENTS: PETITION CP-2005-13 Page 4 April 19, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go into the rest of this meeting, I think it would be a good time now to entertain a continuation of this 8:30 start date of this -- of this continuation of this meeting so that we can open up and go into the GMP meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Thank you. Motion carries. Nobody opposed. Okay, the reason for that was an advertising apparent glitch, is that the regular meeting for today was already advertised at 8:30, yet at the same time we had continued the GMP meeting from the last meeting to 8:30 this morning. So with both of them in the same time frame, we couldn't obviously hold them both at the same time. Now that that meeting is continued, we will open up the second meeting, which is the continuation of the GMP amendments. Those amendments started and originated back in March. We have one item on the agenda for today. It's CP-2005-13, which is the future land use element change. And it's more commonly known as the Assembly of God Church property on The Lord's Way Page 5 April 19, 2007 off of951. We've had our roll call. And with that, I guess I'll ask everybody who intends to speak on behalf of this petition, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark, are you going to go over absences planned, or do you want to wait for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Till the next regular meeting. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And by the way, I forgot to mention that Cherie' actually has her own name tag, if everybody has noticed. That's a new addition. Now, if Cherie' switches out, I don't know how they're going to do that with the name tag. The only name tag we're missing now is Kady's, but since she doesn't sit in this room it wouldn't do her any good to have one on her desk in the room across the hall, so -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well deserved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, for both. Okay, the applicant ready for presentation? MR. DUANE: Yes. Good morning, members of the planning commission. My name is Robert Duane from Hole Montes and Associates. I have with me several individuals. One is Bill Klohn from MGD Capital, which is the -- one of the project sponsors for the residential component of this project. I have George Hermanson, also from Hole Montes and Associates. I have Pastor Reverend Mallory representing the First Assembly of God. And I have Rob Price from the TR Transportation Consultant Group to assist me with traffic issues this morning. The staff report that you have before you was very thoughtfully prepared. We of course agree with the recommendation Page 6 April 19, 2007 recommending approval of this petition before you this morning for our Collier Boulevard community service subdistrict. The aerial photo depicts the property on the visualizer there, and that same aerial photo depicts the subject property here today, which has access to 951 and The Lord's Way. The property is presently zoned for a planned unit development today for the First Assembly of God, and it comprises that PUD 79 acres. The subdistrict before you comprises 69 acres, as the easternmost 10 acres are going to be removed from the PUD at the time of rezoning and will ultimately be part of the Toll Brothers PUD that's a DRl that will come before you sometime in the foreseeable future. I'd like to take a moment and just highlight the proposed plan that we're contemplating bringing forward to you later this year at the time of rezoning, should we be successful in our PUD amendment. And this will orienate (sic) you towards some of the uses on the site. This of course is 951. This is The Lord's Way right now. Some of these existing facilities for First Assembly have already been constructed at this location. We have a conservation easement comprising approximately 12 acres, which has been dedicated to the Army Corps of Engineers. We have an FPL easement that bifurcates the property that can be used for parking. And then we have more facilities for the First Assembly, which will be the location of their transportation training facility, their assembly center and care facility. And what you see here on Tract G, these multi-family units, is principally the subject of this GMP amendment for the residential non-church-related component of the project. This tract comprises approximately 23 acres. The First Assembly of God PUD provides a wide range of uses, and they're very general measures of development intensity. They Page 7 April 19, 2007 include an auditorium for 1,800 seats; private school for 300 students; chapel for 600 seats; adult care facility for children, 450; an adult care facility for 400; and 57 dwelling units and 120 campground, or I call them travel trailer type units. For the purpose of this GMP amendment, we've done a comparative analysis between those parameters that I just set forth to you. However, we've had one modification to those. We are deleting from this GMP amendment the 400-unit care facility and the 120-unit -- 120 travel units, which are a total of 520 units. And in turn we are increasing the number of multi-family units in the project from 57 to 296, having dropped which we thought were two of the somewhat problematic elements of the current Assembly of God ministries program in order to free up additional area for the proposed market rate and workforce housing that we're going to place into this project. The proposal has essentially three components as it relates to the residential aspect of this project. The first is requesting that on a first-come-first-serve basis 150 units be offered to essential service personnel. Bill Klohn is going to follow me and discuss some of his efforts to work with those groups, and I believe some of those individuals are here this morning. That's been an ongoing effort. Secondly, if we're unsuccessful in offering those units to essential service personnel, we are going to reconstitute our request for the CWWIP grant. Many of you knew that we were applicants for that state grant for $5 million, and we were unsuccessful at the last -- the meeting, as were some others. So those funds were not available. But we are going to continue to make an application in the very foreseeable -- for that particular grant. And that would be the second component of our project. If we're unable to offer these units to essential workforce personnel or get the CWWIP grant, we have agreed to provide a minimum of 60 gap or workforce housing units, 35 of those being gap and 25 of those being workforce housing units. Page 8 April 19, 2007 So that's the public benefit that we bring to the table with this particular GMP amendment that will allow for the uses that I've previously set forth and cap the number of square feet for the Assembly of God for all of their facilities at 368,000 square feet, including 10 dwelling units that will be used for their service personnel. Based on my conversations with several of you on the commission and knowing about concerns that you have expressed historically with impacts to Collier Boulevard and Davis Boulevard, I'd like to set forth a proposal this morning that I believe tries to bridge the gap with some of those concerns that you may have. Presently, based on the parameters that were included in the impact analyses, we were going to increase approximately from 2,800 to 3,800 trips per day on Collier Boulevard and immediate environs. And even though we were having a decrease in population of about 400 persons, based on removing the care units and the PTRVC units, we did have an increase in traffic, principally because the multi-family units generated more traffic than some of the units that we're deleting. I am proposing this morning in order to help bridge that gap that we limit the first phase of this project to 150 units and construct the balance of the 146 units at the time that the contract for Davis Boulevard is let, which at the present time, and Nick can probably give you a better time frame than I, but we expect construction of that roadway to certainly be under commencement by the year 2009. Reducing our 296 units to the 150 in the first phase has a rather -- I think a significant reduction in our traffic impacts. It virtually reduces any impacts during the AM and PM peak hour. I have Rob Price that can elaborate further on that with you. But the average daily traffic would increase from about 330 trips today over what is our best estimate is what the current zoning allows. We think that's a significant reduction in the number of trips. We think that allowing our CWWIP grant to go forward and our Page 9 April 19, 2007 essential service workforce housing to go forward and/or a combination thereof gives us the kind of predictability that we need to have in the process in order not only to pursue our grant but our negotiations with the essential service personnel. And it's going to take that kind of a commitment, my client, Mr. Klohn, tells me, in order for us to move forward with those two components of the project. There's been several drafts of this report that have been prepared over time. At one point on an earlier draft we discussed about additional mitigation for our impacts on roadways in order to establish mitigation and further consistency with the transportation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, it's getting a little hard to hear you MR. DUANE: I'll speak up a little. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of those that we provide right-of-way for the expansion ofa four-lane road along Lord's Way, which is presently a private easement. And another provision was to provide for increased traffic signalization at the intersection. Some of you may be aware that there's a long-range plan that's in the process of evolving to establish a north-south collector east of 951. I think in the final analysis we thought perhaps it was best addressing those issues at the time of rezoning. But I want to tell you that my client had no objections to providing for that mitigation, either as part of this process or when we get through the rezoning process. And I wanted to just offer that up as a little additional background information. Finally, I'll try to bring to a close here. There's several provisions that we could have come in under, under this comprehensive plan amendment. As some of you may be aware, in the rural fringe district we have a base density of 1.5 units per acre. But using the same provision for a GMP amendment, you can increase an additional six units per acre using density bonuses. Page 10 April 19, 2007 Our proposed density, notwithstanding the facilities that we're integrating from the Assembly of God into this PUD, have a gross density of 4.3 units per acre, of which if you take the units that are allowed by right, that's the 1.5 units per acre times the 69 acres, we're requesting a density bonus of about 2.7 units per acre to get us from the base density of 1.5 to the 4.3, which is about a midpoint in the range of the density bonuses that could have otherwise been available to us. And I want to make a very important distinction here. We chose not to opt for that density bonus provision, because it would have tied us into the density bonus provisions and affordable housing agreements set forth in the Land Development Code. We have been pursuing this essential workforce housing and the CWWIP grant for some time, all of which are likely to have their own individual characteristics for how long the units are going to be available, how if the ownership is transferred at such a point in time how money will be redistributed back to other nonprofit organizations for the provision of housing. So I offer that up as to why we proceeded with the subdistrict, using only the density bonuses as a fallback position in the event that we were unsuccessful with CWWIP and the essential service personnel. Just to conclude here, the provision of affordable housing requires a balancing act on a number of different parties. Parks, infrastructure and the need for affordable housing is one of those balancing or judgment calls that you need to make. Staff and I have endeavored to provide you all the technical information that we believe puts the project in the best light, and we hope that you will recognize our public benefit as part of our request this morning and let us proceed to the next phase of our proposal, which is hopefully to get the GMP amendment behind us and then proceed with our zoning application later in this year. Page 11 April 19, 2007 If I could take a minute first to have Bill make his short presentation, just to keep our flow going, and then we'll be happy to answer any questions that we may have from the podium this mornmg. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. KLOHN: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. Thank you very much for this opportunity. For the record, my name is Bill Klohn. I'm president ofMGD Capital Corporation. As you're likely aware, we are one of the leading companies in Collier County producing communities for workforce affordable housing. We have our 1,200 units out in Immokalee, which is going very well. We're about 40 percent of the way through that project. We've also completed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You need to slow down a little bit. She has to type everything you say. MR. KLOHN: Very good. We've also completed Cypress Glen on Pine Ridge Road, which was a 120-unit condominium project, and now embarking on this project for 296 units. We've worked very hard with Joe Schmitt and staff over the last year to fine tune the modifications of this PUD. Pastor Mallory and I have worked very hard to meet the needs of the church and the church's mission and needs. I think in short -- you know, Bob did a very nice job in presenting the technical side of it, but in short what we're doing is taking and deleting the 400 care facility -- the 400-bed care facility and the 120 travel trailers. Just like we did in our PUD in Immokalee. Trailers are less desirous today than we were years ago when the PUDs were approved. So the elimination of the 400-bed care facility and elimination of the 120 travel trailers I think is a good thing for Collier County and a good trade-off for the units that we're asking for in addition to the 57 Page 12 April 19, 2007 which are currently approved. And as Bob mentioned, in totality we'll have 296 units. With regard to the CWWIP application, we're very excited about continuing that effort. Today we have Tom Eastman with the Collier County School District with us today. I've spoken with all of the other ESP members yesterday at the exciting press release for the Bonita project, and the group is still very active with us on this project and remains committed to go through the application process this summer for CWWIP, which we believe will be a reality in our communications with folks up in Tallahassee. So thank you very much. I encourage your support of this project. We'll be standing by for questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I'm sure there will be questions. Mr. Murray, we'll start with you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Rob. MR. DUANE: Good morning, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The first 150 units that are intended, are they all to be gap units or are they to be a mix of gap and the 80 percent and down? MR. DUANE: They will all be less than 150 percent of the median income under the essential service personnel provisions. If it is CWWIP, there will be a percentage of those units that will be less than 80 percent of the median income. Bill, was that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you need to speak either louder or closer to the mic, because there are several members here that have difficulty hearing. MR. DUANE: 100 percent, 150 percent of the median-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a second. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Can we have Ray increase the Page 13 April 19, 2007 volume? Because we can't hear down here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's give it a try. COMMISSIONER TUFF: You can turn it up right on your speaker, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bob, thank you. MR. DUANE: Under the essential service personnel, all of those units, as is required by our LDC, would have to be less than 150 percent of the median income. Those provisions vary a little bit for CWWIP. A percentage of those would have to be less than 80 percent of the median income. And Bill is flipping through his book to find that. And under our 60-unit proposal, 25 of those units would be less than 80 percent of the median income. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's assuming that either the CWWIP comes through, or some other. But you're intending to avoid using the county government's bonus density program, so there really IS no -- MR. DUANE: We will under the 60 units. If we're unable to get essential service personnel or CWWIPs we will use the density bonus provisions to provide you 60 units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, okay, then, maybe I misheard you before. I thought you were going to avoid going through the density program. But you are. MR. DUANE: That was for the lion's share of our units. If we're unsuccessful in getting the other two programs, at a minimum we are providing you 60 units to ensure that those units will remain affordable for a period of at least 15 years. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So given that, they then must be offered, and then if someone -- I'm alluding to a statement that was made in the staff report that they would be offered first. That left it wide open what happens after a decline or some other thing, are they then going to become a market unit or what. Page 14 April 19, 2007 I wanted to know whether or not these units are intended to remain in gap or remain in I guess under the constraints of the law. The others will have to remain in the program. But I just wanted to have some sense from you that we're not going to build them with the premise that they are for gap and then oh well, we couldn't give them up so we're going to sell them at the market. Can you answer that for me? MR. KLOHN: Sure, thank you. The order in which the preferences were outlined in your staff report were flip-flopped a little bit. Our primary goal with this community is the CWWIP project, the CWWIP grant. It's our intent to move forward this summer for the first application, which would contain 150 units. And it is our goal and desire to move forward then with a subsequent application, provided that the program exists for the remaining 146 units. In the event that the CWWIP would not work out for whatever reasons, we would then have our goal, just like our community in Arrowhead out in Immokalee, move forward with an essential services personnel program to continue to fill the need for workforce housing needs in Collier County. If there was not an appetite during our construction and development period for personnel from the essential services sector, then we would then offer the units to others. But that's the pecking order. CWWIP, then essential services, and then if there's any leftovers to market -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hear you in all of that. And I just want you to qualify, if you would, for the record who the others are. Are they -- they may not be essential service personnel as they designate it now, but will they be people of moderate means? In other words, are we going to take those units and keep them in the realm where people can afford them, or are we going to then Page 15 Apri119,2007 convert them -- not convert them, but use them as price point opportunities for whatever? I don't even know what size units you're going to build so it's hard for me. I think it's 1,000 square foot or something like that. MR. KLOHN: The smaller units are just under 1,000 feet, then the two bedrooms are approximately 1,100 feet, and I believe the three-bedroom is around 1,250 feet. To answer your question on -- in the pecking order of who the occupants will be, the answer is yes to your question, will it remain at an affordable price point. Our goal and our company commitment is to produce housing that is affordable in nature. And the current pricing, given today's current construction costs, these units can be delivered at a retail, if you will, before any incentives from CWWIP or SHIP or those types of things, they can be offered for about $220,000. In the event that CWWIP or essential services personnel was not the situation, we would not increase our prices to 280 or 300 or 400,000. Those units would remain being offered to the public at the same pnce. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's an important consideration, I think. Could you also go to the map over there and show us where that 10 acres actually gets cut off, the one that's intended for Toll? That's a good slice in the rear, okay. This mitigation question that was raised about a north-south roadway, you're prepared to provide mitigation, how would that manifest? MR. KLOHN: In speaking with Joe Schmitt, he wanted to convey today that we were prepared to do that, to leave the negotiations for the rezone at the local level, but to share that with you. The Lord's Way -- Bob, and if I make a mistake, please jump in. Page 16 April 19, 2007 The right-of-way that the church and our company would be conveying for mitigation is the entire south border of the property fronting The Lord's Way. And the traffic signalization mitigation would be at this intersection of Collier Boulevard and The Lord's Way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you speaking on behalf of the church's property ownership as well? MR. KLOHN: I am. I'm authorized by Pastor Mallory to do so. And he's here today, if you'd like to have him-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know that he wasn't sworn in. But in any event now you're answering my question, I believe. And so I feel secure at least that the gap table -- I feel secure that the gap table at least is a reference point at the minimum for where you're going to place these units if they're made possible. I'd have other questions later, but I suspect my other commissioners would like to talk to you. MR. KLOHN: Great. I'd like to add one more thing. We also have Marie Nino here with Physicians Regional Hospital, too. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a few. Marjorie, this is a 69-acre request for a change to a 79-acre PUD. In our packages we seem to have consent from 69 acres of ownership for the PUD, but I didn't find anything for the 10 acres remaining. What do we need to make sure that the rights of the 10-acre ownership are secured? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I'm going to have to defer to Mr. Schmidt. This is a -- by the way -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that will be fun, he's not here. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Not Joe Schmitt, Corby Schmidt. He's the planner assigned to this project. Page 17 April 19, 2007 This is not a rezone to a PUD, this is a compo plan amendment. I do understand that, you know, it was applied -- that there would have to be an applicant and so forth and the same procedures gone through. But I do think Mr. Corby Schmidt should come up and address that. MR. DUANE: Could I take a stab at that, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can. I'm just going to want something on the record to clarify that. I understand there's a potential agreement between -- MR. DUANE: Yeah, I was going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, let me finish speaking. I understand there's a potential agreement between Toll Brothers and you guys, and that's fine. And if there is, I want testimony to that effect. And maybe between now and the time of the adoption hearing, that agreement could be put -- assembled, put together and then presented to us prior to the adoption, if it gets that far. So is that what you were going to allude to? MR. DUANE: Yes. And I believe the pastor is also a party to that agreement, in addition to MGD Capital and Toll Brothers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're confirming that Toll Brothers is aware of what this amendment is about and what it means in their regards to the development of their property. MR. DUANE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DUANE: In fact, my understanding is that they are comfortable with the agreement. I believe the pastor is comfortable with it. We're trying to get Toll Brothers' attorney comfortable with the agreement right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Student, in absence of the agreement, pending one coming at any some future date, is that legitimately -- legally sufficient for you? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That satisfies my concerns, Page 18 Apri119,2007 because we're at transmittal, and also there may be something that could be produced by the time we get to the BCC transmittal hearing as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, I'd like some clarification, and Bob started in the questioning of this issue, but I didn't hear answers that help me understand it. There are 296 units that are being built. How many of those are going to be committed to the affordable housing price range? MR. DUANE: 150 units for CWWIP, 150 units on a first come, first serve basis for essential service personnel. In the event that those two components do not play out, then there's a minimum of 60 gap and workforce housing units which will be provided and subject to the county's density bonus program. Thirty-five of those will be for gap units at less than 150 percent of the median income, and 25 of those will be for workforce units at less than 80 percent of the median mcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have 296 units. So when you reference 150, 150, you're just using round numbers to make the conversation a little easier, fine. If the CWWIP doesn't come forward, and I know you tried and were unsuccessful once already, then at that point are you going to rely then on just the 150 for the essential services program? And I'd like to know what that program is, because I didn't know we had one. MR. DUANE: We're going to offer those on a first come, first serve basis to the essential service personnel providers. And I would defer to Bill to share with you what kind of commitments or limitations the essential service providers may themselves want to place upon those units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you do that, I've heard mention that there's an essential services program, that that's what you're going to be providing for. Page 19 April 19, 2007 I know we have an affordable housing density bonus program. We have an affordable housing agreement. Do we have an essential services program? MR. DUANE: Well, I use the word perhaps loosely. It would be collectively; however, the essential service providers wanted to define the parameters for participation into that program. Whether that be limitations on the length of time they could occupy the units or how the resale of the units would be handled. And I'll defer to Bill on the rest of that. MR. KLOHN: On Page 14 of the staff report, item number three, it is worded, enter into an agreement with Collier County, assuring that no fewer than 150 affordable workforce and market rate housing units are constructed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, Bill, you've got to slow down. She can't write that fast. I don't mind if you want to go forward again. Just say it a little slower so she can take it under her notes. MR. KLOHN: The operative word here is that one of the three items that we're committing to, you know, it's one of the three, CWWIP, essential services or the 60 units. In the event that it was the essential services personnel commitment, we would enter into an agreement with Collier County which would be satisfactory to Collier County for our commitment to provide housing for essential services personnel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then Ms. Student, in order for them to have an agreement with Collier County to provide services to essential services personnel, how would that have to evolve, since I don't know if we have a program for essential services personnel in Collier County? Because I know we do have one for an affordable housing program. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: You're correct. And there has been -- I believe it was last year, there were some statutory changes Page 20 April 19, 2007 made by the legislature that addresses essential services personnel and how certain lands and so forth can be used. I didn't bring that with me today to discuss it, but I would have to look under that statutory framework with staff and see if they provided for a program to be developed. And then if not, I think we could enter into some type of developer agreement with the applicant at the appropriate juncture to accomplish this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your -- of the 296 units, you're either going to have 150 through the CWWIP program or 150 through some yet to be determined essential services program. And failing either of those, then you're going to drop down to 60 gap workforce; is that correct? MR. KLOHN: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLOHN: And I would like to add, Chairman, that historically when we have made commitments to Cormac Giblin for 10 percent or 15 percent, the actuality at the end of the project is much greater. And the reason that we're not just going across the board to do 150 units for all three categories is that we want to preserve any restrictions on the property for purposes of lending. The greater restrictions that we put on the property, naturally the lending changes. But those are the three minimum commitments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the end, though, we could end up with 60 units in the worst case scenario for your 236 market rate; is that a fair statement? MR. KLOHN: That's correct. And please keep in mind when evaluating that, that besides the traffic information that you'll hear a little bit later, that we're removing and eliminating the 400-bed care facility and the 120 travel trailers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. In fact, in my discussions -- and I was one of the commissioners who I was Page 21 April 19, 2007 assuming you were alluding to that you spoke with about our concerns, my concern at least -- I had mentioned to you straight up front that the traffic was an issue with me. I know you've made an attempt to resolve it, and I need to have -- I will be talking to transportation staff and your expert as we go through this today, because I'm not sure we've gotten there yet. I understand what you're proposing, but you're still having a net impact of a positive greater than currently proposed impact on the road system. I know it's less than what you originally started with by phasing it to 150. I'm curious as to why 150, which is half your unit count, isn't half your traffic impact. Because if it was, it would make you in a much better position. I'll wait. I'm sure your traffic guy will have a way to explain that. MR. KLOHN: Right. And our rationale of phasing the project, given the traffic constraints, is that the traffic with 150 units, the net differences is a couple of hundred trips a day, I believe. But I'll let the traffic experts address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I have other questions, but I'll wait, and as we go through the rest of the presentation there's some of staff and there's going to be some of transportation. At this point, does anybody else have any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staff report? Mr. Schmidt? MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning. I think there'll be a number of questions that remain that I can answer for you as I stand here this mornmg. Also, perhaps I can begin with some clarification about the number of versions of the staff report you may have seen. I have in front of me an original version with nothing but black Page 22 April 19, 2007 print; one from April 5th, which mayor may not have some blue and red print, as well; April 12th, which I believe was delivered to you earlier this week or over the weekend; and a version that's been updated. You have just the updated pages that were handed out at the beginning of this meeting that should be dated April 15th or April 12th. That being said, if there's any confusion over which version or what you're reading, just have me pause and ask. Some of my presentation will repeat what was presented by the applicant's agent. And let me put something else up here, just for some clarity, because I'll begin where some of the questions left off. First, this is 69 of79 acres on the subject property. On the overhead here I have highlighted those easternmost 10 acres. Some questions have arisen just during staff review and since about the uses on each of these tracts in the existing PUD, and what would be left on those easterly 10 acres. Whether those are ever utilized, because it's undeveloped at this point in time, may not be important. But that is the acreage we're talking about on that Tract D, which is about the northerly half of these 10 acres is permitted to have the multi-family housing in the present PUD. The lower half, a portion of Tract B has a combination of permitted uses today. The multi-family, the travel trailers, and that could be where the adult living facility would have been located. The rest of the tracts are a mix of those uses, including of course the church facilities themselves, other institutional uses and so forth. But that is that easterly 10 acres, not part of to day's consideration. Again, this is a request to establish a subdistrict to allow for a PUD rezone on this portion of the property. It is proposed to be mixed uses. And you have that mix of uses already at hand because of the existing PUD that stands on the 69 acres, plus the additional housing that's being proposed. Page 23 April 19, 2007 I know there's some confusion over the numbers, working through versions of the staff report. It was one of the reasons it had been revised more than once, is to clarify how we use those numbers. And let me try verbally to do that. On this property, the total number of dwelling units is 306. Ten of those are ancillary or accessory to the church or institutional uses, and they're addressed that way and not part of the overall count. The 296 that remain, there's three ways that you'll see that addressed: Either through a CWWIP program, and there'll be some agreement between the county, the essential services personnel housing group that exists that supports the CWWIP application on this property, and that would provide a mix of housing styles and a market rate and affordable units. The second option for all of those 296 is that they meet the county's affordable workforce housing density bonus program. The third option is the one that's the agreement yet to be reached with the county that we laid out with some amount of specificity. And that is to -- of that 296 require 150 be for people involved in providing essential services in the county. Of the same 296, 60 of them would be gap or affordable. And that agreement to do that, to first offer those units to the ESP or the people providing essential services in the county, would be in place for 15 years. That's the third option. Almost all the other figures in the staff report are simply there to show calculations and clarify old information: 104 density by right, remaining192 and so forth. Let's not confuse those at this point. 306, 296, 150 and 60 affordable. That's likely the way this may end up if the CWWIP program is not adopted. And I say that about being likely because the county's affordable workforce housing density program isn't today available to this property. And I simply state that in the staff report for you. And there's a number of reasons why it isn't. If you'd like me to go into Page 24 April 19, 2007 some clarification, I can. Otherwise, I'll proceed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, would you mind, Mr. Chairman? Just briefly touch on why that -- it has something to do with the rural fringe? MR. SCHMIDT: Not at all. Generally I believe I have stated or the staff has stated in the report that the application has not met the requirements or definitions of the county's affordable workforce housing density bonus program. Well, the first thing, it's not available to properties in the urban residential fringe where this property is located. It would require a compo plan amendment, which is what they're doing, in order to be allowed to be in that program. So it becomes that third option through the process they're in. One of the methods that density can be increased on this property through -- or is through the transfer of development rights through the TDR program for the sending lands in the rural fringe, or the rural mixed use district. Also, the county's density program requires that all of them be owner occupied. That's not necessarily the case here. If this were to be CWWIP housing, some of those could be a co-op arrangement and may not meet the letter of the law for ownership. It's just a may thing, and it's just left out there. Also, this subdistrict itself replaces the requirements or the limitations already in place because this is the urban residential fringe subdistrict. It's one area like this, or one subdistrict replacing another. There's a number of reasons why it can't or doesn't meet those requirements for the county's density bonus program. Unless there are questions about the land uses existing or proposed on the property, I'll skip over those. I think they'll be more coming from transportation staff or their transportation people about traffic and calculations for traffic and transportation impacts. Keep in mind that the overall density in population on the Page 25 April 19, 2007 property did not translate to a decrease in trips, and that's why I think you'll be looking for some extra explanation. There are no other concerns for public facilities or public utilities. It seems to be just a transportation issue. And you've heard some presentation about mitigation options. I've included in the staff report the calculations regarding what density or what number of dwelling units is permitted on the property today. And in the existing PUD there are provisions for converting the unused density in the adult living facility or the undeveloped travel trailer areas into other units. And those calculation are shown to you. I think one of the things that I would want to stress is that the property has a number of existing uses permitted, and most if not all of those, except for the two exceptions you've heard about, will be continued to be requested on the property and need not focus just on the residential aspect of this. But it still is a mixed use proposal. Even though you've seen revisions and iterations of the staff report, our recommendation remains the same. It is for approval with revisions to the language as proposed. And either in a previous version or the most recent handout you have language that has the revised entry for the Collier Boulevard community facility subdistrict; along with some of the individually listed requirements or limitations that the staff recommends having to do with limitations on floor area, number of dwelling units; the replacement of those travel trailers over time as the other site built housing is developed; the inclusion of 150 units for essential services personnel; the three-option list or the three ways that this would become a mixed use proj ect, including the affordable housing; a limitation on the number of market rate units that can be built before others; and then some zoning related issues regarding maximum occupancies; the landscaping requirements along Lord's Way; and the mitigation associated with the traffic impacts. I'll leave it at that. I am also prepared to clarify how the county's affordable Page 26 April 19, 2007 workforce housing density program works and where some of those numbers were derived. But unless there's questions, I'll leave that for later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. Are there any questions of Corby? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Why are the 10 units ancillary units? Why are they accessory to this process? What does that mean? MR. SCHMIDT: Those are the units that would be only for church employees, clergy, people involved in the institutional uses on the property. COMMISSIONER CARON: Understood. But -- MR. SCHMIDT: And they're not part of any market, market rate, affordable housing that's being requested here that wasn't already in the PUD. It's a simple conversion of some of the 57 or with the conversion of trailers, the 80 that they still want to withhold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, while we're on that subject, Corby, I noticed that, too. And it says they are not calculated or discussed as either affordable workforce or market rate housing herein. But are they calculated or should they have been calculated in traffic impacts? Because in our Land Development Code there is definitions for dwelling units. These are 10 dwelling units. How will we address that from a concurrency viewpoint? MR. SCHMIDT: Staff made revisions to the traffic report, and those numbers are changed, given those additional 10 units. Perhaps some of the specificity is not there with number-to-number impacts, but we showed density changed by count as part of those traffic numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The report that was handed to us by the traffic engineer prior to the start of the meeting doesn't include that 10. That's why I brought the question up. It shows 296 and is not -- it's Page 27 April 19, 2007 not done at 306. MR. SCHMIDT: I'll let them answer that question regarding their information. But inside your staff report, your county staff has addressed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The transportation department indicated that the project is not consistent with Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the transportation element and 1.1.2 of the capital improvement element of the Growth Management Plan. Is that still the case? MR. SCHMIDT: It still is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yet you're recommending approval? MR. SCHMIDT: We know that mitigation measures are available to a developer and transportation staff, and those limitations or those requirements of 5.1 and the other sections referenced can be met. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 8 of your staff report -- and Corby, there's been so many, I don't know how to describe this one. It's called -- there's no date on this particular one, but it's the one that has the blue corrections to it. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the middle you talk about, it says under this scenario the 23 replacement dwelling units gained by eliminating all 57 remaining dwelling units approved by the present PUD would sum up to 80 units. Can you explain that paragraph to me? And I left out some verbiage only because I just need you to read it and explain it. MR. SCHMIDT: That's fine. Again, there are 57 dwelling units and I think in a multi-family arrangement already permitted on the property. And without those highlighted 10 acres on the property, with the conversion of travel trailers and the living facility, 23 more would be available. It was a conversion. And the paragraph above where it's Section 3.2 on the same page talks about that conversion, those 120 Page 28 April 19, 2007 travel trailer lots, the 400 adult living facility beds, have a conversion of 1.5 per acre. That simply adds up to the additional 23 for a total of 80. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're saying by that paragraph is they could put 80 units of residential on there now utilizing that conversion ratio; is that correct? MR. SCHMIDT: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm running through the staff report questions. I've noted you've answered quite a few of them. On Page 13, you're talking about a removal ofa number of travel trailers over a five-year period. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do we -- how could we be assured that's going to happen? I know there are problems out there now with code enforcement issues, and I'm just wondering how we know that this will be complied with. MR. SCHMIDT: There's more than one way, but Bill may want to address that as well. MR. KLOHN: We have a contractual relationship with the First Assembly of God whereby all the trailers on the MGD property are to be removed within a two-year period from our date of closing. I believe the remaining time, Pastor, correct me if I'm wrong, is approximately six months? Approximately six months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So these particular travel trailers are on the property that you're going to develop. MR. KLOHN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just said refer to the subject property. It didn't indicate necessarily it was just on yours. You can't build if they're there, I take it. MR. KLOHN: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You wouldn't be able to build if they're sitting there. Page 29 April 19, 2007 MR. KLOHN: That's correct. And that's why we have the contractual relationship with the church to have them removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Going further on that question, I want to be absolutely clear on that. When we speak of removing, we're talking about literally taking them off of both the property you intend to build on and Pastor Mallory's property? I'm concerned that we don't transfer density. Are they to be in fact removed? MR. KLOHN: I'm unaware if the pastor has plans to relocate any of those for the purpose of his 10 ancillary housing units, so let me ask the pastor. PASTOR MALLORY: Yes, 10 will remain there until the -- MR. KLOHN: Ten will be temporarily on the pastor's site on his ancillary housing units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Until a permanent structure -- MR. KLOHN: Until a permanent structure is constructed by the church. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That makes sense. My concern here, Corby, was that we don't end up doubling -- or not doubling but enhancing the density. And as long as that's clear, that's what I wanted to get on the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, the reference, I've seen it in your staff report and other places, that there are a possibility of up to 386,000 square feet, where did that come from? MR. SCHMIDT: That's in the existing or the present PUD, and that's the maximum number of floor area for all those institutional uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I read the existing PUD. I must have missed it. Because I found references to the quantity of units and the number of seats. I didn't -- I must have missed where that Page 30 April 19, 2007 386 was. It's been a while since I read it, so -- but that 386 is actually spelled out in the existing PUD? Mr. Duane is over there shaking his head no. MR. SCHMIDT: I may be standing corrected. Just a moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DUANE: No, they're not. As I indicated on the outset of my presentation, they were very generalized measures of development intensity set forth in the PUD. Some square footage, but it was mostly seats or school children or day care units or care units that the PUD measures had not evolved through '99 with that level of specificity. The pastor has assured me that if you take all of those and put them in the same -- the pot, based on his long-range plans, that's the number of square feet that he believes is stemming forth from the planned unit development approval that he had approved in 1999. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would we want to take the unit counts that were referenced in the original PUD and put in the GMP a reference to a square footage? That would be necessarily an arbitrary number, more or less, when the site regulations are going to dictate whatever you could build there, based on the quantities you're asking for? MR. DUANE: Their thinking evolved through '99. And I can't speak for the pastor. He's given me some assurances that those are the development intensities that result in his long-range program. He had a site development plan approved in 1994 by Collier County. This is several years old. This area remained the same. Of course this was the travel trailer lots here. This was the assembly center. The easement of course remained the same. Travel trailer units, cluster housing. But this was what he had approved in 2004. There were no number of square feet approved with that site plan. These were basically footprints. The assembly center, for example, I believe that footprint is four stories. It's over 20,000 square feet per story. That Page 31 April 19, 2007 comprised part of that square footage, just like other components of it were comprised. It seemed logical to take a total number of square feet that was going to constitute collectively all of its facilities, rather than trying to break it down to children and seats and chapel seats, et cetera, et cetera. And that's the best answer I can give to your question, unless the pastor wants to elaborate further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Duane, on the map you have up there, is any of the area on that map, which is a former site plan, going to be utilized by the 296 units that we're currently discussing here today? I know what your answer is, but I'd like you to tell me. Could you leave the two of those up there side by side instead of the aerial. MR. DUANE: Actually, I've got one on the back and front of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, well, that's handy. Okay, so some of the 386,000 square feet that you proposed on the other site plan, that was the reason why it's in the GMP, is actually going to be utilized by the 296 units you're asking here for today. So if that's the case, how are you going to do 386,000 -- where's your reasoning why that 386,000 square feet should still stick? MR. DUANE: This is the 23 acres that is going to be developed for the housing, less the 10 acres of the back. And the balance of the property is what is going to be utilized for the pastor's program, for his worship facilities, for his rehab facilities, for his care facilities. Mr. Strain, the 400 units alone -- and I'm not privy to all the discussions he had with his architect, but if those care units were 500 square feet each, you'd have over 200,000 square feet just in the care component of the project. Page 32 April 19, 2007 And of course we have other components: The worship center, the family center, the transportation center. I mean, I think if you look at the way that it lays out, this is a logical representation of the uses that stem from the 1999 zoning approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying anything about the uses. You just said that the 400 care units could equate to almost 200,000 square feet. But I also understand that's being taken out of the picture because of to day's -- MR. DUANE: No, there's still care units, there's still 400 care units remaining. MR. KLaHN: There were two buildings that were each 400 beds. One was an adult care living facility and one was a care facility. In speaking with the pastor while Bob was speaking, the 368,000 (sic) square feet would have been much greater to include the uses that we're deleting today, would have been a bigger number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the way Mr. Duane started out the presentation in response to this question was with a site plan that I believe he was trying to indicate was the source for the 386,000 square feet. MR. KLaHN: Bob, tell me ifI'm wrong, had we not deleted the 400-bed adult care facility, that 368 would have been much larger? MR. DUANE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have some questions of transportation, but maybe others do. Any other questions of the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Corby. I guess Nick, how are your negotiations doing? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No arguments, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There shouldn't be, Nick. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida with transportation planning. Page 33 April 19,2007 If you think the bed count and counts you've been discussing are confusing, I took it really simple for transportation. I just looked at 150 units and 150 more units for traffic analysis, which just breaks it down to really what the gist of what they're doing. At 150 units, they're less than three percent of the impact on Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A little closer to the mic. MR. CASALANGUIDA: When they double that amount, they significantly impact Davis Boulevard, and that's where inconsistency came Ill. What they're proposing as phasing is consistent with Collier Boulevard being let in three months. That's the approximate time frame we'll have a contracted bid for Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you see this Table I-A Peak Hour, Peak Direction information passed out to us by their transportation engineer this morning? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I did this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did this? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I saw this this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says under the Davis Boulevard, west of Collier Boulevard two-lane section that the current remaining capacity is a negative 218. Is that true? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that negative 218 include any vesting units in the original PUD for this property? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. That 218 is background traffic plus banked trips is that number. So your negative 218 would not include project trips, because it's -- that haven't been applied for for this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the 296 units, the 50 percent Page 34 April 19, 2007 of those Phase 1, the 150 units would be further contributed to that negative 218; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It wouldn't be more than three percent on Collier Boulevard. I wouldn't place those trips on Davis Boulevard. But if you're asking me if trips will hit Davis Boulevard, they will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And my other questions, Nick, are going to be mostly about -- from their transportation engineer and about his report, so anything -- anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I needed a clarification on the transaction that just went before. You're saying if it were to have hit Davis Boulevard, you would have said no. But that's with the 296. But the 150 does not rise to that number. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's less than three percent ofthe service volume -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And under the phasing scenario, based on the time frames, your expectation is is that because we're about to let -- hopefully let a contract for Collier Boulevard, that the phasing would probably be constrained until that was completed? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fair. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that would be under a PUD or whatever. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because they'd be in for zoning and there's still another year for that process to take place. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The amount of vested traffic that they have in that, do you have a number? MR. CASALANGUIDA: For this project? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not for this project per se but for The Lord's Way, the original Lord's Way, the 9,959? You don't have to have an exact number, but do we have a decent number? Do we have -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have the original trip generation Page 35 April 19, 2007 from the existing PUD. I'm assuming no reductions. Looks like-- well, no, this is their existing, right? Minus the150. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The basis for my question is the original number was predicated on conditions of another time. Do we take into consideration the changes? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. I want to clarify one comment. The number I gave you gave them no reduction to the elimination. I gave you worst case scenario. There is a reduction to what they're taking out. Now, if you look at that 150 trips that they talked about adding with the first phase, they are eliminating uses in there. If you give them that credit, it will even be less. I'm giving you worst, with no credit at all, they will be consistent with the first phase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nick, on the report that was provided to us this morning, it shows that with Phase 1 at 150 units, they're still going to have a trip increase of 345. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's not what I see here they provided under there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good. Then tell me how I'm reading it wrong. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. You're talking about daily trips, that's what you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other trips. Okay. The real trips. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're talking about daily trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. We're talking about p.m. peak hour trips, that's how we do the concurrency and consistency review. It's not daily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So they would get a credit for that. And I assumed worst case scenario, no credit, the first phase would still be consistent with 5.1 on Collier Boulevard. Page 36 April 19, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the 296 units that they're proposing and the original increase in traffic, they looked at a 3,800 number over a 28 existing, so they're about 1,000 over. They now cut that proposing phasing in half, so they're down to 150. But I didn't see a similar decline in their trip rates for daily. Can you explain that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not linear. When you start looking at traffic analysis for residential development it's on a curve. So the larger the development, the numbers change. It wouldn't be a linear equation. So it isn't a straight 50 percent reduction when you look at trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're proposing to put the second phase in at the time the contract is let for Davis Boulevard. How much time does it take from the time a contract is let to a completion, a substantial completion of Davis? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Approximately 48 months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for two years they would still be impacting a road that is deficiently operating because -- and even more so because it would be under construction. Is that fair? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That would be fair to say. I think to qualify that as well, too, they're going to go through the rezoning stage. I'm understanding this is GMP amendment and we would, again, qualify that at that stage as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But when they go through the rezone stage, once they get through this phase, you're going to look at this as what's in the three-year window or five-year window of your plan. And if it's under potential contract within five years, you're going to give it a green light, basically. Is that fair? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be considered consistent. So if you qualified that now and put a restriction on Davis going forward, I would imagine we'd do the same thing at the zoning stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because my concern is the Page 37 April 19, 2007 traffic that's already out there, it just isn't that good. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Our concern is that you hope to bid a project that comes in at a reasonable price and you don't have that control until you actually sign that contract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we know contracts don't happen when they're supposed to. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just what you just said about a potential contract versus -- isn't it committed -- isn't it a commitment that the -- the five-year window, isn't it based on money available? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's based on money available. You have a five-year work program and a three-year committed window. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But not simply a potential contract. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, the problem is that when you have a project -- this has happened on Collier Boulevard North, you estimated it to be 23 or 24 million, it comes in at 43, then you readjust your capital plan going forward based on increase in cost. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's never really ever firm. And that's one of the issues that the chairman is bringing up. The whole problem is it slips, it slips, it slips. And I guess, I'd have to assume -- you're not the right person, but I'd just make this comment; perhaps Mr. Klohn would comment on it -- that the restrictions, if this were to go forward, the restrictions on his organization to build, although we need the housing, would have to be reflective of the limitations we have in money and the ability to deal with road building, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other questions of the applicant, of staff, of the experts? Anybody at all? (No response.) Page 38 April 19, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one more of the applicant then. And I don't know, Mr. Klohn or anybody, I need to ask you about your commitments for traffic. I understand your 150 and your phasing, and I appreciate that. And I -- before Nick's discussion I was concerned that you hadn't come down to a palatable level with the road impact. But I think at the 150 you have. My next concern is your second phase. I don't think tying it to the contract of Davis Boulevard best serves the public, because you're going to be then tying it to a time frame that is going to be under construction and more confusing and probably worse in regards to traffic flow than we have now. Would you have any objection to tying it to the completion of Davis Boulevard? MR. KLaHN: Yes. Our preference is to have it tied to a date that we could start our units while the road is being built. And I don't believe -- Nick, what did you say it would take in timing to complete CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty-eight months. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Twenty-four months. MR. KLaHN: And the time to go through SDP and our construction is close to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You could actually submit -- you could do your design, you could submit for SDP and you can submit for building permit, I believe. The only question I would have is if you need a year to build your units, which is probably a general time frame for that last 150, if you were allowed to be issued SDPs and construction permits to start construction one year after the contract was issued on Davis Boulevard, would that work for you? Then your timing for COs would be about the same time as the completion of Davis Boulevard. MR. KLOHN: Could you restate it, please, Chairman? Page 39 April 19, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. If you were tied to one year after the contract date of Davis Boulevard for your second phase. And the reason I'm suggesting that is it would give you then one year to complete your project, so your project's timing for completion would be at the same time Davis Boulevard would be theoretically complete. MR. KLaHN: I understand what you requested now. Again, my preference would be that we would be able to begin construction with the execution and commitment of the contract. I would add, however, that please consider my request today and then we can deal with the traffic issues at the PUD level. I'd like the compo plan to give me the flexibility to do what I'm requesting. And if it looks like it's -- as we get through the next year that it is problematic, then we can deal with it at the local zoning level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I originally thought that might be a solution, but when Nick indicated to us here a few minutes ago that when you're at the PUD level you're subject to the five-year analysis for concurrency, and that if we're going to fix such a stipulation it should be done at this particular level, that way he wouldn't have to be tied to that concurrency requirement, it would be better. At least that seemed to be what he was indicating. So that's why I'm asking the question. And when -- yes, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are there any -- to your knowledge, are there any restrictions or constraints associated with the CWWIP requiring you, once beginning construction, that you must go forward or any other factors that would impact on this issue that we're raising for you? MR. KLOHN: No. In the CWWIP program -- which would be the application for the CWWIP would be the first 150 -- we have certain documents that need to be signed by the county that warrant access and traffic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But no constraint, no restriction Page 40 April 19, 2007 on you with regard to when you must begin and when you must end? MR. KLaHN: You know, I'd have to review the application. I think that there probably is. If the state is going to, you know, issue grant money, they don't want it sitting out there for 10 years. I believe that there is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that. And that's what why it might be a question relative to what we're asking you to do, whether or not they're in contradiction with each other. MR. KLOHN: I'm sure there is a time limit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, but I wouldn't suspect -- I think for the direction -- I thought 24 was far better than 48 months. And I understand your term the preference, your preference is, but if you had to go forward and such a stipulation were provided, that wouldn't encumber you to the extent where you would stop going forward, would it? MR. KLaHN: It might hinder the subsequent application for the following CWWIP application. If the county couldn't warrant that there was available traffic, I might have to sit out a cycle, and that would not be desirable. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I brought that up so that that would be part of the conversation. MR. KLOHN: Yeah, I appreciate Chairman Strain's concern, but would still like to request that we deal with this at a local level so that we've got the flexibility to move forward with the CWWIP application for the 146 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing that, we will entertain a motion. Page 41 April 19, 2007 Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make motion that Petition No. CP-2005-13, Collier Boulevard community services subdistrict Growth Management Plan amendment be forwarded to DCA as transmitted with approval. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. I'm sorry, Mr. --- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'll surmise is that we'll do that, but subj ect to the changes in the staff report that have been submitted to us this morning, as was indicated on the sheet that Corby gave us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have to call for the vote again then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you please? I'm sorry I failed to put that in. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second? MR. DUANE: I have a clarification. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Nodding head affirmatively. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker and second are okay with the clarification made by Mr. Murray. Go ahead, Mr. Duane. MR. DUANE: Could you clarify how we are treating the 150 units in the context of this GMP amendment? I was suggesting to you earlier that given the unique nature of this project that we had to be able to rely and have some predictability Page 42 April 19, 2007 on the first phase. This project is highly unique. Its impacts on traffic are relatively modest. It's clearly in the public benefit. And some of those benefits, if we're not able to put a first phase in this GMP amendment may jeopardize our ability to provide for these housing units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The motion maker intended that there be a first phase of 150 units. MR. DUANE: Thank you for your clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the second intend that, too? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made, there's a couple of changes to it. I think everybody understands what those are. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? Aye. So the motion carries 8-1. Thank you. And with that, we'll ask for a motion to adjourn the GMP amendment hearings. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti. Seconded by Page 43 April 19, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Commissioner Midney. And then before we go into our continuation of our first meeting, we'll take a 15-minute break and resume at 10:01 -- I mean, 10:05, I'm sorry . There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:50 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 44