Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/07/2007 R June 7, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida June 7, 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 Tor Kolflat Brad Schiffer Donna Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 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 A V AILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 19,2007, REGULAR MEETING; APRIL 19,2007, SPECIAL GMP MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MAY 8, 2007, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8284, Tree Farm Land Trust, represented by Robert Mulhere, AICP of RW A, Inc., and George Varnadoe, Esquire, of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP, is requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for project to be known as Tree Farm MPUD consisting of a maximum of 200,000 square feet of commercial uses; and a maximum of 425 residential units. The subject property, consisting of 58.84 acres, is located at 8799 Immokalee Road, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) CONTINUED FROM 5117/07 B. Petition: V A-2007-AR-I 1459. James and Lavonne Williamson, represented by Son rise Properties of Naples, DBA Son rise Building Company, requesting a variance within the Wyndemere Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a four foot variance from the required 40 foot front yard setback for a comer lot located within the Wyndemere Planned Unit Development, for a project to be known as the Williamson Garage Addition. The subject property consisting of 0.34 acres is located at 186 Edgemere Way South, in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) 1 C. Petition: CU-2005-AR-8479, Southeastern Association of Seventh Day Adventists, Inc" represented by Fred Learned, LA of Community Engineering Services, Inc. requesting a Conditional Use in the Village Residential (VR) zoning district pursuant to Table 2, Section 2.04.03 of the Land Development Code (LDC). The 1.0 IT acre VR zoned site is proposed to permit a Church with a maximum of 4,200 square feet of floor area. The subject property is located at 745 5th Street South, Immokalee, in Section 9, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, in Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach) D. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-11081, Dr. Terry P. McMahan, president for International College, Inc., represented by Michael J. Volpe, Esquire of Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi, LLP, is requesting an amendment to the Harvest for Humanity pun to change the permitted uses to replace the current resident's activity center and blueberry farm with its ancillary sales facility with limited Educational Services on certain tracts. The subject property, consisting of 38.4 acres, is located in the northeastern quadrant of the intersection of Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road in Immokalee, Florida, in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 617/07 cepe AgendalRB/sp 2 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Welcome to the June 7th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you will all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY CLERK CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Roll call by the clerk. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. The addenda to the agenda. Page 2 June 7, 2007 The agenda, from what I understand, hasn't got any changes. We will be going forward with all four cases this morning. There is a clarification. The staff report -- the staff report dated June 29, 2007 on Tree Farm Road that said we were going to be hearing Tree Farm Road on June 27, 2007 is a typo, I would hope, unless somebody is working in the future. Today we'll be hearing Tree Farm Road, just for that clarification on the agenda. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is June 21 st. Does anybody know that they are not going to be here? Mr. Tuff. Anybody else? (No response.) Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES -APRIL 19,2007, REGULAR MEETING; APRIL 19, 2007, SPECIAL GMP MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Approval of minutes. April 19th, 2007 regular meeting and April 19th, special GMP meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that for both, sir? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. Any comments? Page 3 June 7, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Item #6 BCC REPORT RECAPS - MAY 8, 2007 REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC reports and recaps, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. On May 23rd the Board of County Commissioners heard the Wolf Creek PUD. That was approved by a five to zero vote. The companion item, community development district, was denied by a vote of two to three. The Silver Strand conditional use for rip mining was approved on the summary agenda, as well as the Williams Horse Stable conditional use and the Naples Bridge Center conditional use. All of them were approved on the summary agenda. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Page 4 June 7, 2007 The Chairman's Report; I have two things to mention. Ray, I may not have discussed this previously with staff. I know I have with some because Michael has been very conscientious to call me at times that we've had Immokalee petitions to ask if we wanted to have the petition heard in Immokalee. And in those times when he has called me, I have asked him if there has been any response at the neighborhood information meetings, were there any attendees because prior issues were rather non-controversial. And in each case he had told me no. Based on that, I didn't see the need then to move out there for that one issue. In this particular case, I wasn't called ahead of time, that I recall. And the neighborhood informational meeting had quite a few attendees. And I know there are some here today. In the future, I would prefer if there is ever a NIM that has attendees in Immokalee, I certainly think that would show us an indication that we need to hold the meeting in Immokalee. If there is reasons not to, certainly let me know. I think from now on if we can just kind of set that as a rule of thumb, it might help us be more, you know, respondent to the Immokalee community and getting those people to attend our meetings. Would that work? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We did discuss that with staff, but I'll put in a more formal process where nothing goes on without coordinating with you on the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the agenda is coordinated. But by the time I get the agenda, the advertising is already done. So I think it needs to be that it is prior to you setting the ads because that's what spurs the -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have them scheduled on the calendar. We'll just go through that and pick out all of those that have Immokalee petitions. And we'll run that by you and determine what kind of attendance was at the NIMs. Page 5 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if we can consolidate on those days and even make it an off Thursday. If we do the first and third Thursdays here, maybe we -- if we have too much going on along the coastal area, you might look at the second and fourth Thursdays out there. That way the court reporters and staff and any people that want to participate can be out there. MR. BELLOWS: We can do that. There are going to be special instances. I think the one with the Nogaj's had very much a time constraint on their part and they really could not afford to wait any longer than they already have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are documents that indicate they needed to have this done this morning. The second thing I want to mention is handouts. I did meet with some applicants prior to today's meeting. One in particular is the Immokalee application. And they had a couple of letters -- single-page letters that they wanted to give us during the meeting. And I know that I, as well as the rest of the Planning Commission, really wish that we didn't get handouts during the meeting because they are hard to read and digest. These were short. I suggested that from now on, during this phase of the process, any handouts be passed out so that we can read them during the breaks and different down times throughout the day as we approach the applicant's hearing. So ifthere are no objections from the Planning Commission, we won't admit them into evidence right now. We'll do that when we actually hear the application, but at least we'll get them passed out. We'll have a break around 10:00. Ifwe want to read them during that break, we can do so. Mr. Volpe, I believe you had some handouts. Would you mind distributing them to the court reporter, as well as the Planning Commission members. MR. VOLPE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Page 6 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And are there any other applicants -- if there is any other applicants that have handouts that they did not run through staff, please use this time to distribute them to us. Okay. The first thing I want to make sure is that the court reporter has five packages. Everybody that just gave us a copy, you have to give one to this young lady sitting here or it doesn't count. I appreciate everybody providing those early. That will give us time to read them for those cases that come up later in the day during breaks. I want to caution everyone that this is a courtesy to you all and in the future we'll try to do it, as well. If you take advantage of it by flooding us with too much detail and too many documents that we can't accommodate, we can always decline the ability to accept that into evidence and it won't help you at all. So, still, I think you need to strive to get it through staff during the normal channels. Occasionally there are a page or two, letters and stuff that are missing, and that's what this opportunity is for. Thank you. Item #8A PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-8284 With that, we'll move into the advertised public hearings. The first petition is PUDZ-2005-AR-8284, Tree Farm Land Trust. It is the mixed-used planning development, MPUD, zoning for the Tree Farm MPUD. This was continued from May 17th, '07. All those wishing to testify in regards to this application, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Let's start with the left. Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes. I spoke with John Passidomo Page 7 June 7, 2007 about this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had spoken to Mr. Passidomo also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have spoken with Mr. Passidomo and Mr. Varnadoe and Mr. Paul Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I spoke with Mr. Varnadoe, Mr. Passidomo, Mr. Mulhere. And we discussed the various items of the PUD, including the development standards table, which was in error again today and which is going to be corrected again today. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I met with Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Passidomo and discussed issues of density and intensity and traffic issues and affordable housing issues and on and on for about an hour and a half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nothing. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I spoke with Mr. Passidomo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the packages that were passed out to us, if I'm not mistaken, there were two items that pertained to this particular document -- this case. One is the memorandum from Cheffy and Passidomo. It's dated April 23rd, 2007. It is addressed to Collier County Developmental and Environmental Services Division staff. And it is from Christopher Thornton. It is pretty thick. I'm not sure we're going to have time to read it. We'll have to see. The other package is a stipulation listing deviations and utilities. It's a lot more data than what I think we can read immediately. Any comments from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah. I think this is wrong to do this. Page 8 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go forward, we need to decide to accept it into evidence or not. Having received it this late, I offer only -- maybe staff has some explanation. Has this been received by them and read by them prior to now or is staff in the same position the Planning Commission is at having just received this today? MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. I just received this today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Perhaps the petitioner would like to continue this so that we will have a chance to review it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how necessary this is to their arguments today. But if it's critical, this commission can't read this stuff on the fly. You have, I guess, maybe two options. You could continue this to later this afternoon, give us time to read it during the break, if that works for the Planning Commission. I certainly think we continued it once. I would rather get through this, if we can. And let us hear the other two cases -- the other three cases first and you go to the last today or you can continue it to a new date if this is critical to you. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. John Passidomo,on behalf of the petitioner. The memorandum that you have is really an articulation of substantiated consistency with the comp plan. We have talked to the planning staff about that. We understand that EAR-based amendments were later adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. So there is no question about consistency with the comp plan. We just want to simply submit that into the record just to show that the submittal, as originally offered and as currently contemplated, is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Page 9 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Passidomo, if we admit this into the record -- maybe the county attorney can provide some information on this. I'm concerned that it would signify that somehow we've acknowledged it and read it and digested it. Having just handed it to us, I don't think we could have done that. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I agree with you, Mr. Strain. I have just seen it for the first time also. So I agree with Mr. Strain's position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe were to move this item to the last today, would that give you time to review this? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, it would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that give the rest of this Planning Commission time to take a look at it during our break? Mr. Passidomo, what do you want to do? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, alternatively, we can withdraw it. We just thought as a matter of pleading the record it might be helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you need it in the record, the only way you're going to get it in the record right now probably is to continue this to the last item today. Otherwise, you want to withdraw these? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir, we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they will not be considered for today's meeting. Thank you. Mr. Passidomo, it's all yours, sir. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is John Passidomo. My address is 821 Fifth Avenue South in the city of Naples. Our firm represents Thomas S. Monaghan, as owner, and Tree Farm Land Trust, as the developer, in the mixed-use planned unit development petition before you for consideration this morning. Our land use planner is Bob Mulhere of R W A. Our transportation Page 10 June 7, 2007 consultants are Ron Talone and Vijay Kornala of David Plummer and Associates. Our environmental consultants are Elena Mandia of Passarella and Associates. Our economic consultant is Russ Weyer of Fishkind and Associates. Mr. Mulhere will present our land use petition to you at the conclusion of my introductory remarks. Mr. Talone, Mr. Kornala, Ms. Mandia, and Mr. Weyer are available, or on their way, and will be available to respond to any questions of a technical nature you may have at the conclusion of our presentation. Let me begin that presentation by sharing with you the three guiding principles which drove the creation of the land use plan Mr. Mulhere will present to you after my remarks. The first, adherence to the precepts of a mixed-used activity center as espoused in the Growth Management Plan. And those are that commercial activity is concentrated where traffic impacts can be accommodated and strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development discouraged. The residential developments are located in close proximity to activity centers and the portions of the project within the activity center are developed at a human scale with a pedestrian orientation and interconnected within the project and with adjacent projects by multi modal means; vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access. As such, the project before you is consistent with the future land use element as it existed at the time the submittal was made and it is consistent with the EAR-based amendments to the future land use element later adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. The eligible gross density for the project is some 580 units. 425 are proposed as part of this submittal in the planned unit development document. The second driving consideration that drove the creation of the plan before you today is responsiveness to the county's preexisting transportation needs at and adjacent to the project site and sensitivity to traffic generated from the project on significantly impacted Page 11 June 7, 2007 roadways. The plan, therefore, reserves some 7.42 acres of land for right-of-way to accommodate the expansion ofImmokalee Road and the extension and expansion of Collier Boulevard. The property that is depicted in green on the display and here in front of you today . You can see that of that property there -- of the 7.42 acres, some 4.35 of those acres that are reserved for right-of-way are located within the activity center. Impact fee credits for this donation are limited to .47 acres and the balance of the land reserved and ultimately dedicated to the county for public right-of-way are not proposed to receive any impact fee credits. Approximately seven-eighths of the plan is being donated without any impact fee credits being requested. The plan also proposes that the project accept and treat stormwater from the impervious area of the proposed adjacent Collier Boulevard, the property along the full 60 acres of the property as it runs north and south and adjacent to the anticipated extension of Collier Boulevard North from the intersection ofImmokalee Road. Our consultant's estimate that -- that if a donation of an impervious pond were required there, some 1.2 to perhaps 1.5 additional acres of land would have to be accommodated to accept and treat that stormwater. We respectfully submit that these and other transportation related commitments described in the PUD document greatly exceed the applicant's legal obligation under what is commonly referred to as the rational nexus test. You know that test as the test that requires that there be an assurance given, that there be a reasonable connection between the required dedication of land and the anticipated needs of the community because of the new development. And we hope that you agree that to encourage donations of this sort to meet compelling public needs, the appropriate standard to measure commercial intensity within an activity center is the amount Page 12 June 7, 2007 of land located within the activity center prior to and not after the dedication of the right-of-way. That's how the Growth Management Plan specifically addresses residential densities and we think that is the appropriate standard to apply as it considers -- concerns commercial intensities. We propose to mitigate traffic impacts by requiring interconnections to adjacent projects -- and Mr. Mulhere will describe that to you in some detail -- paying our fair share of improvements to the Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard extension intersection. And that includes the rebuilding of the bridge that you see depicted on the western -- to the west ofthe project and the extension of the right-of-way coming across Immokalee Road, and, finally, stipulating that no certificates of occupancy for development within the master planned unit development will be issued until the six laning of the three significantly affected roadway segments are, in fact, substantially completed. Finally, we believe a mixed-used activity center at this location creates an opportunity to provide workforce housing in close proximity to workplaces. The third guiding principle that drives the plan before you today is, therefore, to capture this opportunity by requiring that in addition to a voluntary contribution to the workforce housing trust fund of$I,OOO per dwelling unit and 50 cents per commercial square foot built on the project, that 15 percent of the dwelling units built in the project be designated for workforce housing. We have taken the liberty of reducing these stipulations to writing and they have been circulated to you. Although, they are three pages in number, the ones that are italicized are simply the ones that are reiterated from the planned unit development document. Well, the memorandum may have been given back, but we intended to actually submit the stipulations. The stipulations, as far as new materials, Mr. Chairman, are very limited in nature. They are Page 13 June 7, 2007 really just stipulations that I have alluded to here and that are reflected in actual typed print on principally page three of that stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, those stipulation pages that were just handed back were several pages in length. Is that something that could be reviewed by you or needs to be reviewed by you? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I have already started on it because, as I understand it -- and Mr. Passidomo could clarify it. The italic is already in the PUD document. MR. P ASSIDOMO: It is. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: So without doing a cross-check between the two, which could take a little bit of time -- assuming that is correct, there is not that much additional to review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is in a separate sheet, not the memorandum that is multipaged? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to repass that out to us, with the permission of the Planning Commission? Is everybody else satisfied? (No response.) MR. MULHERE: Some people kept it. I don't have that many copies left. I thought you kept yours and said you were going to toss it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. MR. MULHERE: Except the last page is the new one. I'm out. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all right. I will take Paul's. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression you still had that. Let me apologize for not having submitted that before. As you can see, the first two and a half pages or so are simply a reiteration of what you had seen already articulated verbatim from the planned unit development document. The balance of it are things that we have offered as stipulations, as conditions to any motion for Page 14 June 7, 2007 approval that the commission may want to entertain. The first is the transportation one. And it is -- articulates the condition that no certificates of occupancy will be issued until the roadway segments have been substantially completed and identifies those three significantly impacted roadway segments. The next provides a proposed stipulation on commercial space. As we suggested, there is 175,000 square feet of commercial space. We are proposing to build only a maximum of 143,500 square feet of retail commercial space. The balance, if at all, would have to be office. And affordable housing conditions or stipulations are as I just proposed them to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was a lot shorter than the last one you gave us, so I don't have a problem with it. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the rest of the members of the Planning Commission? Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. Thank you. I have a comment, just on my very quick review here. On the transportation it just says, "Has been substantially completed and that is fully opened to traffic." It would seem that would mean it's completed, rather than substantially completed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far on that, there is a difference between final completion and substantially completed. I think the difference is the punch-out items, but Nick is here. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I would like to have clarification on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have used that word in that reference "substantially" before. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I want to make sure we are okay with that. Page 15 June 7, 2007 MR. MULHERE: I did check with transportation. And "substantially completed" means fully open to traffic, but maybe Nick can -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have not been sworn. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nick Casalanguida, transportation. Substantial completion means that through lanes are actually carrying the vehicles on the roadway. Final completion is the landscaping and things like that installed. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you for that clarification. I also have one other comment under the commercial space section. This doesn't -- totally reflective of what Mr. Passidomo stated. The balance he said would be office and it just references retail. I don't know if we want to add, "The balance of office," for clarity. MR. P ASSIDOMO: I would be happy to do that. Thank you. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Also, on the affordable housing provisions, paragraph Roman numeral 5(B). I'm not seeing when these contributions are going to be made. There is no trigger event. MR. P ASSIDOMO: At CO we anticipated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At CO? MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, how do you monitor those? Have others been at building permit or is it CO? MR. SCHMITT: We prefer at CO. It's the best way to collect it. That has been the stated method here recently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, anything else? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's all without -- I didn't check the italicized portion, obviously, word for word. I just have received it. And I think if they stipulate that that's what's in the PUD, ifthere is a discrepancy between this and the PUD, then what is in the PUD will control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's my understanding then-- Page 16 June 7, 2007 first of all, we are not voting on the text of this document. Weare simply accepting it into evidence based on the stipulation that the italicized text is what is in the PUD and with the couple of corrections that the county attorney has recommended. Is there a motion to recommend evidence? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will. I have one question on the affordable housing. Is that the right name for the trust fund? Is it affordable housing trust fund or a workforce housing trust fund? Is that right, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I believe -- without having anybody from staff here, I have to think -- workforce is in it, but we can correct the title. MR. SCHMITT: Affordable workforce housing is fine. It's not been approved yet by the board under an official name, but the board of housing trust fund is somewhat the nomenclature being used now to identify that trust fund. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is: This denotes it as affordable workforce housing trust fund, which is -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think we probably need to take workforce out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This motion that we're seeking is purely to accept this into evidence. The details of it -- when we get into discussion after presentation, we can probably get into those details at that time. Is there a motion to accept this into evidence? COMMISSIONER TUFF: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff seconded by Mr. Adelstein. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 17 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have now at the conclusion of Mr. Mulhere's remarks or any other time prior to close of the public hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know there is probably a lot of questions. Brad, if you want to -- do you have any other questions about this stipulation sheet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I was just curious about the word "workforce". CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with that. Is there any other questions about this particular sheet? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: According to your affordable housing section, does that mean that all of the affordable housing could be in that upper range? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER CARON: Of321,000? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're proposing by the way I read this to do both 15 percent and the contribution. MR. PASSIDOMO: That is correct. We want to recognize that making a monetary contribution will be helpful -- hopefully will be helpful. And we certainly recognize the action of the Board of County Commissioners' stake in that regard. But we think that this site Page 18 June 7, 2007 uniquely lends itself to the creation of workforce housing with the adjacency of residential, with dwelling units contained within the activity center per se. We think it is a natural and we're happy to provide both of those commitments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice in your first couple of lines you're very careful the way you have worded this. "The applicant shall provide 15 percent of the total number of units built in the project in the affordable housing price range for workforce housing." Does that mean you're entering our affordable housing program with those? MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, it does not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it a one-time sale issue? MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, it is not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to restrict the price for resales on those units? MR. PASSIDOMO: I'm sorry, sir. There is no limitation on those units, no. We're simply making them available so that they come into the marketplace, but there is no quid pro quo requested in exchange for providing the workforce housing. Weare not looking for an impact deferral. We're not looking for any kind of a density bonus or any other kind of benefit accruing as a result of it. So they come into the marketplace, but after that they are free to be held to the marketplace. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want this to be understood for what it is. I commend you on number 5-B. That is the standard contribution a lot of folks are making. That's all you needed to do. It appears as though you're trying to do more with 5-A, when in actuality what you're doing is you've got a market condition which is going to allow you to price under 321,000. And you're basically saying, "We are going to do that for at least 15 percent of them." I think you would probably do it anyway, but I wanted to make sure that that was clear. Page 19 June 7, 2007 MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, point well taken. I think it is also a recognition that in an activity center it really lends itself to workforce housing. We recognize that reality. We think it's certainly something we can do and we're going to commit to doing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got you. Thank you, sir. Any other questions of Mr. Passidomo's section of the presentation? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER TUFF: The commercial space area-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Mr. Tuff, go ahead. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Just the commercial space you went from the 175 to 143. Would that mess up any of your feasibility studies with -- what you based on square footage? MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, it won't. It recognizes that the market isn't at the point now to determine how we allocate between retail and commercial space -- retail and office space. At the appropriate time, three years from now, when we want to put a shovel in the ground, we'll do a market analysis and determine whether the demand is for retail or office and make that determination at that time in the future. But it commits to limit commercial space to 143,500 square feet of retail. Anything in excess of that will have to be office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You indicated that the -- that location and way it is structured lends itself to workforce housing. And I would tend to agree with you and certainly appreciate the offer to give some folks an opportunity. What distresses me is that the whole premise is to create a condition where workforce housing survives so that others may benefit. I just wonder if you folks would consider, if a stipulation were offered, that we do constrain you as it is stated in our Land Development Code documents to require you to remain in workforce Page 20 June 7, 2007 housing for those 15 percent for the stated period. I believe it's 15 years. And we would like you to talk that over and think about it because I'm inclined to offer that as a stipulation. MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Murray. We actually have discussed that. And, if you would like, I would be happy to respond to it right now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please. MR. P ASSIDOMO: I tried to allude to this in my introductory remarks. Weare not asking for anything in exchange. Weare not asking for impact fee deferral. The Land Development Code talks about things in exchange for providing workforce housing. Weare simply recognizing the reality that this site lends itself to workforce housing. We will commit to selling 15 percent of whatever number units are built to accommodate workforce housing, but we cannot put any kind of a limitation on our ability to deal with those units after they are sold to the initial buyers. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And I appreciate that. My thinking process was that we keep on trying to build an inventory of these houses. And this -- while the offer is generous and it is considered, what you indicated was that -- I think that generally the area lends itself to workforce housing. So as Mr. Chairman has indicated, you're basically going to offer it all at the same price anyway. That's the impression that I get out of that. And as a sales approach it might be fine, but it doesn't help us overall in keeping some kind of an inventory going. And that's the distressing factor. I recognize there's no advantage to you. But, then again, if you're not constrained, there is no advantage to the county either. And so the question is whether this is truly an offer on your part. MR. PASSIDOMO: We're concerned that the marketplace won't react as favorably to a workforce housing unit that has limitations as Page 21 June 7, 2007 the inability to sell and capture all the benefits of home ownership that you and I enjoy. And it's offered in good faith, but it's offered with the recognition that we cannot -- we are not asking for anything in exchange for it. And we cannot, in good faith, apply any conditions to it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Very well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we ought -- because of the obvious 5-A, 5-B is what we really ought to base our decision on. What they are offering is what everybody has come forward and accepted and what has more or less been somewhat established. $1,000 per unit is $425,000. The 50 cents per square foot is just under a hundred. So you're looking at about a half a million dollars in revenues for affordable housing out of this project. The other part of it is the limitation of 15 percent. Well, that is fine and dandy. I think that is going to happen anyway. It might be even more than that the way the price of the market is going. Thank you, SIr. Any other questions of Mr. Passidomo before we go to Mr. Mulhere? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhere with R W A. I think John -- I will try to not be repetitive, in terms of some of the information that he had already provided. But, generally, I'm sure you're all familiar with the location, northwest corner of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. I have a -- I'm going to stick with this one. On the visualizer there's an exhibit that shows the project and shows some of the surrounding lands. I will discuss those briefly. To the north of the project is the Mirasol PUD. Directly to the west there are some, I believe, predominantly five-acre tracts in this area here. There is an easement that runs through the property to access these tracts. And we have maintained that easement for interconnectivity purposes. Page 22 June 7, 2007 You will also note that there is interconnectivity both directly north and west of the northernmost point of the project, which will allow -- assuming that the northern property owner of Mirasol does connect -- would allow them to access Collier Boulevard Extension. They do not have access to Collier Boulevard otherwise. Heritage Bay PUD DRI is located to our east across the future Collier Boulevard Extension in here and, as you can see, is already under construction. And we have located really what would be our primary entrance point at what might be a full intersection. There is no commitment on transportation staff at this point, but it does meet the separation requirements to be located where the Heritage Bay main access point along Collier Boulevard is located. We have also met with property owners immediately to our west, The property within the commercial activity center -- mixed-use activity center and we are in negotiations with them. We have agreed to provide an interconnection here. We have agreed in principle with them that they will provide that interconnection. Perhaps, more importantly, staff has indicated to me that it will be required. And they are -- I don't think they have submitted their rezone, but they are very close to submitting it. This will allow access from our project and through our project to Immokalee Road. That access will line up with the Pebblebrooke access there and will also, conversely, allow traffic from this project or traffic entering this project to access the future Collier Boulevard Extension. Immediately to the south across Immokalee Road is Richland PUD, which is known as Pebblebrooke. And caddy-corner in this vicinity here -- this is ag zoned and used for agricultural production purposes. I think Mr. Passidomo indicated we are requesting 425 dwelling units. That is 7.22 units per gross acre. The project is eligible for up to 580 units, which would be just under -- about 9.9, just under ten Page 23 June 7, 2007 units per acre. That density is acquired -- that eligible density is calculated through the following mechanism: Your base density of four dwelling units per acre. The activity portion center of the project, which is 18.69 acres, allows for up to and is eligible for up to 16 units per acre. And then the balance of the property heading north falls within the residential density band allowing for up to a three dwelling unit per acre density bonus. So when you calculate that all out, the maximum eligible density is 580 dwelling units per acre. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Ten units per acre. MR. MULHERE: 580 dwelling units total. Ten per acre. We are requesting 175,000 square feet of retail and office. As Mr. Passidomo indicated, we have offered a limitation on that -- on the retail portion of that to 143,500 square feet. The staff had expressed a concern relative to the amount of total commercial square footage. Originally when we submitted the PUD we were asking for 200,000 square feet. We reduced that to 175,000. And staff continued to express a concern. And, as a result, we have offered this condition, which would allow 143,500 maximum retail and the balance office. We don't know exactly what the mix will be. Weare very certain that there will be a mix of retail and office and we'll know more specifically in -- as Mr. Passidomo indicated, probably two or three years. I do feel that the more retail that we construct on the site, the lower the total number we can achieve. And that is based on the fact that retail generally is single-story and also it is based on the fact that there is greater parking requirements for retail. So you're going to consume more geography with retail. So the more retail we build, the less total square footage we are going to build on the site. By providing that flexibility, there's a greater likelihood that we will, in fact, build more of a mixture of Page 24 June 7, 2007 office and retail. I do want to go over the PUD briefly. This is within the mixed-used activity center. The recently adopted EAR-based future land use element amendments to -- relative to mixed-use activity centers requires us to construct at least 30 percent ofthe units that are generated from the activity center density within the activity center. And we have committed to that. The balance of the units that are generated from the activity center density must be built within a third of a mile. You are probably familiar with this because it wasn't that long ago that you all looked at it and approved it or recommended approval to the Board. Weare committed to that. Weare also committed to full interconnectivity from a vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle perspective both within our project and the residential portions to the commercial portions, but also to the projects along and adjacent to our project. We think that will have a very beneficial impact on overall traffic. For one thing, by having that interconnection that I previously indicated to you there is the opportunity for traffic to avoid the intersection and access this property. In fact, ultimately when Collier Boulevard Extension is constructed they would be able to then avoid the intersection and head north on Collier Boulevard Extension. I have no idea when that is going to happen. At present, that roadway will only be constructed probably as far north as this main point of access so that -- I think that, to some extent, is incumbent upon Heritage Bay. We have, as was indicated, provided 7.42 acres, of which .47 will receive impact fee credits. And I just want to very briefly tell you why that is. It seems like an odd number. During our discussions with staff, it was indicated that they needed a small portion of land, which is why the master plan shows those right-of-way areas in three tracts so we can identify that .47-acre tract for impact fee credits. Staff felt they needed that sooner, rather Page 25 June 7, 2007 than later as it relates to some interim improvements that were going to occur. We said, "Well, we are not even at the stage of zoning. So we'll need impact fee credits for that." Staff agreed. And that is why that .47 piece is eligible for impact fee credits. It was indicated that we will be handling the stormwater for that portion of Collier Boulevard. Fifty percent of that portion is immediately adjacent to us. We have provided for well easement locations and two well sites. We have provided three locations. There is some choice in one of the locations and we'll work that out with the utility department as soon as we move forward. The site is -- has been historically utilized for a tree farming operation. And so it is really entirely void of native vegetation. There was some native vegetation on there that was inadvertently cleared during an agricultural clearing operation. It was close to the right-of-way, I believe, at the northern portion of the project. There was a compliance code -- notice of violation issued and that was resolved. That compliance agreement is attached to the PUD and we are providing for .51 acres of replanted native vegetation as a commitment to that code compliance case. We asked for three deviations. Staff supported two of them. One is pretty standardly approved. That is the 50-foot -- reduction from 60-foot to 50-foot for roadways. The second one was we wanted to have more than the maximum five model homes. Staff didn't support it. We are fine with that. We'll live with that LDC condition. And deviation three I did want to discuss very briefly. That allows for an off-site sign and it allows the off-site sign to exceed the maximum square footage of 12 feet, but not greater than 16 feet. So it's a little bit larger and also allows for it to be located -- the LDC limits the distance for an off-site sign to 1,000 feet from the business or property that it serves. And I just wanted to show you that we are planning on locating that in this vicinity here because we'll have that off-site connection Page 26 June 7, 2007 here. And this will be, you know, six lanes and this will be ultimately six lanes. And it seems appropriate to have some sort of signage that would recognize that by making a left in here you can access this property. And, for that matter, I guess, a right if you missed it, if you don't turn up on Collier Boulevard Extension. And we feel we have limited it and staff supports that. I want to talk just a little bit about -- by the way, we are also providing for a greenway. I don't know why they call it greenway because it is asphalt. However, that's what they call it. So we are providing for a 12-foot greenway along the frontage. And that can be located within this reservation area to the north of the canal or -- on our property. It really depends on the ultimate design. The Immokalee -- the intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard presently is slightly offset. And you really couldn't make the connection north with a fully improved intersection, two left turns, two through lanes, two right turns or some very similar configuration without the right-of-way that we are providing, which is why you see that larger amount of right-of-way as you approach the intersection to accommodate intersection improvements and actually shifting on the north half the intersection slightly to the west so it does match up with the balance of the southern portion of the intersection. And then the other portion of that deals with what ultimately will be a relocation of the canal in that vicinity. Presumably when this property to our west comes in, they will also have to provide a slip of land there for that canal relocation. And so we have spent a lot of time over the last -- more than two years with staff in looking -- and CH2M Hill has been the design engineer looking at the ultimate intersection improvements. I just wanted to give you some sense of comfort that we are providing what is necessary for that to be improved. And, obviously, we benefit from it and we are willing to share -- to pay our fair share of costs of those improvements. Page 27 June 7, 2007 With respect to the commercial demand analysis and some concerns that staff raised relative to that -- and we do have experts here who can speak to the specifics. I am going to deal with it very generally and in particular some issues that Mr. Passidomo touched on briefly. That is, the -- I want to reiterate that we do have 18.69 acres of land in the commercial activity center. For years a rule of thumb generation commercial square footage per acre of commercial zoned land for retail uses -- and I reiterate -- for retail uses has been 10,000 square foot per acre. And so if you use that rule of thumb and use the 18.69 acres that we have, we would be eligible for 186,000 square feet of retail uses within the 18.69 acres that we have. We are not asking for 186,000. We are asking for 175,000, which is less than that rule of thumb. Staff raised the issue that 4.34 acres of that is going to actually be right-of-way and we concur. But we are also asking for a mixed-use -- mixed commercial use development allowing office and retail and we have limited the amount of retail. And that rule of thumb only applies to retail. When you build office, which can be multistory and has a lower parking requirement, you can yield a reasonably higher number and still meet all the development standards that are required; buffers, setbacks, open space, native vegetation. That number is anywhere -- depending whether you're going all office or part office and how many stories you're going, that number is anywhere from 12,000 to 15,000 square feet. And if you look at only our remaining acreage, subtracting out the 14.34 acres that will be right-of-way within the activity center, the remaining acreage, our yield at 175,000 is slightly over 12,000 square foot. It's 12,200. And I would argue to you that allowing that 175,000 with the restriction we have put in place that limits the retail to 143,500 makes sense because it is an incentive. It is what we need when the time comes to determine if we, in fact, will do more office. To do anything Page 28 June 7, 2007 other than that, with the yield being significantly higher on retail, is likely, at least in some way, to increase the likelihood of retail versus office and mixed-use. We expect it to be mixed-use and we can reasonably accommodate 175,000 square feet on the remaining parcel. I think that really concludes my portion of the presentation. I-- as Mr. Passidomo indicated, we are available for questions and we do have several experts that I'm sure will need to answer some of those questions. Mr. Strain, I know that you have several corrections to the PUD document. I don't know if you want to go over those now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly would like to address the part of the presentation that you're responsible for. I know I have -- and maybe the others have questions on the economics. And Russ is here, so I will certainly have questions of him. As far as the PUD document goes and that portion of the presentation that you're involved with, I would rather get your questions out now and move into the rest of the elements after that. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there questions ofMr. Mulhere and the PUD document? Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Are you addressing the commercial needs report which was submitted? MR. MULHERE: Only to the extent that I just did. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Perhaps you can answer it. On the last page of the report there is a Tree Farm site map. Could you take a look at that. MR. MULHERE: I have to defer to Russ Weyer. I did not prepare that. Russ, do you want to come up and speak to this question? I know that we changed that site map several times at staffs Page 29 June 7, 2007 request. I am going to let Russ answer that. MR. WEYER: I need to be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. WEYER: For the record, Russ Weyer from Fishkind and Associates. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On this site map that you have here, the blue line, as I understand it, describes the market area; is that correct? MR. WEYER: Actually, is this the map you are looking at? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mine is blue. MR. WEYER: Is that the most current report? MR. MULHERE: Hold up what map you're looking at. MR. WEYER: That was the older map. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Maybe it has been changed, but the blue line here describes the market area; is that correct? MR. WEYER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KOLFLA T: It is kind of a gerrymander line. How do you arrive at that description? MR. WEYER: We utilize a program called Eyesight and they utilize drive times based on speed limits going through there. And we utilized conservative speed limits. And then it draws the lines around those roads utilizing the roads on drive time. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: This is a special program that does this? MR. WEYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions ofMr. Mulhere? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, this is on the development standards. I assume the recent one is 5 of25, correct? The PUD. Page 30 June 7, 2007 MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Which date did you say? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dated 5/29/07. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. That's the one I'm using. The commercial development standards? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It will be residential. My typical concern about the distance between buildings. Can you make that greater than 20 feet? The multifamily building is the only thing I'm concerned about. And that will be -- you will be building them greater than 20-foot high anyway, so that is a moot point probably. MR. MULHERE: Right. Because the separation increases. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As the height -- MR. MULHERE: What you were suggesting was make it 20, instead of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Make it greater than 20. Use the greater than symbol. It would be 20 feet and one millimeter. MR. MULHERE: What I'm looking at, wouldn't it be just as easy to say 20 feet or one-half the building height, whichever is greater? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just trying to avoid a building code penalty you had if you put it at 20 feet. You can do that, if you want. MR. MULHERE: I see. So somewhere down the road the art desk is going to say we have to be 21 feet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or 20 feet, 1 millimeter. It is going to be greater than 20 feet, but you can put 20, if that's what you MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the next thing, since we are starting to add the actual height for these, I think your disclaimer takes away what would be the impact of that. For the building heights you do put down there that is the zoned building height, not to be confused Page 31 June 7, 2007 with the actual building height. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I have no objection to that. In fact, I know that that is now happening, but this PUD, I think, preceded that. Apparently at one of the Planning Commission recent meetings you asked to make sure that that happen. I have no objection to adding both zoned and actual if that is -- you know, between now and the board. But I will have to do that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you have actual-- you listed an actual height, so that is not the issue. The issue is the building height that is referenced in the separation. Since you do have two heights, clarify which height you're referring to. MR. MULHERE: I understand, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions ofMr. Mulhere? Bob, let's go to the -- MR. MULHERE: I am on that page, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, no. Go to page 425. Let's start from the beginning and work our way to the -- MR. MULHERE: I'm there. Compliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number five. It says that you have met certain -- you're going to implement the further objective to the FLUE, which is your concurrency management of the public facilities. And you go into your transportation element and your sanitary sewer subelement. But under objective 1.5 of the recreation and open space element, what criteria of that element did you meet that you feel you complied in this regard on this project? I didn't see any parks in the project. MR. MULHERE: No. But the provisions for open space, the provisions for native vegetation retention, and payment of park impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The objective that you reference says, "Continue to operate existing program for enforcing existing Page 32 June 7, 2007 future developer commitments for recreation facilities and open space." So even though you're not -- there is no recreation in those open spaces -- MR. MULHERE: I have no objection to removing that. I assume that paying impact fees does that. It is not over and above that, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just trying to understand it. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Strain, I have no objection to removing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I might have gotten carried away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it happens. We don't need to go to a page. I can just talk to you about this. You are providing the area for the future widening of Collier Boulevard. That's 951. And then someday it's supposed to go up through your project, through Mirasol, and connect to somewhere along Bonita Beach Road, if that ever happens. What width are you providing in your project for -- to accommodate? MR. MULHERE: We are providing -- well, it varies. Let me step to the exhibit for a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. MULHERE: It is significantly wider here and then it narrows at this point just about right here. This is to accommodate turn lanes and canal relocation, et cetera. From here and northward it is 50 feet. And that is because there is a commitment on the part of Heritage Bay -- and I'm looking for Nick. I think they are required to provide -- I think it's 100 foot. I defer to Nick on that. And the reason that we reduced -- we originally had 100 foot, but by taking the water and looking at the commitment from Heritage Bay, staff agreed that we did not have to provide any additional Page 33 June 7, 2007 right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, how many acres oflakes do you have on your project? That number wasn't in any of your documentation. MR. MULHERE: I do not know. Perhaps I can find out for you, if I get a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will need to know that before we're done. Nick is behind you. Nick, if you have got 100 feet from Heritage Bay and 50 feet from this project for 150 feet, what width thoroughfare are you going to be putting in there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's going to be a four lane section, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Peter a long time ago told this county that his standard now was nothing less than six lanes. Why are you putting four lanes here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: When we run the modeling, it's consistent with the long-range transportation plan. From that section of Collier Boulevard up to Bonita Beach Road, you will not have a need for above four lanes. So it has been documented and we have done a traffic analysis and we have also done a typical section. We actually went way beyond what we normally do to review a PUD. We used our consultant actually laying the roadway alignment. Past this PUD, once you get into Mirasol, it breaks off into 200 feet of right-of-way. You could go more, but when you run the volumes just up to Bonita Beach Road, four lanes carries that. There is limited access between the two projects. In other words, once you get past Mirasol, there is no driveway interconnections on this roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nick, one of the big items about the extension of 951 was that it would give future access to the eastern Page 34 June 7, 2007 side of Collier County directly to the Gulf Coast University. And, to me, your justification of four lanes is odd when somehow you have justified six lanes for the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road that is just going to suck up neighborhood supposed traffic from the estates. So how do you justify those discrepancies? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. With the VBR extension your ultimate build-out study shows a six lane need. With Collier Boulevard going up -- past Bonita Beach Road it may warrant a six lane per your DRE report. So continuing north through Lee County, it may warrant a six lane. But that Bonita Beach to Collier connection, because you have got that Logan connection, as well, too, tying into it, it only shows a four lane need between that section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just curious as to how you can have a road so obviously traveled as 951. Right now with four lanes from Golden Gate Boulevard to Pine Ridge and south are jammed up, packed tight. And now you're suggesting four lanes is all that you need to go from Immokalee Road up to Bonita Beach Road. And that, to me, is going to be the main alternative to 1-75. I just think it's odd, but I certainly can't argue with your statistics because I don't have them in front of me, nor did I do my own yet. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. It's the driveway restriction. If you look at I-75, currently it's a four lane section. And if you have no driveways on either side that road runs pretty fast. Once you get past the Mirasol/Tree Farm connection, there are no driveways. So a four lane section will carry a significant amount of volume. Obviously once you get to Bonita Beach Road and continue north and the driveways come into play, you may be looking at a six lane section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Going north on 951 right now from Green all the way up the Boulevard there is no driveways. MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's a lot of conflict points on Page 35 June 7, 2007 Collier Boulevard. On here you wouldn't have that many. That's what the model shows. I haven't picked it apart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was hoping you had for this because if you need more right-of-way in the future, you're not going to get it I wouldn't doubt. MR. CASALANGUIDA: There is 150 feet. I think based on what we have done, we have got some flexibility there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Mulhere, on page 19, item 4.4(B). This language surprised me. It talks about the number of residential units and says -- it starts in the second line, "A minimum of 44 residential units shall be constructed and the balance of the density accumulated from the activity center shall be developed within a third mile of the northern boundary of the activity center." I understand that you have to develop some within the activity center, the 44 units, but this, by the word "shall", seems to be saying you have to commit -- you have to build the rest outside of that activity center, whether you want to or not. The word "shall" is rather strong. MR. MULHERE: You raise a very good point. I think I took the language very -- it has got to be very close from the policy language. However, you raise a good point. That could be read two ways. It could be read to say you have to build the balance within a third of a mile, which is what I'm trying to say, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't put more in the activity center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am just suggesting that you may want to provide some flexibility. MR. MULHERE: Maybe we need to say within a third of a mile or within the activity center. That ought to get it, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you committed to have to build the Page 36 June 7, 2007 full amount of the residential under any circumstance? See, the way I read this is you have got a certain amount of residential that you're saying here you shall build. You shall build it within the activity center or you shall build it within a third of a mile. You can't get away from that based on this language. Anything goes wrong, you still shall build it. I'm just wondering if the word "may" would be a better opportunity than "shall". MR. MULHERE: Well, I will defer to staff. For me, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second part of it, not the first. MR. MULHERE: For the second part, yes, "May be developed." I think you still want to add a comma, "Or within the activity center." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And now we'll get to your infamous developmental standards table. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Can I just ask a question on what you were just discussing? Should it be -- should it read, "That you may -- that the balance of the density may be developed." MR. MULHERE: You're getting at the word "units". COMMISSIONER CARON: But it shall-- if it is developed, it shall be within a third of a mile. Isn't that what the real intent is? MR. MULHERE: Instead of saying "units", you simply say, "Whatever density is generated from the activity center, 15 percent should." I understand that. I think, you know, we were committed -- we were okay with the units only because -- and I think what you're saying is helpful. I think we were okay because that number is less than half of the overall density that we are going to build in the project. As a result, we assume we will at least build that number and be committed to the generation of that through the activity center. However, if you feel it would read better to say minimum residential -- within the 18 -- because it does start out, "Minimum residential Page 37 June 7, 2007 density." And it uses that word and I agree. If you say within 18.69 acre mixed-use -- a minimum of30 percent of the residential density -- of the density, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Shall be constructed and the balance of the density -- see, we use density in every location. I think that does work better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so, too. MR. MULHERE: The rest of it, I think, Mr. Strain, your change is stated. They still make sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just didn't want us to be in the position where we're forcing you to develop more density if you choose not to. MR. MULHERE: You're absolutely right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your developmental standards table on page 20. I spoke to these about you already -- yeah. We addressed this already earlier. MR. MULHERE: Yes. I have to apologize. I thought I had it right and clearly I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the record, let's walk through it. If you go to the very first header line and you go all the way to the right where it says clubhouse/recreational buildings and it references a sub- note five. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sub-note five has nothing to do with that category. MR. MULHERE: It can be struck. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You go five lines down where it says minimum front yard and it references a footnote four. MR. MULHERE: It can be struck. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same thing. It doesn't refer to anything. Under accessory structures, under front, sub-note four, same condition. Page 38 June 7, 2007 MR. MULHERE: It can be struck. Page 20 of25 of the PUD. MR. SCHMITT: You handed out another one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the new one we got from staff. MR. MULHERE: This is the most recent PUD. MR. SCHMITT: I have a supplemental information. MR. MULHERE: That has to do with other PUDs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is dated 5/29/07. MR. MULHERE: Weare on the right page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are, but staff is not is what you're telling us? Down under accessory structures to preserve setback. The reference three relates to garages. It has nothing to do with preserve setback. MR. MULHERE: Strike it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go back up to the body of the document. Minimum side yard, two family patio and zero lot line, as well as single-family. If you see note two, it references a four-foot setback, yet yours is supposed to be zero or six feet. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I can tell you what I was trying to accommodate there was -- in all cases having a separation of 12 feet, which I think you know the Planning Commission has always said was desirable. However, what I was trying to do was create some flexibility so that if you had four foot on one side, which allows room for maintenance, you could have eight foot on the other. But I have apparently -- I agree with you. If you go back to the table, it doesn't say that. This footnote is in conflict with the table. So, you know, I don't have an objection to striking through that language. It will say zero or six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm getting at. While we are on the footnotes, the following one down. I mentioned this to you, too. The side-loaded garages may be located Page 39 June 7, 2007 less than 25 feet from the back of sidewalk. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That should have been 23 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back to the table under maximum zoned height. You have two stories, 42 feet. Do you mean two stories not to exceed 42 feet? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I am just getting to that right now. I forgot we actually made that change on staffs request. Let me look. Two stories, yes, NTE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All across there you have to add that language not to exceed. MR. MULHERE: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Footnote four. You're striking the footnote or you're striking the reference to the footnote in the developmental standards table? MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Tell me that again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your footnote four, when you said -- my comment that on the residential development standards table the references where you have four located -- MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you striking four or are you striking the reference? MR. MULHERE: Striking four everywhere along the left column as you go down under principal structures and accessory structures. Under clubhouse and recreational buildings, instead of five, that should be four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're leaving four in as a footnote, but a different reference? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had a question about specifically four then. It says, "Although neither setbacks nor separation between structures are applicable to the clubhouse and other recreational structures located on the clubhouse tract." Page 40 June 7, 2007 But what I think that is trying to say is that there is no setbacks or separation between the structures that are on that tract. But if you look down under accessory structures, you do have setbacks, which, if you read number four, you're not supposed to. I'm wondering what you're trying to say. MR. MULHERE: I'm trying to say that -- the thing that concerns folks is the separation from the clubhouse tract to the adjacent tracts. And we have committed to 20 feet, but within the tract there really is no -- you can have the pool next to the clubhouse and so on and so forth. How about under accessory structures under front, side and rear we say N/ A, N/ A. And under preserve setbacks, since we know it is going to be at least 20 feet from the preserve, that doesn't really apply either. We have said that it is 20 feet from any tract adjacent to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to do N/A for all MR. MULHERE: Just like I did on the top. I left the 25 because that is greater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see that. MR. MULHERE: If you look under principal structures for preserve, I left that in because that's actually greater. It has got to be more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is in a separate section in the LDC anyway. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then your maximum height, by the way, not to exceed under accessory structure would still be NTE, as well, right? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Marjorie. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I take accessory structures to also Page 41 June 7, 2007 mean for the residential. You know, accessory to that because this says residential development standards. If you put N/ A in there, are you creating a hole where you don't intend to? MR. MULHERE: No. Only under the clubhouse. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, that gets us through the residential development standards table. MR. MULHERE: Okay. That's good. I'm glad to hear that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate your cooperation. MR. MULHERE: I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 6.2 on page 23, general. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your last sentence says, "Upon assignment or delegation, the developer shall be released from responsibility for the commitments." And it's referring to the commitments of the PUD after you pass them on to the homeowners' association, I would assume. Ray, is that language unique or is that standard language in the Land Development Code? MR. BELLOWS: I don't know. I will have to check. I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's already in the code, it may not need to be here. If it's unique and they're asking for something that's different, then it needs to be stated as a deviation. So if you could check before you go to the board. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, if we could check because I think that is the way it is. Once you have assigned them, you're released. That's why it's important to have that final walk-through with homeowners' associations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure the language that you inserted doesn't change the requirements of the Land Development Code. Page 42 June 7, 2007 MR. MULHERE: I am with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many acres of lakes are there, Bob? MR. MULHERE: I have a call in. The only thing I can tell you, Mr. Strain, is typically we use 15 percent as a rule of thumb on a conceptual plan. I believe that's what we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my next question. Under 6.4, utilities. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you move on from that point, should that figure be in the PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think -- MR. MULHERE: It's conceptual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know ifit needs to be. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a water management criteria. MR. MULHERE: I was just going to say especially with taking the water to the roadway that probably will go up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under 6.4, utilities. Your first line, "The developer shall reserve two areas to be granted easement in fee to Collier County." MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's out. I caught that and it is not -- the two are not compatible with one another. It's an oxymoronic statement. MR. MULHERE: I didn't write that. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We had an e-mail from utilities about the grant of an easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Grant of an easement. So in fee -- the words "in fee" drop? MR. MULHERE: I met with Marjorie -- what; Monday? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: And I did mean to put that on the record and I Page 43 June 7, 2007 apologize. There were some syntax corrections still. But I would like to put on the record the majority of them were standard stipulations where those corrections need to be made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick always has standard stipulations. He provided us with a rather detailed paper that we'll discuss at the business section of to day's meeting paragraph by paragraph and line by line. It will be a lengthy process. MR. MULHERE: That will be interesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your master plan -- I notice on the far left side of the master plan you have a greenway. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Asphalt greenway, which I'd love to see how the environmentalists, as you noted. I had circled that same question: How can asphalt be green? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is on the outside of the dedicated land that you're giving up for what, I think, is a future canal. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are people going to get to it? MR. MULHERE: We are going to provide -- we're actually required to provide a couple of parking spaces. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. How do you cross the canal once it is dug? Why would you want a greenway between the canal and the roadway? Wouldn't you want the greenway up against your property so people can walk to and from your property? MR. MULHERE: Are you suggesting that it is on the south side? I'm trying to find it here, Mark. I need something bigger. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So do I, but I used it. If you go to the master plan-- MR. MULHERE: I see it. What you're saying is within A -- that Page 44 June 7, 2007 Tract A that's where the future canal is going to be relocated? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that's what you said earlier. MR. MULHERE: It is. It is probably a remnant of -- prior to us having those final discussions. We are permitted -- the intent is to put it on the north side of the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there language in the PUD that can address it or could you add language? MR. MULHERE: I will make sure that that is in there. That's the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think I have exhausted the PUD questions. I still have traffic and economic, but we'll move on to whoever your next speaker is, Bob. MR. MULHERE: We didn't have any specifically assigned, so -- but we knew you would have questions. We have the experts here to respond to those. I will sit down and wipe my brow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of Mr. Mulhere at this point in the PUD? I have some questions of Russ Weyer, if he is here still. Yes. Anybody else have any questions with the economic feasibility analysis supplied? Russ, how are you? MR. WEYER: Thank you. How are you, sir? For the record, Russ Weyer from Fishkind and Associates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page three of your document, 2.1, under supply of commercial space, the very last line. It seems when you got to -- MR. WEYER: Excuse me. Are you using the most current one dated on March -- May 25th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a supplement sent out to the Planning Commission that included the most recent PUD. That's the one I'm using. Page 45 June 7, 2007 MR. WEYER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah. It is the 25th. MR. WEYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page three, 2.1, very last line of that page. It talks about your market area that you studied. MR. WEYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What it seems to say is anything above 300,000 square feet you did not include in your synopsis or your analysis; is that right? MR. WEYER: That is correct. There were three parcels that had over 300,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said they were removed from the supply since they are not competing as community serving, but are regional serving. MR. WEYER: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are those three that you eliminated? MR. WEYER: Back in the appendix page -- there's not a page number. But appendix number three talks about the supply -- demand and supply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Orange Tree, Malibu Lakes and the Vineyards? MR. WEYER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What shopping center in the Vineyards did you eliminate? MR. WEYER: Actually, all the 600,000 square feet was taken out of there, Mr. Strain. Generally -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Vineyards -- the shopping center I know about in the Vineyards is the one where the Publix is because it has a Starbucks. MR. WEYER: Right. Most of them do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's not a Starbucks, I don't know Page 46 June 7, 2007 there is a shopping center there. Where is there -- where is there a large shopping center in the Vineyards? MR. WEYER: Mr. Strain, when we do the market analysis we take into account all the PUDs. That land has also been approved and zoned, not necessarily built at that point. What we do is we utilize the Urban Land Institute's measurements on retail, which neighborhood is under 100,000 square feet. Community is between 100 and 300,000 square feet and then regional is over 300,000 square feet. Since this project is proposing 175,000 square feet, it falls into the community category. Therefore, what we did is -- in reality when we do these analyses -- and more often than not it's usually for Growth Management Plan amendments. And in this case since that -- it is just a rezone, we went ahead and did this at length anyway. What we did is we eliminated the regional ones that were approved, but we also did not include the demand for regional in this analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in eliminating the regional -- that is over 300,000 square feet? MR. WEYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, normally someone would think that that would have to be a shopping center of over 300,000 square feet. MR. WEYER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any shopping centers in the Vineyards over 300,000 square feet? MR. WEYER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you eliminated the Vineyards? MR. WEYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even though you don't have any shopping center in there over 300,000 square feet? MR. WEYER: Correct. But it has the potential for that. We took out -- Page 47 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where? That is built out. MR. WEYER: Mr. Strain, we can go ahead and include it back in. It is not a great amount of square feet in that strip center. However, we went through the approved PUD list and we took out all of the ones that were over 300,000 square feet. Approved to have them in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Again, it goes back to kind of the conversation we had about your contribution to 15 percent of affordable housing. I understand what you're trying to say, but it appears -- it may appear like you're trying to do something, but it is not in maybe reality as it touches the ground. Because you eliminated the Vineyards because it supposedly could have the regional size mall, when in actuality it is built out and it doesn't have a regional size mall. But you eliminated all that commercial from your total in your study. MR. WEYER: That's correct. We eliminated the 600,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The shopping that is going on in the Vineyards commercial area is going to be no different and mostly -- and be competitive to what you're building or proposing to build at this location. And you're saying that it was removed from the supply since they are not competing as community serving, but are regional servmg. That's not true. They are not built regional. They are built more community serving. And I think if you were to check with the Vineyards, they believe their shopping centers are more community serving and not regional serving. MR. WEYER: Actually, they're probably even closer to neighborhood serving. However, in either case, we can go ahead and put that back in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russ, that is just a disingenuous statement in regards to the way the thing was set up. That's all I'm Page 48 June 7, 2007 trying to say. If you're going to make a statement like that, let's make it for real. That's all. It just doesn't correlate. Malibu Lakes. That one is 330,000 square feet. It was eliminated and so was Orange Tree. Regional would be like our mall. Regional would be like the Edison Mall. Regional would be like Coconut Point and then the other one where the Bass is. I don't see any of these as regional. I mean, they are all -- they're, at the most, the type of thing you're building at an intersection of an activity center. And to eliminate those from your study I just didn't think is the right approach. I understand your reasoning for it, but I wanted to make it clear that from a regional perspective I don't see how any of these classify as regional centers. They are centers, but they are not drawing regional crowds like Coconut Point is and places like that. MR. WEYER: I understand your concern, Mr. Strain. We were going by the guidelines of ULI at that point. Again, it can be adjusted if need be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It all goes more to the need for your commercial size. And that's why I am bringing the point up. MR. WEYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page five, population growth. And you have a projection for the year 2010. Do you know what this year's growth rate has been? MR. WEYER: It has been reduced I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. So do you still think based on this year's growth rate that you're going to have a growth per year of3,194 units, which is 6.2 percent? MR. WEYER: It is all going to depend on economics. This is going out to 2010. It's all going to depend on the market at this point. We do it from a historical measurement. Forecasting going forward is -- you know, we give it our best shot based on historical for Page 49 June 7, 2007 the most part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, it is back to what 138,000 represents. I'm not sure the growth rate is going to keep up based on what we are now seeing. MR. WEYER: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page six, first paragraph, second to last line, "In 2010 the allocation ratio is projected to be just above the desired market equilibrium level of2.0." Now, the note that I made here was: Who decided this? And then I read your appendix four and I figured out who decided it. It was not the federal government or any particular group like that. It was somebody, but it wasn't -- we just arbitrarily went to 2.0 as what we think we need, from what I could read in appendix four. Can you explain how 2.0 came about? MR. WEYER: Yes. The 2.0 actually is a planning guideline that is handed down from the Department of Community Affairs from the state of Florida when they are looking at commercial going forward. The 2.0 is actually, again, for Growth Management Plan purposes. It is looking at projected all the way out and it allows for flexibility in forecasting on population and households, et cetera. So what they like to see is a 2.0 allocation ratio. However, as you go on down the line, that ratio is going to get closer to one to one as you get out there. For this purposes, and also when you look at that allocation ratio 2.0, they take into consideration under the Growth Management Plan the commercial overlays that really don't have any zoning on them at the point. Some of those we have -- we have taken away. We didn't take a look in context to this because it isn't a growth management change and a future land use map change. This actually is just a rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand now if you say DCA. I wish I would have known that. Your appendix four didn't reference DCA. I would have done some research with the DCA site to find that Page 50 June 7, 2007 out. MR. WEYER: I will be happy to provide that for you in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Your reference in the appendix four says that in order to reduce traveling costs and maintain reasonable land costs that you want to go to 2.2. And the allocation of2.0 is generally used in the current time frame for reasons mentioned above. I mean, do you think that land costs in Collier County are reasonable? MR. WEYER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's why I'm wondering why 2.0 might be, but I thought that was interesting. On page six, towards the bottom, you have a statement that says, "Based on this analysis, there is a clear and compelling case for adding additional community commercial lands in the marketplace." And it goes back to the 2.0 condition. And the reason that is important is on the next page. Under 4.3, in the middle of the paragraph, it says, "Adding the additional land for the zoned commercial inventory increases the allocation ratio from 1.06 to 1.14. An allocation ratio of 1.14 is substantially below the desired level of 2.0." Where is the threshold for substantially? MR. WEYER: Substantially below? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah. Why is 1.14 substantially below versus I .24, one point whatever? What triggers substantially; anything in particular? MR. WEYER: Nothing in particular, Mr. Strain. It's my professional opinion. Generally 1.5 and below. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 1.5 and below. So you're saying anything a half a point off might be substantially? MR. WEYER: Right. Page 51 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because in the next line you say, "An allocation ratio of 2.66 is just above the desired level of 2.0." MR. WEYER: Again, a professional opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you just said that.5 was maybe the threshold for substantial. So wouldn't .66, because it is over .5, be substantially above 2.0? MR. WEYER: I understand what you're saying, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: And just to follow up on that. If you go back to page six, it says, "The allocation ratio indicates that the commercial supply and the market area is being developed in lockstep with demand." MR. WEYER: At the moment. COMMISSIONER CARON: So we don't need to be increasing anyway. We are doing a good job without this rezone. MR. WEYER: Remember, you already have zoned land out there that will be absorbed as the market comes to it. And in this case, you're only adding .04 to the market itself. And when we get to that point, there will be market studies, as Mr. Mulhere had represented earlier, to see what really will need to be developed at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your tables you talk about the primary market retail demands. And this is your development and zone commercial table 4.3.1 for 2010. The primary market retail and demand is 2.2 million. The supply is 6.061. That is almost three times the demand. Yet, you're saying it is justified because you go back to this 2.0 ratio that is double what -- the federal government uses 1.0 because DCA established 2.0. And really by adding yours into that demand, you're at 2.74. You're almost 3.0. I mean, it's just a lot, Russ. I understand you have to justify the commercial allocation. I know that's what your paper's intent was, but I'm just saying I'm not sure I agree with everything you're saying here Page 52 June 7, 2007 in regards to that justification. MR. WEYER: I understand that, Mr. Strain. Again, understanding market economics and market supply and demand and all of that good economic language, the point being is that it just doesn't force commercial into one area. And sometimes, in that case, you probably will force the prices up and everything else on the land itself. This allows for the market flexibility, if you will. When you get on down the line, you may not -- it may not be approved in 2020, 2030. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Russ, I think I have got all my questions like that done, yes. I appreciate it. I wish that I had read your report earlier so I could have called you. I would have liked to have understood your economics better. MR. WEYER: Okay. I will be happy to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's intriguing the way it came about and then some of that information. Unfortunately, I really digested this last night, so I didn't get a chance to call you. MR. WEYER: I understand. I will be happy to explain it to you in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I may take you up on that. Thank you. MR. WEYER: I look forward to it. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to jump up for a minute. I just was informed and agreed that there was a commitment on our part to do a Big Cypress Fox Squirrel management plan as part of or prior to the SDP approval. It was under environmental. Somehow I think it got struck through when all the repetitive language came out. We will reinsert that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Big Cypress Fox Squirrel. There is habitat there. There is no evidence of Fox Squirrels, but there is habitat. We agreed to do a Big Cypress Fox Squirrel management plan prior to SDP. Page 53 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any Fox Squirrels on the property? MR. MULHERE: Elena, was there any? MS. HOFFMAN: Elena Hoffman with Passarella and Associates. We didn't see any during our surveys. The main instrument plan was requested by Jim Beever when he was at FWC. He requested it from staff, so we agreed to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you show me where on your plan that this preserve area is going to be that would have to be impacted by this management plan? MR. MULHERE: You don't -- tell him what is involved in it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we're in an activity center. You're putting in hundreds of thousands of square feet surrounded by hundreds of thousands of square feet more. Why are we putting through a plan that theoretically or practically will never ever be used because there is nothing there to use it for? MS. HOFFMAN: There was about 2.02 acres of Pine Flatwoods on the site. It was on the periphery of the north area. MR. MULHERE: It is gone now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust heard Mr. Mulhere say it is gone now. Is that true? MS. HOFFMAN: Well, the majority of it is. If you look at this hatched portion, that was the portion that was accidentally cleared and that was part of the consent agreement. So all along here and then down in this portion there is -- there was Pine Flatwoods. There is still some Pine Flatwoods here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, can you tell me on this -- on your site plan, your master plan, the one that's in color on the wall there on the left -- can you tell me where the preserve areas are on that plan? MS. HOFFMAN: I believe this is going to be the preserve area. I think it is going to contain some native retention, but it is mostly going to be replanted. Page 54 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that where this Fox Squirrel management plan would apply? MS. HOFFMAN: Essentially the plan is a requirement to -- prior to clearing activities to go out to the site and look for any potential nests. Ifthere is any potential nests, to monitor the nests until you see either a gray squirrel or a Fox Squirrel come out of it. If they're nesting, you cannot clear until they are done nesting. The Fox Squirrel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you do a survey? MS. HOFFMAN: No. You do that prior to clearing activities because they're mobile and they could build a nest right prior to clearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even though there was some property illegally cleared, there is property that still needs to be cleared of native vegetation? MS. HOFFMAN: Well, there is areas of Pine Flatwoods that are still on the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. HOFFMAN: It is very minimal, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, the last thing that we need to do is be imposing standards that are impractical. However, if they are justified, they absolutely need to be imposed. That's all I'm trying to find out. MS. HOFFMAN: Well, it was requested by the FWC from staff to include and we agreed to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mulhere, I know that we may have transportation questions, but it is time for Katie and Kelley to have a break. So we will take a IS-minute break and be back here at 10:20. Thank you. (A recess was held from 10:05 a.m. until 10:20 a.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, cue us back up. Thank you. Okay. Everybody, this meeting will come back to order. We'll Page 55 June 7, 2007 resume where we left off. We still were trying to get through the applicant's presentation. While they had their presentation done, we were into questions and responses. There are some -- at least I have got some transportation questions. And Nick has been anxious to talk to us about all the enhancements for the transportation quarters he has been doing lately. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can report some good news, if you would let me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go right ahead. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They bid Collier Boulevard last night and it came in at about $25 million, which is approximately eight to $10 million less than the engineer's estimate. (Applause.) So we'll start that with a good note. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, a skeptic may say the engineer just eyeballed it so he would look good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That went through my head immediately. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You want me to give you the per lane mile cost, huh? MR. SCHMITT: And it will be done when; in six months? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Don't go there, Joe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, in the traffic analysis provided with the Tree Farm Road, I notice that they went through and did a Collier County traffic count, growth trends and went ahead and listed various roads. There's tables in here. I didn't find where Mirasol PUD's now vested trips were allocated in any of their analyses. Do you know if they were or not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They would be in the trip bank section of those columns if they are in there. The 799 units would be in the trip bank. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But at the time this TIS was Page 56 June 7, 2007 done, Mirasol was not vested. Would they still have put that -- would it still have been expected to be used? MR. CASALANGUIDA: What was the date of that TIS that you have in front of you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: August 11,2005. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Revised January 12,2006. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The revision date would have the trip bank for Mirasol in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I missed it, but I will look for it agam. In their introduction they indicate that the project is expected in 2008. The traffic analyses were conducted 2010. The testimony today and the stipulation that they said that they are going to defer COs until the six-Ianing of those immediate three roads that are listed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way it is written, it's until the road is substantially complete. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no dates on these. I'mjust curious. Of the three road sections, when do you think the dates -- what is the latest one out, do you know, for completion? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Immokalee to the east is '08. Immokalee to the west is early '09. And Collier to the south is mid '09. And they are all ahead of schedule, except Immokalee to the east, which is running as scheduled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. Speaking of schedules, how far behind is Vanderbilt Beach Road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You had to go there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, from Collier to Airport Road that is the goofiest thing I have ever seen. They have a piece going Page 57 June 7, 2007 here and a piece going there, nothing in between, half done. And you go out and half the time there's not a single vehicle moving. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Can I go with one of those Oliver North responses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just thought that was odd. Under page two of their traffic report, committed roadway improvements. I think you will find this interesting. "FDOT has scheduled the widening of 1-75 from Golden Gate Parkway to south of Bonita Beach Road in 2007." I s that true? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The widening is scheduled to begin and notice to proceed is scheduled to begin in 2007. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This year? MR. CASALANGUIDA: This year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you still think that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have met with HDR. They expect the north to proceed and their schedule and liquidated damages schedule is extremely tight, so they are ready to go out the door. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On page four they talk about future 2010 traffic conditions without the project. And they have got a "0" and an "F". Immokalee Road/Shoppes of Pebblebrooke, level of service "F". And it's for the un-signalized directional intersection, major street, left turn; minor street, right turn. LOS reported. What does that mean? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Are they referring to the entrance into the Pebblebrooke Shopping Center on Collier or Immokalee? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says, "Future traffic conditions without the project." That's the title to -- the title to the section. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Do you want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's talking about intersection capacity analysis or performance for the intersection. It's on page four, the TIS. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe they are looking at the Page 58 June 7, 2007 directional median that is not part of their entrance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, does that mean that with the project we won't have a level of service "F" in that intersection? Because if we have a level of service "F" without the project -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not at the county intersection. I believe it's a turn lane or coming out of the Shoppes at Pebblebrooke. I don't believe it is Immokalee Road. Shoppes ofPebblebrooke. Do you guys want to clarify that? It is not the road. MR. T ALONE: My name is Ron Talone. I'm a transportation planner for David Plummer and Associates and I worked on this project. That's an indication that the exiting movements would meet some delay. There's no question about that with the through traffic on Immokalee. That's not a reflection of the carrying capacity or the levels of service on Immokalee Road, which has been determined to be -- certainly with the improvement will operate at the level of service standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with the project -- well, let's go to the next page then. Because it's the same reference on the next page; Immokalee Road/project entrance/Shoppes of Pebble brooke, "F" with project. Why do you have an "F" condition with the project if we're supposed to have it fixed with the project? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe it's something they can't control. It is the shopping. We had them look at all the intersections west of that intersection. It is something that is being experienced at the Shoppes ofPebblebrooke that they don't control. Through the widening of Immokalee Road, you're not going to be able to get the proper access, management, and spacing at the Shoppes of Pebblebrooke. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they can't control it, why is it even in this TIS? Page 59 June 7, 2007 MR. CASALANGUIDA: We had them look at everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why look at something -- Nick, I'm trying to understand where the correlation is between all these little problems. Ifwe already have an "F" condition and with them in service it's still going to be an "F" condition, isn't there a way to fix it? How do we approve something knowing there is an "F" condition out there? I'm not saying we are not, I'm just trying to understand your reasoning as to why it can be done. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I usually ask for more analyses than what would typically be required. I'll see how all the intersections work. And when you've got a driveway that is attached to Immokalee Road, and, say, the Shoppes of Pebble brooke, that driver may feel because of the shops -- they may put additional trips on that intersection -- minimal trips on that intersection, So I want to address that. If it is something they can't control, it's a side street failure. In other words, the people may experience an unreasonable delay coming out of the Shoppes ofPebblebrooke. That's something that we don't prioritize our concurrency system. Immokalee Road is running okay. People experience delay coming out of a shopping center, that's understandable. That's a side street failure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that "F" then applies to the people sitting in line in the Publix shopping center trying to get onto Immokalee Road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That would be correct because that directional left would -- the westbound directional will go away and improve conditions. So that would have to be that coming out, movmg. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This project is contributing sizable land and other improvements to the intersection. I know Mirasol, which is through their DCA, is doing some of that intersection improvement, as well. Are those intersection improvements going to be in place by the time this project is CO'ed? Page 60 June 7, 2007 MR. CASALANGUIDA: The intersection improvements that Mirasol will be doing will be the northeast comer. It will not be the bridge relocation and the bridge widening. These developers are aware that that has to be done and there is a fair share agreement in that PUD or fair share requirement in the PUD for that bridge improvement. We couldn't program that improvement without the right-of-way. So we have approached them about doing eventually some sort of agreement where they would actually fund that improvement. We would give them some impact fee credits because it would be way above and beyond what they would be required to do. In the PUD you will find that there is a fair share commitment for them to pay for that, as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But my question centered more around the timing of the completion of those intersection improvements. Will they be done before this project is requesting its CO? MR. CASALANGUIDA: All the county roadways east and west __ Immokalee East, Immokalee West, Collier, those three legs will be done. The north leg will be at their beck to do it. In other words, they will have poor access unless they do it. So it would bequest them to go forward and improve that intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they can come in and request a CO and the intersection improvements may not necessarily be done? MR. CASALANGUIDA: All the county intersections would be. They will have poor access coming out and poor access coming in. But all the county improvements will be in place on the main-line road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the past you have differentiated between the legs of the roads and the intersection. You one time even said we study concurrency on the legs of the road, but we fail to look at concurrency on intersections or something to that effect. We don't Page 61 June 7, 2007 have an LOS, let's say, for intersections. So thinking of that and trying to focus on this intersection, will this intersection be operating at a year better level of service when this project comes in for CO? MR. CASALANGUIDA: All the approaching movements on the roads that we would consider, like county roadways, I know 951 is a county road. Right now I look at that as a dead end. So the three legs that you will travel on, the public will travel on, will be at acceptable level of service. Coming out of Collier North, the extension, won't work properly until they fix it. But that is to their detriment, not to the county's. I am sure when we're done and they come through, the first thing that they are going to want to do is work with the county to improve that bridge. That would benefit Heritage Bay, Mirasol and them. They are all looking at it. They know it has to be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Nick, if this project doesn't go ahead, what problems are going to cause you with driveways and land and -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: The county has no plans to improve to the north of that intersection currently right now. But I can tell you that if any development -- and I don't say this too often -- has given what these people have given, in terms of -- everything I have asked for they have said yes to; the right-of-way for an existing 951, right-of-way for the future 951, right-of-way for an overpass, water management for 951, interconnection, the path, withholding of COs until the roads around them are completed. They have pretty much done anything we could have probably asked for. Way above and beyond. It would be a detriment not to have the right-of-way in place. We could not continue to improve that intersection without that right-of-way. Page 62 June 7, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree with that same list that you have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, in the sufficiency comments you had some additional comments. One of them was noise wall mitigation language. What were you referring to? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe -- and hopefully it's in there. It's that any future noise wall consideration shall be the responsibility of the developer, not the county, for the widening of the roads. If it's not in there, then it should be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we need to check it because offhand I didn't know what you meant by that, so I didn't know what I was looking for. Where would it be; under the transportation section, I assume? MR. MULHERE: I am not sure if it's in there. I will look at the same time as you're looking because those have been eliminated and then replaced and eliminated, replaced based on the duplicative language stuff. I will take a look. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any objection to adding the language if it is not there? MR. MULHERE: No. It was in there at one time. I don't think I took it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. DeRuntz, I'm sure you're making notes on things that need to be modified in the PUD. This is one that can be addressed before it got to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other traffic questions of the transportation department? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I think that ends the applicant's portion of this, except for any rebuttal they may have after we hear from staff and proceed with the public speakers. Page 63 June 7, 2007 Mr. DeRuntz, hello. MR. DeRUNTZ: Good morning. My name is Mike DeRuntz. I'm the Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. First off, I want to, as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, correct the record of the supplemental staff report. The date of this meeting is the June 7th, instead of the 29th. And the date of the staff report that was attached was May 17th, instead of the June 7th. I was having problems with my dates. I apologize. You have heard extensive comments from the petitioner about the deviations requested and about the needs analysis. And staff has found that this project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and compatible with the adjoining property owners, the LDC. And staff would like to state in our supplemental staff report we would like to strike condition number three, four and five now with the modifications that was addressed by the applicant. I believe that the donations of affordable housing are very acceptable by the staff and that the conditions of development are very reasonable. And if you have any questions, I would be more than happy to try to address those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Questions of staff? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: What did you just say was reasonable? MR. DeRUNTZ: That the COs would not be approved until the three county roads would be substantially improved. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Thank you. MR. DeRUNTZ: That's what I meant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just so I'm clear, we're now Page 64 June 7, 2007 considering the gross acreage and we're not deducting the space for the roads and then requiring them to do their math on the basis of the net, correct? MR. DeRUNTZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Staff has been using this rule of thumb for 10,000 square feet for commercial. However, you're also quoting in here county urban area build-out study that uses 8,500 square feet. Is this staff doing one of their usual insubstantial changes or why is there a difference? MR. DeRUNTZ: I think I will have Michelle address that comment. MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, Michele Mosca with the Comprehensive Planning Department. The 1995 build-out number included -- of 8,500 square feet per acre includes all commercial development. It doesn't -- there is no distinction between office, retail, et cetera. That's the figure that we've used previously. If you look at some of the approved PUDs in the past prior to '95, I would have to say -- I don't want to say the majority of them, but they are lower than 8,500 square feet per acre of the development. If you look at some of the recent approvals, you will see that the numbers are much higher. But the actual developed or built out square footage is probably somewhere in between 9,000 to 11,000 square feet. The 10,000 is a -- sort of a national rule of thumb number that's used. Did I answer your question? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I think that perhaps what we Page 65 June 7, 2007 had done was decided that we wanted a stricter standard here in Collier County and that we probably should have been following that all along. And what happens, Michelle, is where this will become a factor is 20 or 30 years down the line when we get into redevelopment of these areas. And they will all be -- vested I'm sure will be the term at the time -- to these higher square footages, when perhaps what we've wanted all along was a stricter standard. MS. MOSCA: But the square footage will be controlled by the development standards in place. I'm sorry. If you look at one of the maybe first or second iterations of the commercial needs analysis that was done by the sub-consultant Fishkind and Associates -- when you look at office development, let's say, in areas outside of this county, you're looking at higher square footages, 12, 13, maybe up to 15,000 square feet. Again, if you look at that iteration of the document provided by Fishkind and Associates, the average office square feet per acre in this county is somewhere around 6,600 square feet, unlike other areas in the state. Our average has been in the past, and according to the 1995 build-out study for commercial development, 8,500 square feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: All I'm saying is that's what we should be using. MR. MULHERE: Why would we use an average? That means that much is above that and much is below that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why would you use something above that? MR. MULHERE: Well, because, to be honest with you, that's not a standard. The standard is what is set forth in the Land Development Code with all of the requirements that you can't build on today. Land costs have gone up significantly and restrictions have increased very much from what they were in 1994, 1993, and 1990. We have more open space requirements. We have more native Page 66 June 7, 2007 preservation. We have greater water management. And these are all fine. But that has caused -- and with land values going up, that has caused a developer to try to maximize what they can develop in the area that they can develop. Maybe in 1994 developers didn't do that. Probably they didn't. Besides, that's an average. That's not even a rule of thumb. It's what the average build-out was in 1994, 8,500 square feet. That's the only relevance to that number. There is no other relevance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER CARON: We'll continue to argue that point, I'm sure. At any rate, yeah, back to staff. On page six when you talk about the density here -- the residential density. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: The additional three units an acre for the residential density band, that is not an entitlement, is it? MR. DeRUNTZ: It is not an entitlement, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That's all I wanted to know. Secondly, with regard to that, you have just made a change in what you think is appropriate for their commercial. That they should be allowed, as we do with residential, to use their full acreage in order to calculate, not taking out what they are giving for right-of-way. MR. DeRUNTZ: That's correct, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I mean, we already allow-- in residential we allow essentially this double dipping and we will allow it in the commercial. And I think that's appropriate. Ifwe are going to allow it in one area, we should allow it in both. And Nick said 1-75 is a done deal, huh? That's all I have for staff right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Michelle, this question is for you. So essentially what you're saying is Collier has -- over here. Page 67 June 7, 2007 MS. MOSCA: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is hard to see who is talking. Collier has an FAR like about less than .2; is that what you're saying? MS. MOSCA: I would say yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. In terms of planning, is that something -- I mean, I know where Donna is concerned is keeping things small. But the problem is if we're really building the county out at that Iowan FAR -- I mean, most communities I have designed in they have .5 stuff. Aren't we sprawling our development across the county? MS. MOSCA: That's been the standard. Whether or not that sprawl -- what I would like to see as a professional planner is -- we would have liked to have seen a greater mix of residential with the commercial within the mixed-use activity centers. And that just hasn't occurred over the years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But this project is kind of aiming that way, isn't it? MS. MOSCA: Well, I think they have sort of been forced into that with the EAR-based amendments that requires the density generated within the activity center cannot be completely distributed outside of the activity center, which they originally requested to do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. MOSCA: I mean, the idea behind the activity center originally, again, was to have that mix within that defined area. There was a cap. And then back in '89 -- a cap on the acreage in the commercial in '89. And then these factors came into play when we start talking about the needs -- the commercial needs within a given area. So it has just kind of been watered down over the years. We don't have that mix in these activity centers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hopefully this project does mix Page 68 June 7, 2007 it up a little bit. That's their intent. MS. MOSCA: Well, it will be 44 units that they are required to build within the activity center. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. I am done, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Michael, thank you. Ray, do we have public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mulhere or Mr. Passidomo. Did either of you want a short rebuttal? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I have an observation and acknowledgment and a request. The observation pertaining to the Fishkind and Associates analysis, I think important questions were posed to Mr. Weyer. The observation is that the Growth Management Plan requires consideration of 13 different factors in assessing a planned unit development in a mixed-use activity center. The one that was the focal point was the one that was the basis of the questions posed to Mr. Weyer. It requires a feasibility analysis of proposed commercial uses in a mixed-use planned unit development within an activity center already designated for intensive commercial uses in the county's Growth Management Plan. It's separate and apart and distinguishable from justification to amend the Growth Management Plan to add commercial designation to land previously designated for noncommercial uses, to create capacity and add new commercial capacity. The existing commercial development is, in fact, developed in lockstep. I think the ratios Mr. Weyer testified to were that the existing demand compared to existing supply was at a ratio of 1.06. It Page 69 June 7, 2007 would raise to about 1.14 with the addition of this project. It is important to recognize that isn't a market analysis. This isn't the time for a market analysis. That time will be three years from now when we're ready to move forward. At that point in time the developer, as an entrepreneur, will look into the marketplace and make the determination as to what, if any, retail is built; what, if any, office is built; what, if any, residential is built and will make a market-based judgment based on a market analysis available at that time. We wanted to acknowledge staffs hard work on the process and greatly appreciate their withdrawal of the proposed staff conditions three, four and five and the acceptance of our alternative proposal to restrict the commercial development to 175,000 square feet, of which no more than 143,500 may be retail, commercial in nature. The balance, if any, would be of office. We tried to make a point of emphasis during our introductory remarks about the transportation commitments. We tried to be responsive and to be sensitive not only to the impacts that this development will impose by all significantly impacted roadways, but the needs of the county and to respond to those in a forthright, and I hope it may be even suggested in a generous way, to the county so that we can work collectively with the county in meeting what we recognize are compelling transportation needs. With that, I would be happy to respond to any questions and greatly appreciate your consideration and respectfully request your approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions ofMr. Passidomo? John, I have one question. Your TIF -- originally the one I have in front of me was based on 475 residential units, 200,000 square feet of retail and 50,000 square feet of office. So that is a quarter million of commercial at 475. You're asking for a different amount today. Why was the TIS Page 70 June 7, 2007 originally done for a larger amount? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Because the original proposal was for a larger project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have dropped your project request from 475 to 425, from 200,000 in retail down to 143, and then for 50,000 of office to the difference between 175 and 143? MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I have just been informed by Mr. Mulhere that Ms. Mosca would like us to reinstate our minimum requirement of 5,000 square feet of office. And, of course, we're happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Minimum above the 143? MR. MULHERE: No. In any case. MR. P ASSIDOMO: In any case there will be at least 5,000 square feet of office development in the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you're trying to say is if you decided you want to build 1,000 square feet of retail, you're going to build 105 with the 5,000 of office? No matter what, you're always going to build -- if you build a McDonald's, you're going to have 5,000 square feet in office? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. If we built no retail, we have to build 5,000 square feet of office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, wait a minute. If you build no retail, you still have to build 5,000 square feet in office? MR. PASSIDOMO: That's what I understand. We are agreeable to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not sure why we would want to force you to build something. What is the value of that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 5,000 square feet, that's one doctor's office. What is 5,000 square feet? MR. MULHERE: Well, we didn't really want to commit to any minimum in the negotiations with staff because we want to -- we really want to leave it up to the marketplace as we move closer. The Page 71 June 7, 2007 example is that if right next door to us Heritage Bay builds 200,000 square feet of office, then obviously we are going to focus on retail. But we did agree to a minimum of 5,000. Now, we subsequently have changed what we're asking for to reduce the -- to establish a minimum -- a maximum amount of retail and then we have got this balance. I think Michelle's concern is that she wants to see a mixture of commercial uses there. And without that minimum, there's no requirement for us to build any office. We could just build 143,500 of retail. We don't object to it. I mean, I think the site lends itself at the northern portion of it to office. And I assume that there would be some minimum amount of office building there at the minimum. Weare not objecting to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you're not objecting to it, I guess -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's not waste time on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other -- no other questions. That's it. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No speakers. We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. I move that PUDZ-05-AR-8284 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: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: May I make a statement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think this is a fantastic Page 72 June 7, 2007 project. It approaches two major problems we have. One is workforce housing and the other is traffic. They are donating seven and a half acres of land for all the improvements, $550,000 to affordable housing, stormwater retention, well site donations, greenway 12-foot wide, interconnectivity at multiple locations. And they just gave 5,000 square foot of office. I don't know why, but they did. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I just want to make sure that the staff recommendations as amended and revised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would assume so because staff is recommending only two recommendations now. The other three were dismissed because the applicant agreed to them. So the two recommendations as staff made is what both of you are agreeing to, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. And, again, I agree with Nick on the traffic end. They have done a lot of -- a lot to work with the county on this. The two major issues was traffic and workforce housing. That's why I vote to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other comments? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would voice one comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ditto. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm glad we waited for that. I'm going to -- I am not going to support the motion. And the reason for not supporting the motion is that I think that the intensity of the project is way out of scale for the area surrounding it. If you look at the rest of this activity center area, you have got on 150 acres 150,000 square feet of commercial at the Richland PUD. Page 73 June 7, 2007 And Heritage Bay, which is a 2,500 acre DR!, you have got 230 acres of commercial. And I think this is a case where, once again, we are trying to stuff ten pounds into a five-pound bag and that both -- in terms of the density of residential, which is out of scale. They are looking at seven versus four for Richland, 1.3 for Heritage Bay, and .5 for Mirasol. I just think that the scale is getting way out of control. I also seriously question the commercial needs at this time. The needs analysis said that commercial may be needed in the 2030 time period based on increases in population. Well, first of all, we are not sure that the increases are going to be what they were before. And, secondly, as you looked at that gerrymandered map in order to get there, I'm not sure that the needs will necessarily be in this area. And when we are talking about having this project put forth here in the next couple of years, I can already tell you that just down the road to the west we're already seeing failures of commercial at other major intersections. And I'll cite, for example, Livingston and Immokalee. We already have had the closure of an Albertson's at that location because -- with much higher densities in that area And we can't support it. And I'm not sure that this project, as intense as they would like to make it, is warranted. I think we probably, if you want to approve -- and obviously this is an activity center and I think there should be commercial here. And I like the residential. There is nothing wrong with the concept. It is just the density and intensity of what they are trying to put on this 58 acres that you should be looking to scale back what you're looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's my comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am pleased the applicant has chosen to go with the recommendations of staff. Staff did a very good job in analyzing this project. I am displeased with some of the data provided. Page 74 June 7, 2007 I think it could have been done a little bit clearer. I will support the project. I do feel it does -- it is consistent with the other projects in that area. Contrary to some comments, I believe that the Richland PUD or the Pebblebrooke PUD was one of the referenced. It's not 150 acres as commercial. It is 21.2 acres as commercial and it has 231,000 square feet allocated for 21.2 acres, which is greater than what we're looking at here for 58 acres on a ratio. While the PUD itself is 150, you have got to look at commercial and commercial at the intersection. Under that basis, I think this is, therefore, amongst the other reasons that staff has provided. And I will support the motion. Any other comments? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I will make a quick one. I am going to support the motion. I think these activity centers were planned well. This is where the density should be, based on my experience as an architect in other counties. I kind of think we're putting two pounds in a ten-pound bag. And I am more concerned about spreading the density, rather than compiling it in these activity centers where it belongs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you have never let me down. Okay. I will call for the vote. All those in favor of the vote, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 75 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries seven to one. Thank you very much. Any conversation, if you wouldn't mind going into the hallway for that. It would be helpful to clear the room. Item #8B PETITION: V A-2007-AR-11459 The next petition up today is V A-2007-AR-11459, James and Lavonne Williamson represented by Sonrise Properties for the project on Edgemere Way South. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this project, please stand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures from the Planning Commission. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. Okay. Just so before we get into the presentation, it's 11 :00. We will be taking a lunch break close to noon. I don't think we'll get finished with everything today. So -- just so everybody knows, about another hour we're going to take a break. Okay. Will the applicant like to make a presentation. MR. FREDRICKSON: Good morning. My name is Randy Fredrickson. I'm from the Sonrise Building Company . We've been charged with representing the Williamsons in this request. Lavonne and Jim came to us to extend their garage to allow a second car to be part of that garage. Right now the garage is a two-car garage, but it has a -- they have installed over the past or it was there when we got there anyway, a room -- kind of a multi-purpose room Page 76 June 7, 2007 that took up probably a third of the one stall. They would like now to put two cars in their garage and that can be done by extending one of the bays approximately seven feet. This will encroach on the present easement in Wyndemere that is now 40 feet. Right now the addition to the garage would bring the easement down to 36 feet. And that's what the variance is a request to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your variance, sir, is the reduction from 40 feet to 36 feet, correct? MR. FREDRICKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it time to question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you were raising your hand, so I guess you might have something to say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A concern I have is that we're discussing the 40 foot, but that's really measuring it to the curb. MR. FREDRICKSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And setbacks are normally measured to the property line. So I'm not really sure technically -- any maybe staff would answer better. But -- in other words, I'm not sure that you have a 40-foot setback requirement. If you do, the existing building wouldn't even comply maybe. So why are we measuring this to the property line; why aren't we measuring to the back of the curb? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I checked the PUD. It is 40 feet. And it's measured -- and if you -- a PUD we just got done approving, they measured from the back of the curb in private zoning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The one we just did said right-of-way of the road. I mean, is there a setback requirement from the property line in Wyndemere? Page 77 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a deed restriction. I don't know if we would count -- the PUD was for the -- it was on that private roadway. It's usually from the back of curb or edge of asphalt. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in the Wyndemere PUD it states that setbacks shall be measured to the back of curb? MR. FREDRICKSON: From the research that we did, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the last one that we had, Mark, it did say right-of-way. I did notice that because I knew this was coming up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For public roads. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's no public roads in the last one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You had the extension of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. And those were your public roads. And internally you have private roads, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Everybody is comfortable, staff and legal -- I mean, the word "setback" that doesn't match the definition of setback in our code. And normally we don't play with deed restrictions. But the PUD stated that it's 40 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I know I checked the PUD and it said 40 feet, but I can't remember the exact language. So I can't -- I don't want to respond on record to your request without the PUD in front of me. I don't have it in front of me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe if staff can research that. MR. BROWN: I can answer your question. Willy Brown, principal planner in the department of zoning and land development reView. Under the residential standards of the Wyndemere PUD, it does say minimum front yard 40 feet measured from the back of curb. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. Page 78 June 7, 2007 MR. FREDRICKSON: The neighbors have been petitioned in this, As you can tell by your paperwork. There has been no disgruntled neighbors or anything like that. It's been fairly amicable, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the variance application and on page five of nine, there's a question, number five, and it speaks to granting the variance. Will the granting of the variance requested confer petitioner's special privileges -- well, privilege? And the answer is, yes, but we live on a comer lot, which is two 40- foot setbacks in place. Most common lots only have the frontage 40 feet. I was trying to understand why that was relevant, Why that was pertinent even if you wish -- if I had a lot in between several others and I wanted to move my garage out four feet, what physical differentiation would that be from my being on the comer lot? MR. FREDRICKSON: Mainly, I'm just expressing the wishes of the owner concerning this. But they do have two 40s since they are a comer lot. And to expand on the east side, which they want to do, they just felt that this was a hardship on them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would it be any different if they had a lot in between two other lots and they wanted to expand; would that be a hardship on that basis? MR. FREDRICKSON: Well, at that point they only have a-- one 40-foot setback in the front, not on the sides. Their house faces the one street and so they're on the one side lot, if you will. On the comer lot they still have a 40-foot setback. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It must be a nuance, but I missed it there. I can't seem to get that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Page 79 June 7, 2007 MR. FREDRICKSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff. MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good morning. I am, again, Willie Brown, principal planner, department of zoning and land development review. It's already mentioned the property is located at 186 Edgemere Way South at the intersection of Bramblewood and Edgemere Way within the Wyndemere PUD. The property has two front yards, as already indicated, and is abutted by single-family residences on all four sides. The Wyndemere PUD residential standards requires a 40- foot front yard setback. The existing dwelling complies currently with that standard. A four foot expansion of the existing garage, as already mentioned, again, is needed to accommodate the applicant's second vehicle. The applicant's hardship justification is based upon a past recent modification, which incorporated an office, storage and safety space within the existing garage. This causes the need for the garage addition and is the applicant's hardship justification. Variances are typically granted based upon some physical constraint of the land; a lot too narrow or a lot too shallow. In other instances development criteria may inhibit reasonable development on a lot. The regulation itself sometimes inhibits development on a reasonably sized lot. The applicant's hardship justification in this case, in staffs opinion, is self-imposed. Should the commission, however, recommend approval of the request, two conditions are proposed for your consideration as outlined in the staff report. No letters of objection were received from surrounding property owners. One letter of support was received. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Brown, good morning. I Page 80 June 7, 2007 notice that there was a change inside the garage actually. Was there permits associated with that? Would they have had to get permits to do that; to build an office? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but if that's something that someone could answer. MR. BROWN: Perhaps the applicant could answer. I'm not sure what the answer is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. They have a two-car garage; is that what was built there originally? MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, you're right, the individual chose to -- thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm just questioning. Has staff recommended denial on this? MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a comment. Willie, I think in the future if there is a way to measure setbacks different than the Land Development Code somehow include a page out of their PUD or something just to keep guys like me from wasting thought, Okay? MR. BROWN: Noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Willie, in the PUD when I reviewed it, I did not notice that there was a separate call out for a side setback on a comer lot. In this particular case you have ten feet between buildings, 10 feet, 6 inches, whatever it is on this one. And because they're on a comer lot, instead of having zero on the other side, like the lots adjoining them do, they have 40 feet. And then they have got 40 feet in the front. So actually they have got a lot that's much further restricted because they're squeezed down. Because instead of zero, they're at 40; is that a fair statement? Page 81 June 7, 2007 THE DEPONENT: MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So because the PUD does not address comer lots, it falls back on the LDC, which is generic in terms of its application and under a -- under the Land Development Code a comer lot has to have the same setback on the side that it does on the front; Is that fair statement? MR. BROWN: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the end, had this house not been on a comer lot, on the side that we're talking about now, the setback would have been zero because they would have been ten on either side. MR. BROWN: It would have been whatever the residential standards call for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it's the comer lot issue that caused them the problem? MR. BROWN: That's the applicant's justification, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just -- I mean, I think living on a comer lot is an asset. That gives you essentially two good exposures. So that's why people buy it. That's why everybody else in the neighborhood bought it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just trying to figure out how they got there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there is no side street setback. Because that's a common thing to have -- not in Collier County. But there's nothing in the PUD that noted a side street setback? MR. BROWN: Nothing in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why it felt back on the LDC. Any other questions of staff? Page 82 June 7, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move that we forward to -- that we make a recommendation of denial of petition V A-2007-AR-11459, Williamson remodel variance. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A motion has been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will not support the motion. There is no objection from the neighborhood on this particular action. I cannot see why there's any problem with it. It's within a gated community that seems to be satisfied that this isn't a problem for their neighborhood. I just don't see a need to reject it, So I will not go along with the motion. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did have a question that I had lost sight of. It was -- I noted in the documentation offered that the neighborhood condo or HOA rubber-stamped it. I was going to ask Mr. Brown whether or not there was a supporting documentation to that, other than the letter being asserted. MR. BROWN: I didn't make that comment. The applicant did. I don't have any information in regard to that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That was part of the reason why I made my motion in denial. MR. FREDRICKSON: Sir, there's a letter-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you state your name for the Page 83 June 7, 2007 record. MR. FREDRICKSON: I'm sorry. Randy Fredrickson from Sonrise Building Company. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. FREDRICKSON: There is a letter in the documentation there from the homeowners' association that fully supported the addition. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I may have slipped through it, but I did not see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm afraid not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I read these things pretty thoroughly and I didn't see it, so -- I know I read it and they said that they rubber-stamped it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who said; someone said it was rubber-stamped? MR. FREDRICKSON: Yeah. This came from us and we supported it with a copy of the letter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just curious as to why the term "rubber-stamp" was used by a county employee. Is that what was used? MR. FREDRICKSON: No. That was by me, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. We'll put it as justification with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would you refer to a letter in your favor as being rubber-stamped, just out of curiosity? MR. FREDRICKSON: Just by the -- what I meant by it was just it was okay with the homeowners' association. I supported it with a copy from the homeowners' association. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See, absent that document, I just had -- it didn't ring true for me. MR. BROWN: Okay. I do have a letter from E. Martin Duncan, WHOA architectural review committee. It says: Dear Mr. and Mrs. Page 84 June 7, 2007 Williamson, your request to modify your existing garage door with an 8- foot extension has been approved. The proposed extension includes replacement of the single door with two new doors. The ARC approval is based solely on plans, information provided. Any modifications to the original architectural design, including color or material changes, must be resubmitted to the ARC for approval before construction or application. Accordingly, the actual constructed residence and any modifications thereto must be in conformity with the plans approved by the ARC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they do have approval from the-- apparently the HOA; is that what your letter reflects? MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You will be able to provide a copy of that letter for the record? MR. BROWN: I shall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They don't really have approval from the homeowners stating that we can reduce the side street setbacks. What they have is a letter just saying the architectural review board looked at something. We don't -- aren't privy to what they looked at. It obviously must be in more detail than what we have because they're discussing the number of doors. So, essentially, what they're saying is architecturally they have no problem with it, but I don't know what they saw. I don't know if they saw that this had a variance in setbacks. I don't know what that letter -- the power of that letter is. It's certainly not from the homeowners saying, "Go ahead." It's from a review board within the homeowners' association. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we don't have a copy what they saw because it may not even show that there's a required setback. Page 85 June 7, 2007 MR. BROWN: Was there an architectural-- I'm directing my question to the applicant. Was there a -- do you have an architectural rendering of what the WHOA saw? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, to answer you have to come up to the microphone, please. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I just also want to point out that the residents within the community have been notified by letter, signs posted on the site. Anyone who had an opposition to the variance request could have sent a letter or showed up today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a design that you showed to the HOA, sir? MR. FREDRICKSON: I do, but I don't have it with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it the same one that's been shown in this plan -- on this site plan to us today; do you know? MR. FREDRICKSON: I don't know. I haven't seen one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that's on the screen. MR. FREDRICKSON: No, sir, it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Caron, we're -- By the way, we're in discussion on a motion still, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And I will support the motion because this action strictly is caused by an action of the applicant. They determined -- they already had a garage that would fit their two cars no problem. That's the way they bought the house. The two cars fit -- they chose to use part of the bay of their garage for this other room. So I see no reason to grant the variance. They knew what they were doing at the time. It is very typical of homeowners' associations for people not to object. I submit to you you might get instead a series of these because everybody will say, "Well, Joe did it and so now we can all put these little extra storage rooms in our garage and just bump out." And, you know, it could cause a major problem for the Page 86 June 7, 2007 community of Wyndemere. So I will be supporting the motion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm going to also support the motion. If the community wants to lessen up their setbacks, then I think they should do it by amending their PUD, not at a one-by-one variance like this. This variance is a hardship self caused. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments? Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Ifhe's got a letter for approval, then I will be not supporting the motion. I think we should let them go. The whole community knows about it. They're just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you want to say something? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't want to have argument. I just wanted to point out that in those events, there are a series of things. A committee can agree to something, but it must go before a board and that board has the responsibility. And in the absence of a board authority letter that leaves you with some serious question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we will close the comments. All those in favor of the motion of denial, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four, five, six in favor. All those against. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 87 June 7, 2007 COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two against. Motion carries six to two. Thank you. Item #8C PETITION: CU-2005-AR-8479 With that, we will move on to Petition CU-2005-AR-8479. The Southeastern Association of the Seventh Day Adventist, Inc. represented by Fred Learned. And it's for the 745 Fifth Street South in Immokalee. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, we'll go into the presentation by the applicant. MR. LEARNED: For the record, my name is Fred Learned from Community Engineering representing the Southeastern Conference of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. They are interested in constructing a church in Immokalee. They have a one-acre parcel of land that they own directly across the street from a county facility. On that aerial map, this driveway leads to the county facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you'll need the microphone if you're going to speak away from it. I'm sorry. The court reporter can't get your discussion. MR. LEARNED: Thank you. Like I was pointing on the map, Page 88 June 7, 2007 there's a driveway to the county continuing education center slightly in front of this parcel. The church has got a number of 4,200 square foot. It's got a 44 car parking space -- parking lot. I'll walk over there. It's got grass parking against the conservation area. It's got an environmentally sensitive preserve. Or what actually it is a treed area. It's got a few trees in there, not a whole lot. It's got scattered oaks and pines and Sabal Palms on the site right now, but pretty much it's all grass. It's been well kept by the applicant. And currently it has frontage on a dirt road. And we're proposing that this be paved and become the driveway entrance point. That's pretty much it. I guess I should say we have 100 seats in the church, which on a three-to-one basis there's seven seats for three parking spaces. There's 43 spaces required. We have 44 spaces proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, sir? MR. LEARNED: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, are there any plans with regard to that road that you intend to pave? And, I guess, it's only a portion of that road actually from what I got from what you just said. Although, I wasn't sure. Do you intend to pave the entire road or just that portion? MR. LEARNED: We intend to pave the portion up to the edge of the property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's what I thought. And you have no plans to offer it in dedication to the county; it's going to remain a private road? MR. LEARNED: I believe it's an easement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. An easement. Whose favor is the easement? Page 89 June 7, 2007 MR. LEARNED: It's every land owner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Common use easement. MR. LEARNED: It's not a right-of-way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But you will be -- I'm just trying to find out whether you will be paving it according to any standard. MR. LEARNED: We would be improving it to county road standards. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I needed to understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, we'll ask for the staff report. Thank you, sir. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner for Zoning and Land Development Review. And this particular conditional use is compliant with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. I have a few clarifications I'd like to make about the presentation that was given this morning. Stokes Avenue is a right-of-way. And also we do have one condition of approval in our staff report. And that is that the native vegetation will be -- in the preserve area -- any areas that are void of native vegetation will be replanted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of staff? Nancy, when you initial something are you NG? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on the Capital Engineering TIS, those notations are you? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Page 90 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Capital Engineering is a certified engineering firm that does DIS work. You altered their document. Are you a certified traffic engineer? MS. GUNDLACH: No, I'm not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe our traffic engineer could explain to me the validity of the document then. Hello. MS. GUNDLACH: Can I try to save the day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. GUNDLACH: If you look at that report, it's based on a higher number than what this is actually going forth as. I believe it was 150 seats in the church. And because it was reduced, I just wanted to note for you that it's actually 100. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Nancy, I realize that. But my concern was that you've changed an engineering report that is public record and a required report for this hearing. I just want to see the impact of that, ifthere is any legally, so that we know we're not basing something on a report that's been modified inappropriately. Sir, could you state your name. MR. TINDALL: I'm sorry. For the record, Phil Tindall, Transportation Planning Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I can tell that you weren't observing what -- where we were at. So do you know the TIS that I'm talking about in regards to this particular church? MR. TINDALL: I'm afraid I don't have it in front of me. MS. GUNDLACH: I have it, Phil. MR. TINDALL: I was referring to a trip generation analysis by Kepple Engineering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. It's -- on it there's some notations that have been crossed out in pen or pencil and initialed by Nancy and, apparently, has corrections. Page 91 June 7, 2007 My concern is that you required a TIS in your meeting with county staff. Under the conditional use application submittal checklist a TIS was required. TISs, by our code, I believe, have to be done by a traffic engineer, someone with a professional background. This one, because it's been modified by someone, other than the engineer of record who did it, does that have any impact on the requirements of the Land Development Code in relationship to this particular project? MR. TINDALL: We would be concerned with that had the change resulted in a higher number, in terms of an impact. In this case, with the original number it still would have been an acceptable level, in terms of concurrency. So there's really no harm, no foul to be, other than the fact that the change was indicated by someone other than a professional engineer, who originally prepared the document. In it's original state, with the original information, it was acceptable, in terms of the transportation impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the -- on that particular report, besides the quantity of people being reduced from 150 to 100, the building size went up from 4,000 to 4,200. One of the days on the bottom was altered from being on a Sunday to on a Saturday, which means then we don't have a Sunday calculation, which is the date most likely the active -- is the most active day for a church. MR. TINDALL: Ifwe're making a determination for consistency with the comp plan or for concurrency it's based upon weekday traffic anyway . Weekday peak hour, p.m. MR. KLA TZKOW: I believe this church meets on Saturday, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. I just was --I heard. I didn't know. MR. TINDALL: Saturday or Sunday would not have really any weight, in terms of our analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then, I guess, Mr. Klatzkow, the last question I have is: Based on the LDC language, the traffic report Page 92 June 7, 2007 requirements, does this document meet the sufficiency requirements pursuant to the LDC for review by conditional use? MR. KLA TZKOW: I would like to ask Mr. Tindall one question first. Does transportation have any concerns about this project? MR. TINDALL: In terms of the content and the technical analysis, no. MR. KLATZKOW: Then I have no concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sounds good with me. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When I read it, I thought it meant no good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a cautionary point to maybe Mr. Smith and Ray in the future, please do not have staff amend professional documents at any time. And if the applicant can't get their professional to do it properly and in time for this meeting, then postpone the meeting. That would be better, for the record. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's a really important point to make. MR. SCHMITT: I noted it was not stamped and sealed by the professional, but just submitted. But, regardless, we should have just put a cover letter on it and not written over a document submitted as evidence. Ray and I discussed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. With that, is there any speakers, Ray -- public speakers in this particular petition? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers on "C". CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to Page 93 June 7, 2007 approve, including staffs recommendation and Nancy's notes on the side of the paper. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion has made and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries eight to zero. We have in our pack of findings of fact. Please fill it out and pass it down to Ms. Caron. Ray, before we go into the next one, how many public speakers are there for it? MR. BELLOWS: Look likes ten. There may be some duplicates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Eight, ten, somewhere in that neighborhood. Plus, I know it's a rather lengthy document. I have an awful lot of questions. Based on that, we can start it now and stop in 30 minutes, Michael, or we can take an early lunch, get back maybe a few minutes early and do it all together at one time. Do you have any concerns or preferences? Page 94 June 7, 2007 MR. VOLPE: Whatever the preference of the commission is. We're prepared. I think maybe in terms of presentation, if we didn't interrupt it with the lunch break it might be better, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. I was distracted. MR. VOLPE: I was just suggesting whatever the pleasure of the commission is. But in terms of the presentation and the dialogue, it may be best not to interrupt it with a lunch break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm thinking. Mr. Adelstein, I know you are particular about your lunchtime. I think it would be better if we take a break now and try to get back here at 12: 15 and finish this one up. Does that sound workable to all of us? That's less than an hour. Can we all do that? . Does that work for everybody? I don't want anybody coming in late saying they didn't have enough time. I would rather you say it now. We will take a lunch break until 12: 15 and I'll see you all back here at 12: 15. (A recess was held from 11:30 a.m. until 12:15 p.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, if you could crank it up for me. Thank you. Item #8D PETITION: PUDA-2007-AR-I1081 Welcome back to our meeting. We'll resume after lunch break with Petition PUDA-2007-AR-II081. It's Dr. Terry McMahan for International College involving the Harvest for Humanity PUD. For all those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 95 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And disclosures on behalf of the Planning Commission? We'll start with Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I rode up with him in the elevator, if that counts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only if you talked to him. Did you stand there in silence? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I smiled and was nice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's rare for you. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Gee, I did the same thing as that gentleman did. No conversation, but pleasantries. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We came off the same elevator. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a meeting with Mr. Volpe. We went over a lot of details involving the project, which we will go over again today. I talked to Mr. Fred Thomas on the phone. I talked to Mr. Dick Weiss on the phone, as well. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I had no conversations on the project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I had a phone conversation with Dick Nogaj and he sent me an e-mail, which I think he sent everybody. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No contact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last comment I want to make is -- I want to ask the Planning Commissioners how you want to proceed with this. I had gotten an e-mail from, I think, Mrs. Nogaj telling me that Page 96 June 7, 2007 Mr. -- Commissioner Midney wanted to submit something. But because of the Sunshine Law, he knew he couldn't do it to me. She asked me what he should do. And I suggested he contact staff and go through the normal process for distribution and not go to anyone of us individually, which is the way it came through. Staff distributed it or somebody did. But we all have a letter from Mr. Midney. At the time I was asked, one of the things I was asked was to read it into the record. I hadn't seen it because I couldn't have. And I said, "Well, if Paul can't be there and he wants something read in the record, I don't have any problem with that." I didn't realize that Paul would write a book. And it's three pages of data. If you've all read it, it would save us a lot of trouble. I don't feel like being redundant and having to read three pages into the record, but I'd just like to make sure you've all gotten it and you've all read it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move to include it in our paperwork. It wasn't part of my packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was handed to us. It was sitting up here. That's how it was distributed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. I've also read it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the motion was made to accept Mr. Midney's statements into the record or texted into the record and seconded by Commissioner Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did, too. But several of us did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Murray. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 97 June 7, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, did you -- you looked like you were trying to say something. MR. KLA TZKOW: No, sir. I think it's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. While we're at it, we have a series of documents and I'll try to describe them so we can get them into the record that were provided to us earlier today. The first one is a -- it starts out like an e-mail provided to us by Michael Volpe from Florence Nogaj. The date on it is June 5, 2007. And it's two pages and it's the budget for the condo area. The second page is a site plan of the project. It's more of a marketing type site plan. It's called Jubilation site plan. The next package is two pages of the activity center, visitor center, Tract B. It looks like it is out of the PUD. It's Section Four. The next page is another -- it looks like a marketing submission statement for International College. And the page following that is an aerial of the Jubilation subdivision. The page following that is a press release dated June 2007. And then we have tract map of the Jubilation subdivision. Then we have a Jubilation Serenity Patio Homes and custom features included. Again, Mr. Midney's letter is in the same package. Then we have a board resolution in support of International College/Hodges University. Then we have a board resolution in support of -- there's two of them. One from the Jubilation Community Association and one as a member of the Jubilation Community Association. It's a condominium association. That's what I find in the packet. Is there a motion to accept it into evidence? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to include. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made a motion seconded Page 98 June 7, 2007 by Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Second. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark, one point. That one I thought was the president, not just a member of the association. The letter from the condo association. I thought I recognized that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. I was reading that. It says as a member of the Jubilation Community Association. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's the different communities within the PUD. One is from the Reflection and Jubilation Condo Association and the other is from the overall Jubilation Community Association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. There's a motion and it has been seconded. All those in favor of accepting these in, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries. Mr. Volpe, thank you for your patience. You can go forward with your presentation, sir. MR. VOLPE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. For the record, my name is Michael Volpe. I'm with the law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi. I'm here today proudly representing the International College and Page 99 June 7, 2007 Harvest for Humanity. International College recently, as a result of the generosity of Thelma and Earl Hodges, as a gift, the college has changed its name and it is now known as Hodges University. Although the name has changed, the mission of the International College has not. International College's mission has been and continues to be to offer degree and non-degree programs that enhance the ability of students to achieve life and career objectives. International College/Hodges University is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit. The co-petitioner is the Harvest for Humanity, Inc., which is also a 501 (c)3 not- for-profit corporation. Harvest for Humanity, Inc. was founded by Dick and Florence Nogaj. The mission, which was included in the little package of this 501 (c)3 -- and this is important to put this into context -- is to improve the quality of life for limited income individuals in Immokalee by providing opportunities for living wage employment, home ownership and education. To that end, Harvest for Humanity back in 1998/1999 purchased 110 acres in Immokalee and established a blueberry farm. I've been here for a long time. I never realized that blueberries were grown in Immokalee. Maybe some of you did. So there's an 11 O-acre farm growing blueberries in Immokalee. And this farm is a functioning farm. And the purpose of the acquisition of that 11 O-acre farm was in furtherance of the mission of the Harvest for Humanity to provide for living wage employment for the people in Immokalee. And to that end the people who work on that farm have been and continue to be paid $8.50 an hour for the work that they do in the Immokalee community on the blueberry farm. The second part of the mission was to provide housing in Immokalee for limited income people. To that end, Harvest for Humanity purchased approximately a 40-acre parcel of land located at the northeast quadrant of Carson Road and Lake Trafford Road in lmmokalee. That 40-acre -- it's a little bit less than 40 acres went Page 100 June 7, 2007 through the PUD process back in 1999 and there was an approval for the Harvest for Humanity PUD. The Harvest for Humanity PUD -- and probably I need to explain just a little bit -- has gone through a subdivision and its PUD has been completely developed. When it went through the subdivision process, it went through as the Jubilation subdivision and there are 11 tracts within the platted subdivision. The tracts that are involved on this petition are Tracts D, H, G, and J. All of the other tracts, except for those four tracts, are owned by the homeowners or the condominium associations within that subdivision. Those four tracts continue to be owned by Harvest for Humanity. This is a traditional neighborhood community and there are single- family homes that have been constructed and there are condominiums. Those are and were constructed on Tract A. What's highlighted in yellow are the tracts that are not involved here. We've got the large tract, which is Tract D, which is about a 15-acre preserve area owned by Harvest for Humanity. There's Tract J, which is a maintenance facility. And then there's Tract G, which is where currently there exists a u-pick farm for blueberries. It's about an acre and an eighth, acre, 6.3. And then there is Tract H. Tract His the location of a visitors' activity/visitors' center. This is how the subdivision looks today. The large water retention area is Blueberry Lake. There are single-family residences and condominiums that have been built. The activity center is located on Tract H and the activity, according to the approved PUD, allows for a myriad of uses. There was included in my little handout, but it's also included in your agenda package the whole list of permitted principal uses at the activity center. The concept here was that through the encouragement of the county and the development of eco tourism in the Immokalee community, this activity/visitors' center would be a focal point for Page 101 June 7, 2007 visitors to the blueberry farm, those who would be traveling to Immokalee for other eco tourism visits. There is within the activity center, which is about the building, 6,800 square feet. It has a meeting room. It has a full commercial kitchen. It has a cafe. And it has retail shop, all of which are permitted principal uses. And I won't bore you with all of the uses, but the uses that are important I think are -- that included in the permitted principal uses are adult education classes for Harvest, neighborhood and community residents, youth after-school structured education activities for the Harvest neighborhood and community residents. The facility was available and has been used for worship. Different meeting groups have met and continue to meet at the activity center. It has also provided the location for the Harvest for Humanities to continue its 501(c)3 functions. They operate this 110-acre blueberry farm, the landscape company that's involved in what was -- what occurs at that location. As we know, over the last several years we've had Wilma, we've had some other storms. The blueberry crop, just like some of the other crops in our community, have not faired very well. And, as a result, from a financial perspective, this project financially became less than viable. So the Nogaj's sought out a partner who could proceed with the other important part of their mission. We had wage. We had housing and now education. And so the Nogaj's found Hodges University and we entered into a contract pursuant to which the Nogaj's, through their continued generosity, have essentially offered to donate those four parcels that I've identified, including this activity center, to Hodges University for the purposes of furthering the education component of their mission, as well as the mission oflntemational College. We understand the lmmokalee community. We understand the programs. One of the important programs that will be pursued will be English as a second language and similar programs, in terms of Page 102 June 7, 2007 achieving for the adult learner their career objectives. I forgot to mention -- I think it's important that there was mention made earlier today about commitments to affordable housing. Those are affordable homes. And the Nogaj's, through the Harvest for Humanity, underwrote each one of those units to the tune of approximately $20,000. Ninety-four percent of the people who bought those homes came from the Immokalee community. The people who live there -- it's diversity. We have Haitians. We have Latinos. We have African-Americans. They live in this community. If you haven't been there, it is a lovely community, well maintained and very, very nice. We -- because of the principal permitted uses, we had originally applied for a zoning verification letter thinking that the programs of the International College/Harvest University were permitted principal uses. Staff, however, found that they were not and suggested that the appropriate process for us to follow would be to proceed with an amendment to the PUD. Several months later here we are, but we're here sooner than most because the EDC found that this project was in furtherance of the objectives for the Immokalee community. So we're on a fast track. EDC's resolution approving it is included, I'm sure, in your files. The amendment to the PUD which we are requesting will eliminate all of the principal permitted uses that are currently identified in the existing PUD; retail sales, the maintenance facility operations and the like. And what will be substituted is simply an educational/learning site. And we are, in the PUD, limiting ourselves to 80 students. So there would be a maximum of 80 students who would be enrolled in any term, who would be attending the programs that are being offered by Hodges University. As a practical matter, the people who we hope and we anticipate will benefit most will be the residents of the Harvest for Humanity. Page 103 June 7, 2007 The Nogaj's have given to -- and have proposed to give to each of the residents a $500 scholarship so that they can attend Hodges University. I pause at that. It's been so long I have been thinking of International College. In addition to that, of course, in the Immokalee community, we would expect that the residents of Immokalee would avail themselves of the programs that are going to be offered. Staff has reviewed our request for the amendment to PUD. It's a change of use. We're not going to add any buildings. We're not going to change the exterior of anything. What you see here today is what you're going to see next year and the year after. There are no plans in the foreseeable future to build any additional buildings. There may be some interior improvements to the activity/visitors' center, but there will be no changes at all. In staffs review, their concerns, as I have read their staff report, are two-fold. First, I must say that your staff did find that the amendment was consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the lmmokalee Master Plan. Transportation found that it was consistent with the transportation element of the Growth Management Plan. And the environmental group found that there were no environmental issues. Zoning review, however, identified some concerns. And those concerns related to traffic and to parking. And specifically there were concerns that perhaps with the change in use that there would be additional traffic generated, the result of which would be to somehow impact the movement of the residents within the community. The focus on the traffic issue -- as I said, transportation found that it was consistent with the transportation element. The staff, however, when they drill down on that issue felt that what we should be looking at is the reality of what exists as opposed to what the plan was approved for. Page 104 June 7, 2007 Our TIS says that there will be no increase in the number of trips per day. And what the staff has concluded though is that if you were just to compare what activity occurs at the activity/visitors' center, u-pick with a college that, in their opinion, what would happen is there would be an increase of about 19 percent in traffic. And that raised the concern that there may be some problem with the movement of residents within the community. In the first place, the project's built out. It was approved for a certain number of trips per day. The change in use will not change the approved capacity or the TIS trips generation within the development. The second concern that was expressed in your staff report was parking. And I'm not sure -- we did talk with the principal planner concerning the report. So the LDC requirements for parking are, in fact, met. In fact, there are -- with the 80 students, there are excess parking places on Tracts G and H. Now, G is the -- where the u-pick is. But if you'll notice on the photograph there, there is a parking lot there in the front. That's where people who are using the u-pick would park their vehicle and then they would use the -- they would pick the blueberries. And then there are parking available on Tract H, which is where the activity center is. The staff wanted to make sure that the students used that area and the immediate vicinity of the activity center for parking. There is ample parking and I think that that is reflected in the -- on both sides of the activity center. And then there are, I think, 26 parking places parking lot there on Tract G. One of the things that will be done is that the blueberry -- the u-pick area will be grassed over by International College. It will be irrigated -- pardon me. It will be irrigated and landscaped with some bushes and the like. I may have made the point. There are 19 more parking places than are required on your LDC. But the last concern that I've identified in reviewing the staff report is that in the activity center, 6,800 square feet, all types of -- Page 105 June 7, 2007 there's a full commercial kitchen in there that -- and there are restroom facilities within the activity center. But if you'll note on tract -- just behind Tract H, this is where the activity center is, there is another tract, which is Tract B where I think maybe there may be a little bit of confusion. That's a common area. That's owned -- that is owned by the homeowners' association. And on that tract there is a swimming pool, which is for the use of the residents within the Jubilation subdivision. There is also another common area where they have basketball courts, but that's located over by the maintenance facility. That bathroom facility is within 150 feet of the activity center. There is, on the exterior of the activity center, a bathroom facility that provides bathroom facilities for the users of the pool area. And you can see there's a walkway between the swimming pool and that bathroom. That bathroom is not accessible from the inside of the activity center. It is accessible only from the outside. Staff in their report was concerned, and is concerned, about the sharing of these bathroom facilities by the students and by the residents. And I would like -- to a certain, I'd appreciate that concern, but I think probably it's overstated. But, first, we have to understand the types of activities that have been going on, that will continue to go on if this PUD, I guess, is not -- amendment is not approved. So there have been sharing of those bathroom facilities by guests certainly to the u-pick, probably not by people who are using the conference facilities. But the other part is that Hodges University is for the adult student. The average age of the student is about 38 years old. Most people have not obtained their college degree, have been interrupted by their work, and so they work during the day and they come in the evening. So the students -- typically the classes are evening classes for the most part. That's where we expect to see the most attendance between 6:00 and 10:00 in the evening. Page 106 June 7, 2007 And so considering the time when it would be used, we don't see that there would be that opportunity to share this bathroom facility to any great extent. And, I think, more importantly or equally as important is the fact that there are bathroom facilities that are accessible from within the activity center. The staff is -- suggested that -- the staff regrettably, in my opinion, has recommended denial of this petition based upon, as I have read their report, these concerns, traffic, parking and the sharing of bathroom facilities. And they have included in your agenda package a number of stipulations which they believe could ameliorate some of their concerns. The parking issue that -- they've suggested constructing another parking lot. And I'm not sure -- and I'm sure Ms. Deselem will explain that, but I think that we do have capacity -- excess capacity as she would want it on "G" and "H". So I'm not sure that that's a condition that will continue to be a condition. Included in that request may also be though the request that a parking lot be constructed on the common area where the pool is. I guess the theory would be that when people come to use the pool, they ought to be able to drive and park there. However, this is a walkable community. This is not open to the outside of this community. It's for residents only. And so the likelihood of people necessarily driving from their home to park on the common area to use the common area swimming pool we don't think exists. There was some concern about the possibility of the students intruding into the residential neighborhood. I think it's a very legitimate concern. What -- to address that, we have indicated -- I think it was in the neighborhood informational meeting, we've indicated that we will put appropriate signage to make sure that people knew the location of the activity/visitors' center. And also as part of the orientation program for the students they would be given a map and told how they are to gain access and the sole means of access. Page 107 June 7, 2007 There are some other requirements. Probably the only other one that I can mention at this point, and I'm sure there will be questions later, is that oflighting. The staff has felt that there may be some adjustment that would be required in the lighting around the activity center. I don't know how to demonstrate. We don't have an illumination plan, but there is and has been approved an illumination plan for the activity center for the uses that are currently permitted at that site. With what we have submitted and what we will submit, we think that we have -- we hope to have established that this change in use is consistent with your Growth Management Plan, That the -- you'll see in your package that the residents of this community wholly endorse and welcome the new user of that facility. We think it's a real opportunity for not only the residents, but the Immokalee community. And it's -- it completes the last part of the mission of the Nogaj's. And that is to provide the educational opportunities for the people in the Immokalee community. I'm happy to answer any question that I can that you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have questions of the applicant, Mr. Adelstein and Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a couple of questions. First of all, is these people who actually bought the homes; did they not? MR. VOLPE: Yes, they did, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And they were -- in about 1999? MR. VOLPE: In that area, yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They own the homes then? MR. VOLPE: They do. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: In this situation it came before the college education structure? MR. VOLPE: That's correct. Page 108 June 7, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, as far as I'm concerned -- and I have spent a lot of time in this situation. That if they own these homes, you can say to them, "We would like you to do this, this and this and make these changes," but as long as they are the owners of the homes and those changes weren't there when they bought the home, they have a right to say no to you. Because they are the owners of the homes. You didn't -- can say in the purchase necessary that they couldn't do this or they couldn't do that or they have to do this, what you did was sold them the homes. Now all of a sudden there are changes you want to make. And I can't see how you can afford -- enforce that issue because they are the owners of the homes. MR. VOLPE: And I appreciate that concern. My comment is as follows: These four parcels were never turned over to the homeowners' association or to the condominium association. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Do you have, by any chance, a copy of the original purchase contracts? MR. VOLPE: I don't -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Or a purchase contract? MR. VOLPE: I don't have the contract, but what I do have -- and it was included in your package. Proposed Harvest Visitor/Activity Center. It was that one page -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. VOLPE: -- That you have there. And I need to put this in the context because there's another part of your question I want to make sure that I answer. It says as follows: That the center is not an association common area and the parcel owners are under no obligation to maintain the facilities. Use of the center shall be permitted at the sole and unfettered discretion of Harvest and is nonexclusive in nature. It is the intent to develop a cooperative relationship with the Harvest parcel owners. Page 109 June 7, 2007 Now, keep in mind that this activity/visitors' center under the principal permitted uses allowed for a retail shop. It allowed for adult education. It allowed for after-school programs by a -- it could have been a day-care center. There were houses of worship. It was a -- and it is. There is a full commercial kitchen there. There's a cafe. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand what you're saying and I understand what you're trying to suggest here. I'm saying that we have got to start out with item one, "A", these people purchased homes. MR. VOLPE: They did. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Now, they have those homes and there were nothing in those -- in that property that said they can do this or they can't do that. They are the owners in the homes. MR. VOLPE: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Now, all ofa sudden, you want to make changes. They have a right, as owners in that property, to live with what they expected the first time they got it. And that's why it's very important to me to see one of those purchase contracts so I can say "yes" or "no" to it. In this situation -- and you're an attorney and I'm an attorney. Sit back and say, "Wait a minute here. If this home right is theirs, it is theirs. If they change it" -- MR. VOLPE: They purchased the home. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Correct. MR. VOLPE: They didn't purchase the activity center. They obviously were provided with a copy of the PUD. They must have understood how the activity/visitors' center was going to be used. Simply because they bought a home doesn't give them the absolute right to control what activities are permitted under the PUD. But, more importantly, at least at this point in time, the residents who are there today have endorsed this. If -- we may have an objector, I don't know, But there is included in your package a letter from the Page 110 June 7, 2007 homeowners' association and from the condominium association endorsing it. So we're concerned about the residents, as well. Mr. Nogaj and Mrs. Nogaj did what they did for the residents. The third leg of their program is education. Education -- they knew that education was going to occur there. Adult education. I guess, International College could have rented space and done that. So it isn't a use -- we're not changing this to -- what I could -- to a bait shop. You know, we're consistent with what those uses were in the -- and are in the existing PUD. At least that's my position. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The question is: Do you have -- you, them -- have the authority to say now that you want these changes to be made? Because basically if that wasn't the issue when they bought their home, you haven't got the right to change it now. And I'm saying to you that it's not a matter of what the owners are going to do, they have the rights that I'm trying to suggest they have. And I think, as an attorney, you understand that you gave them -- or whoever did it gave them the contract to buy the house. They bought the house. MR. VOLPE: I guess, two responses. One is, I don't know by virtue of what -- how that right comes about. Where does that right come from? There is no covenant that runs with the land. There is no contractual obligation that says, "If we make any change in what is approved by the PUD, we need to get your approval." We want -- we want your cooperation, but we don't need your approval. The residents -- the change is going to be approved by your commission and by the BCe. That's why we're here. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The only thing that is going to prove this is for someone in your office area to deliver to, at least this Page III June 7, 2007 board at least, whether or not they bought the homes free and clear of any other item that they -- in that area. If they do, you have a real estate problem that you have to solve and they can do something with, but you can't tell them to. MR. VOLPE: The only other comment that I may have is that included in the package is the budget for the homeowners' association and for the condominium association. The homeowners' association and condominium association do not bear any of the expenses associated with the activity center. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You're skipping the problem that I want to see. I do feel it is very important for us to see the original contract purchase by anyone of these people. I don't need them all. Just one. MR. VOLPE: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And let us decide whether or not your change is proper or your change leaves them to say it's proper if they want it to be proper. I can't change it because I don't have the answer to that. But I do believe we need the answer before we can start anything else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, I don't think the document that you are seeking is here. I think he's already acknowledged that, right? MR. VOLPE: We do not have a contract for purchase and sale for the individual condominium units. What I'm telling you is that this was in the marketing material. And what I also tell you is that the governing documents for the homeowners' association and the governing documents for the condominium association, those are legally binding. Those are recorded. Those are how these people who bought within this community must abide by. There is nothing in the recorded declaration of condominium or in the homeowners' governing documents that would give to the residents the absolute right or any right to consent to the change. We Page 112 June 7, 2007 do not need their consent to the change. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: All I'm saying is you should be able to deliver to us at least one contract of a purchaser in that 1999 time and then decide -- let us decide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have other questions to get into. I think you've made your point, Mr. Adelstein, and Mr. Volpe. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This will stop. Where is it going to go forward until we get the basic -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, it's an issue you're concerned with that you want. I don't need that issue. You do. Mr. Volpe has responded to you. Do you have any other questions on another subject that you want to go forward? Any other subject at this point? Because he's responded the best he can to your answer. He hasn't got it. So there's no sense in beating a dead horse. Let's just move on to the next question. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Maybe it should be continued until we find out which way we're going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't see it relevant to the case at hand myself. So I don't know why we would continue it for that reason. Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: And I fully understand what Mr. Adelstein is looking for, but it has nothing to do with the zoning, nor does it have anything to do with the PUD. There is nothing in the PUD that restricted any -- that what you're looking for defined that as a community facility. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: And we didn't evaluate it as such and maybe Kay -- Kay may have some information. But what -- we're treading in a legal matter. That may be a legal matter between the purchaser and the homeowners, which is beyond the scope of this hearing. Page 113 June 7, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a civil matter that this board is not involved with. So, I mean, I understand where you're going, Mr. Adelstein, but we're not -- it's not our issue. We are dealing with a zoning issue, a PUD issue, and an application of good planning. That's what we're limited to. Now, that we've got past this issue, Kay, did you have something to contribute? MS. DESELEM: Yeah, I was just going mention. In the PUD document itself, in Ordinance 99-80, within the project description, but not in the development commitment, there is a sentence that says, quote, "The residential sections will have a centrally located activity center, basketball court, covered playground, park, gazebos and swimming pool for the recreation of the residents, period." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. DESELEM: That is in here. But, like you said, it's not in the commitments. It's in the project description. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay. Okay. Mr. Adelstein, do you have any other questions, besides that one? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. I think that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just -- I need to get a couple of things in. And relevant to that, I would ask this question. Relevant to those particular tracts, Mr. Nogaj and his family, if they decide that they can't do anything anymore and they were to abandon the property, do you know of anything in your documentation that would suggest or require that the homeowners' associations and the condominium associations act to do anything about those properties? Would they be responsible for them? Would they have to take them over? Would they -- anyway, they don't own them, do they? Page 114 June 7, 2007 MR. VOLPE: They don't own them. They have no financial commitment or obligation. So the answer to your question is no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I think that tends to flavor the issue a little bit. I have a question regarding the -- there are a number of things that I'm fascinated. I know that the staff is trying to bring every -- you know, levels up and try to do everything that they can to make things better, But I wondered about -- and I don't know anything about this operation, okay? I'm absolutely ignorant of it. But I'm assuming, like everything else in life, if you open up, there's an opening and there's a high attendance potential and that over time attendance may drop off, conditions change, whatever. I don't know. But I'm wondering about the snapshot that was made. It was a number 19 percent increase. I think that was the number. Or 19 percent decrease now. I'm confused. But my point was: There is a snapshot that was made, which is the predicate for causing other things to happen. And I'm just wondering: Do you have any attendance records or anything to show that there was a time when it was better attended, That those levels -- I think I'm talking about parking here and I think I'm talking about use, okay? And I'm -- it's difficult for me because I'm trying to -- I'm really ignorant of this and I wish I had more knowledge. I guess what I'm trying to express to you is that: When the staff took its position, it took its position on a given day and a given conclusion. And that's fine. That's what you have to do basically. But did it give consideration -- in your opinion, did it give consideration to all that had been intended and all that had been when it was in its most vibrant point? Because I'm thinking about all of those people that were coming and going and using the activity center, some of whom may have strayed into near the swimming pool, et cetera. Page 11 5 June 7, 2007 Have I made myself in any -- MR. VOLPE: I understand the concern. I guess probably the best response would be, "A", your transportation services people have found that this program is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Zoning review has perceived that there may be a concern. And perhaps the report has been rewritten, but it was beliefs and perceptions that we addressed in a follow-up letter that I sent to you and probably is included in your package. This didn't just happen in Immokalee. You've got people who have a vision and you've got the EDC and you've got the Board of County Commissioners and you've got county that's encouraging this to occur in the Immokalee community. They want eco-tourism to grow there, the idea of the blueberry farm. So it's not like you and I opening up a retail store or a bar and the first few days were really good. Trying to encourage activity. So to take a snapshot -- I mean, the idea of 80 students, we would hope that we're able to get 80 students. Eighty students is the figure that International College/Hodges University has determined is the break even point to -- in order to sustain it from a financial perspective. That's what it represents. We really don't expect to have 80 students. We don't expect to have 80 students from Immokalee at any time driving into this subdivision. We're going to get residents who live there. And I don't know how many people in Immokalee own a car, but there are a lot that do not. And so they will walk to this location. So this perception about a 19 percent increase in traffic when transportation has said, you know, "You're not increasing the number of trips per day." That's the best response I can give you. I don't have any charts to show you that certain days of the week there's more activity than others. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I was trying to make Page 116 June 7, 2007 probably an unrealistic comparison -- MR. VOLPE: I understand the issue. I just don't have enough factual information to address that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I think I understood that this was a collaborative effort on the part of the persons that own the property to do something good for the community. And the only thing you've now provoked as a question for me: When you say a break even point of 80 students, did I mishear you? Did you say they don't expect to have 80 students? And if they don't break even, are they willing to run it at a loss; is that what you're saying? MR. VOLPE: Absolutely, Yeah. You have to remember this is a donation. So we're going to receive this facility. They're going to be ongomg expenses. And perhaps this will come up a little bit later in the question and answer period. But the owner of the four parcels that are being donated to Hodges University bear a significant expense in maintaining -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yes. MR. VOLPE: -- the common areas. Not the common areas. The streets, the roadways and so on and so forth. So the International College has made a commitment. So just crunching numbers, we need 80 students. We didn't want to do 120 because it didn't make any sense. Eighty was the number. That's where it came from. I don't have any other explanation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's fine. And I think that I'm going to conclude my comments by just saying that I think that this is a -- from their point of view, that's an investment of some significance and a willingness to make a commitment for a period of time. One other thing I had that crossed my mind: Do we have any evidence about the lighting? And I may ask staff this, as well. Page 11 7 June 7, 2007 The lighting that staff has requesting, lower level lighting, would that in any way save any money relative to any of this? Or this is -- I haven't heard any comments -- I haven't seen any commentary that suggests that the lighting is a problem. MR. VOLPE: Mr. Nogaj can address what lighting is there currently. There is ample lighting there currently, which obviously has been approved. And it's moved in the direction not to interfere with the residential neighborhoods. The staffs concern about additional lighting, how much more, where it should take place, we have photographs, which I can just show you what it looks like in the evening. I should also say that I mentioned that primarily the college programs would last until 10:00 in the evening. The college has security at all of its locations after 6:00. So that there will be a security person, from one of -- Wackenhut or whatever, that will be there at the activity/visitors' center, which will address any security issues. So in terms of concerns about the safety of our students, that would be a concern. Mr. Nogaj has made me aware of the fact that in this community the vandalism, criminal activities, there haven't been any. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess that was what I was trying to do earlier, too. When this operated, perhaps at its fullest and the blueberry crops were adequate, there were lots of people that came and went. And the question then: Would there have been any issues of security? And if there had not been, I don't know that we would have had a significant increase. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Volpe, just a couple questions. And it's -- really I'm having trouble in the strike-through version of the PUD as to what happens to some of the other tracts. Page 118 m__."_.__,._,..".".._,__._,_^~_..._. June 7, 2007 Tract D is a conservation easement. MR. VOLPE: And there's a monitoring program which there is in the governing documents. Hodges University will have to maintain the monitoring program on the conservation tract. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it will be owned by Hodges University? MR. VOLPE: It will. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that tract is part of the PUD obviously? MR. VOLPE: It is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tract J, what is it currently being used for? MR. VOLPE: Tract J is a maintenance facility The u-pick -- there is a 110-acre blueberry farm. Workers have been using these facilities. It used to be landscaping was provided from this maintenance facility owned by Harvest for Humanity. The activities there probably going forward will be -- we've asked that that site be designated as well for an education learning site, but it will probably be maybe some offices for staff is probably what would be used there. But currently the activities that are occurring there are associated with the commercial enterprise that does take place in that area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they're not the maintenance facilities for the rest of the PUD, the residential areas? MR. VOLPE: Well, no, no. The residents -- the residents have absolutely no ownership interests in these -- in any of these and they don't have any given right to use what I read was. It is all, and has been, at the discretion of the Harvest for Humanity how it will be used. And perhaps it sounds kind of Draconian, but if you -- in terms of concerns for the protection of those assets, they wanted to exercise some control themselves, not knowing exactly how the residents Page 119 June 7, 2007 might be interested in using those facilities. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments ofMr. Volpe? Okay. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have one. The 110-acre blueberry farm, which obviously is not part of the PUD, is that still going to exist or is that gone, as well? MR. VOLPE: The answer to that is Mr. and Mrs. Nogaj are going to be returning to Chicago. Probably that 11 O-acre blueberry farm will be sold. Mr. Nogaj has advised me that a portion ofthat 110 acres will continue to be devoted to blueberries and growing blueberries. But, in addition, there will be row crops that will be added, tomatoes and other things, that perhaps -- I don't know what the season of blueberries are. But from where I'm from, it's usually a fall crop. So, I guess, something to balance it out. But that will remain for, quote, farming purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry to do this again in one respect. I have a responsibility to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use the microphone, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a responsibility here. As far as I'm concerned right now, I have -- none of us know what the purchase of these homes actually said in the statement in which they were purchased. And until I see that, I would like to ask for a continuance of this until we have that answer and can go on with either it is or it isn't. Ifit is illegal to go on -- ifit is illegal for them to say, "We have control or, no, we don't," they have the control and they should. But we don't know at all which way it is. And I think we have to know before we can go forward. Page 120 -~~,,_._---,------ -- - -- "-'~-"--'~- "~-----"'~"--'"--'---'-'- June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Volpe, before you answer, we might as well see if that's the sentiment of the balance of this board. I will ask from left to right. Mr. Tuff, would you want to see this continued for the reason stated by Mr. Adelstein? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a "no", Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I'd like this to continue on. Not a continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not a continuance. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I would like a question of Jeff. Do you see a problem here with this -- with us going ahead without a contract? MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't know that I'd call it a problem. I mean, one of the things that you're always considering is whether or not this is in the public good. It could very well be that ifthis line of inquiry was pursued that he might feel that this was not in the best interest of the community, given the sales brochures and contracts and everything else. But that's a hypothetical. I don't know. That's up to you to decide whether or not you want to pursue that inquiry. I do know that a continuance may result in hardship here if there are contractual issues. That's why they're here so quickly, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow-- MR. KLATZKOW: It is up to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- do you see a real estate contract as being a document under the purview of this committee? MR. KLA TZKOW: I think that if you felt that they were substantially breaching the original agreements between all of the residents that you could put a stop to it, if you wanted to. But we don't know that and we're not there. Page 121 ._.~~,------,._-"..., ,. June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: You could also not. This is a zoning matter. You could say that one thing has nothing to do with the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to get to. MR. KLA TZKOW: It's your discretion, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a zoning board. It's the Planning Commission. If you're telling us we have the authority to open up project investigations into land contracts and the like, that brings a whole different realm of items that we've never really been supplied much with by staff and staff has never reviewed, as far as know. That's a civil matter. MR. KLA TZKOW: But this is a very unusual project we're looking at here. I mean, I haven't seen anything quite like this one since I've been with the county. It presents unique issues. I mean, what happens if the blueberry farm goes out of business? What happens to the rest of the stuff if it gets abandoned? It's a maras of legal issues that could result here. I don't know that you want to get into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. MR. VOLPE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Volpe. MR. VOLPE: Just if! may respond. We have some of the residents who are here. I don't know if they're first-time buyers. Maybe, if you choose to, you can inquire of them for the record as a matter. They've been sworn and they can testify as to what their understanding was when they purchased, number one. Number two, I submit to you that it is the governing documents that control; the declaration of condominium and the homeowners' documents. The contract I can assure you is silent. What it says, as all contracts for the purchase of real estate where there is a homeowners' association or a condominium association, it says you Page 122 "~,,---"--~..__....,,"-- ,.,' '. -~', _._-~. - June 7, 2007 need to review. Here's the disclosure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Volpe, we're getting off on tangents. I simply -- Mr. Adelstein insisted on making this motion now. I want to get it passed, so we can either go on or stop today. I don't need a rebuttal on it. Mr. Vigliotti, can you just tell us "yes" or "no"; do you want to see a continuance of this project or not? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. I'd like to finish it up today. I don't think we should get into this whole -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, obviously you don't want it to go today. I see no reason why it shouldn't continue today. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Keep going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Keep going. And, Mark, in the packet there is a resolution from the community association. It would be in there. They would say, "Hey, what are you doing giving away my community center?" So definitely continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The motion -- the consensus of this Board is to continue and we will continue with the meeting. Mr. Volpe, we left off on questions of you. Does anybody have any further questions ofMr. Volpe? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I do have some, Mike. The objective that Mr. Adelstein was trying to get to was somehow factor in, I think, the understanding of what the residents Page 123 June 7, 2007 there thought they were getting when they bought into this project through their contractual real estate contract. I don't believe that a real estate contract has enough -- a lot of items that we should be dealing with, but the PUD is something we should be dealing with. Kay's comments a few minutes ago were relevant and I think we need to walk through her example. And in the PUD, in the strike-through version, the following language did exist. It said, "The residential sections will have a centrally located activity center or basketball court, covered playground, park, gazebos and swimming pool for the recreation of the residents. They emphasize. It says the sections -- the residential sections will have." The new language in the new PUD change that paragraph and it now says, "Recreational uses and facilities may include, but are not limited to, a swimming pool, basketball court, children's playground area, common open areas and gazebos. Such uses shall be visually and functionally compatible with the adjacent residences whose occupants will have the use of such facilities." Now, based on the changes to the two PUDs, one saying they will have and the other saying they may include, I would think that through that avenue Mr. Adelstein's question may be relevant. And I want to know from you or somebody on your team of those facilities that were committed to by the words "will have" in the first PUD, where they are on the property. MR. VOLPE: There are, Mr. Strain -- excuse me. Tract B, which is the tract immediately -- you have the-- maybe I should put this up. Tract H is here. This is where the activity/visitors' center is located. Immediately behind Tract H is Tract B. On Tract B is a swimming pool that has been constructed for the residents. There's a -- that's Tract B. That is the swimming pool that has been constructed for the residents. The -- that's a soccer field, play field. There's a common area for use by all of the members of the homeowners' association. Page 124 June 7, 2007 So those recreational amenities have, in fact, been provided to the residents. In addition -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, you want to stop there for a minute. MR. VOLPE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to read that section again and we'll stop at each thing. I want you to show me. "Residential sections will have a centrally located activity center." Where is that? MR. VOLPE: The activity center is located on Tract H. It's the use of that facility, which the residents have had at the discretion of Mr. -- of Harvest for Humanity to use that facility for their meetings when they would assemble. The association meetings would occur there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Can you point it on the overhead? Just point it on the overhead what he's talking about. MR. VOLPE: "H" right there. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It's the white part, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The whole thing is a building, Tor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, the objective here is that Tract B is going to stay with the residents as a common area. Tract H is going to go to International College for a college facility. The PUD says, "The residential sections will have a centrally located activity center." Now, if it goes to International College, what do they have left to meet the intent of the PUD as an activity center? MR. VOLPE: The International College has, as a part of the neighborhood commitment -- the bathroom facilities are and will continue to be available to the residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that -- going to the bathroom is an activity, But I don't think that was the intended activity of an activity center, Mike. Page 125 June 7, 2007 MR. VOLPE: No. I understand. I wasn't trying to be facetious. I was trying to show the use of -- or how the activity, what the activity center has provided to the residents. And so it will continue to provide to the residents that aspect of how it has been used probably most often by the residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying they can use the bathrooms now and they can use them in the future and that's what the reference for activity center was in this PUD? MR. VOLPE: No, I'm not saying that's the only reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's stay right on focus. Where is the activity center, as referenced in this PUD, that meets the needs of the residents after International College would assume control of those tracts? Where is that activity center? That's all I want to know? MR. VOLPE: Of course, that activity center, as it existed, once it becomes the learning center for the college, the policies that the International College would have for use by any other group would be the policies that the homeowners would have to abide by, in terms of how they would use that facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you would provide them with an activity area within that building after International College were to assume control of it; is that what you're saying? MR. VOLPE: No, I'm not. And, I guess, you probably have to -- what Ms. Deselem pointed out, that's in the description -- overall description. That's not what is required. And, I guess, the -- what the residents have always understood, this is private property. This is private property. And so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're missing the point. First of all -- MR. VOLPE: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think your project would be a good thing for the Immokalee community. So I'm trying to get there to make it work. At the same time, we have to be protective of the Page 126 -. ---"--'''.'-''._'"''---~..'-''._''''-'- June 7, 2007 people that bought into this project, as Mr. Adelstein was alluding to, but from a different direction. The PUD is a document you're bound to; your developer is bound to. Your developer had commitments in the PUD document that he had to meet. Well, however he met them, apparently he has because he's gotten this far along. He's gotten CO's and staff has approved the project to date. But now there's changes coming to the project. Some changes may change the commitments that were previously made in the PUD. They may take away rights that are -- or benefits or amenities that the previous owners bought into when they bought the zoning that this PUD offered, that the developer was supposed to commit to them and provide to them. I just want to make sure that after International College were to take this over that the people that had these abilities and these amenities that were contracted to them by the zoning document are still in place in some manner. That's my objection. You need to tell me how to get there. When I ask a question of where the activity center is, I don't mean the bathrooms. And I don't me it's something that you'll lease out to the people like you would anybody else. I want to know what conveniences you are making to meet the commitment of this zoning document. MR. VOLPE: In the first place, in terms of the commitment, as Mr. Adelstein pointed out, what you're reading from, Mr. Strain, is from the project description. The project -- it is a project description that talks to the centrally located activity center. If you look at the Tract B, in terms of what the uses are permitted and the nature of how this was developed, what -- the use that was made and that could be made by the residents perhaps they never had in their ownership a centrally located activity center. This parcel was never deeded to the homeowners' association. They have never borne Page 127 June 7, 2007 any of the expenses. So in direct response to your question, if the concept is they had unfettered use of an activity center for whatever types of activities the residents may have wanted, may have used, which they would have the cost of maintaining, "A", they didn't have it to begin with, but they will not have that if this amendment is approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess then staffs report is --I'm going to be looking from staff and from the county attorney a -- some kind of opinion as to how strong that statement is in the requirements of the PUD. Because if this PUD has been approved, then those provisions and the developer commitments have not been met. I certainly want to know that. On the other hand, if the residents stand up here today -- those that are here -- and voice no objection and these issues aren't problematic with them, then there may not be any need to go further. Is there a basketball court somewhere on the property? MR. VOLPE: Yes, there is. In fact, there's a playground and basketball court. And it is -- let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What tract is it on? That's all I need to know. MR. VOLPE: It's Tract I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a covered playground? MR. NOGAJ: Semi. MR. VOLPE: Right there. Tract B. Partially covered, as I'm told. Partially covered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a park? MR. VOLPE: The green area in the common area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any gazebos? MR. VOLPE: Yes, there are. In the -- there is by Blueberry Lake. There's a gazebo there. And, I believe, there's also one in the preserve area back on -- MR. NOGAJ: No, no. Just by the lake. Page 128 June 7, 2007 MR. VOLPE: Just by the lake. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then basically what we're saying is you've met the conditions with the exception -- there's some clarity on the activity center. Basically that's what I can see from what you've just told me. We're 90 percent there, So we're moving forward. That's all I was trying to get to. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Strain, for clarification -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMITT: On the strike-through and underlining, there will be no reference to an activity center. And that will be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. That's why I'm bringing this up. We're taking a PUD that the residents bought into or modified a benefit they had in a PUD that they bought into to one that they don't have now. You're not seeking out individual signatures of every resident there as property owners having an amenity removed from them. So I'm wondering how you're doing it. And, therefore, I'm saying we need to substitute for it if you intend to do this. That's what I'm looking at. MR. VOLPE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I will still have my question of the county attorney and the staff members as to how they look upon this. Because it seems to me if you've got a PUD community and you've got commitments made and you take away from those commitments in the zoning document of which they all bought into, then there probably is something needed from them or their endorsement of what you're doing. And I will ask that of the county attorney when we get down further. So, anyway, that's where my questioning was going. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And your question that we were just talking about here, just for clarification, is Tract H being carved out of Tract B? Page 129 June 7, 2007 MR. VOLPE: No. When it was subdivided that's how it turned out. So the original master plan that's attached to the PUD had it as B. But when it was a platted subdivision, Tract H has always been Tract H since the subdivision for Jubilation was approved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. VOLPE: Is that responsive to your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think the answer would be, Yes, during subdivision Tract H was carved out. MR. VOLPE: That's correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I want to go over the staff commitments because -- we'll do the same thing with staff. They seem to be the issues that -- for staffs viewpoint it would make it work. I notice some of them, however, are objectionable to you. The parking issue. I have page eight of ten and nine and ten, but between page eight and nine number one is gone. I don't know why, but I would like someone to put it on the projector so I can read what the full part of number one was. I have got the last three lines of number one. And it has something to do with parking. Does anybody here on the panel have number one? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. It's printed on the edge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it can't be printed on the edge because it's got an indent in it. So it's missing lines. I just want to make sure we read the whole item. MR. VOLPE: I noticed that, as well, Mr. Strain. I also had an earlier draft of the staff report. I was just looking to see if that one maybe had that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Paul Midney said that it was okay, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So his vote for you. You're his proxy. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. I'll be darned if I Page 130 June 7, 2007 know what happened to the first part of number one, to be perfectly honest with you. I will have to go back to some of the prior versions to see. Oh, you have it. It was a computer thing with all the revisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind reading that into the record so that we have it squared. Because no one seems to have a copy of it. MS. DESELEM: And I do apologize. You want to go ahead and read it because I can't see it. MR. VOLPE: A site development -- a site development plan must be approved by Collier County that shows parking in compliance with the design criteria ofthe LDC requirements for college/ university of two per five commuter students, plus four per five faculty/staff members. Said parking spaces must be solely provided on Tracts Hand G. Parking by students, faculty or visitor related to the educational classes and any other tract within the project, including Tract E, is prohibited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, do you have any problem with that paragraph? MR. VOLPE: I don't have a problem, Mr. Strain, but what I submit is that there are already sufficient parking spaces in compliance with the LDC on Tracts G and H. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I just want to make sure that if we were to recommend approval and that number one stayed intact that it works. MR. VOLPE: It works. I think it's an unnecessary condition because -- I did respond and I think you have a copy of my letter. The original staff report that was submitted didn't have the criteria. It might have been a typographical error. They had two parking spaces per student. Two parking spaces per student. It's not what it is. It's two per five. And so we corrected that. The redraft of the staff report shows that. And if you run the Page 131 June 7, 2007 calculations, there are 55 parking places on Tracts G and H. And the number of parking spaces that are required, we have 19 excess parking spaces. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you do. I know you answered it. But I want to make sure -- what I'm trying to do, again, is to get to a solution. If staff wants this as a recommendation and it doesn't cause you a problem, why don't we just do it? MR. VOLPE: We can do it. Ijust don't think it's necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go on to number three. Now, this -- here staff is asking to have men and women restroom facilities constructed on Tract B. I know that the cost of that is something you're balking at. Health code allows, I think, within 150 feet of the pool facility. MR. VOLPE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have rest rooms in the building. Are you going to provide a perpetual easement and the perpetual maintenance on the -- as far as the college goes for those rest rooms to the residents? MR. VOLPE: We've committed to that in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also they are going to be forever restricted from use by anybody, but the people utilizing the swimming pool? MR. VOLPE: They aren't restricted for use by -- I mean, if there were -- if someone who found his or her way to that facility, it could be -- it would be shared by -- it could be shared by people who are utilizing the activity/visitors' center. My point was -- is that the opportunity for a sharing on any kind of a regular basis would be minimal considering how the activity/visitors' center will be used by the college. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you had told me or I thought you said earlier today that there wasn't any connection -- there wasn't Page 132 --_._---_._'------,-"--,~-_.,.... June 7, 2007 any way for an internal access to these rest rooms. MR. VOLPE: There is not. There is no way to reach those facilities, but someone would have to walk outside to get to it. But we're not prohibiting people who are using the college site from using those bathrooms. I'm just saying as a practical matter, in reality, that ifthere's a bathroom right inside the building, they're not going to go outside to use it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you would have no problem with a perpetual easement for the use of those facilities for the community? MR. VOLPE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number four, buffering along the various boundaries of the tracts. Let's take it one at a time. Boundaries of Tract G. "K" is a roadway and "G", in your future plan, is not going to have a structure on it. It's going to have what's there today; isn't that correct? MR. VOLPE: Correct. No new structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at the most you're going to do is take out a blueberry patch and put in sod? MR. VOLPE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know why that would change-- would show the need for a buffer. MR. VOLPE: I think -- if I may, the only thought I had was that staff might be concerned that people would turn off coming in that drive for some reason. But we would commit to put some modest type of hedge along that tract as you approach just for aesthetic purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as the entire lines of Tract B boundary from Tract H, that's to separate the school facilities from the common areas of the residential facility. Do you have any problem with that? MR. VOLPE: I do. And let me explain. The actual buffering, Page 133 June 7, 2007 the effect ofthat would be -- I need to get just one other. What staff is requesting is a buffer along this boundary line that separates Tract H from Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says the entire. So I think you have the line that goes in both directions all the way. So you'd be all the way down, I would think. MR. VOLPE: Perhaps I didn't interpret it correctly. Along the entire -- on all sides of that property line? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the way it seems to read. "On Tract H along the entire length of the Tract B boundary." MR. VOLPE: As it relates to that area, which is immediately behind the activity center, the concerns that we have are as follows: One, is if we -- the college has no intention of expanding or adding any additional structures. That area here, which I think Mr. Schiffer alluded to, that area is a park and has been used by the residents for their soccer field, for the playground, and whatever activities young people become involved in. That property is not property that is owned by the residents, the homeowners' association. If we were to construct a buffer along that area, it would effectively reduce significantly the opportunity for the young people to continue to use that play area for their recreational activities. So that would be the reason why, at least along that -- along that boundary line we would have a problem with buffering it because it would then prohibit them from using that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem giving them an easement to use that area for recreational purposes as they are today? MR. VOLPE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you provide them with an easement for that purpose, then that takes care of that buffer area. Now, on the north side of that pool deck -- MR. VOLPE: If! may, Mr. Strain. Page 134 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. VOLPE: Could we have the option of either giving them an easement or deeding them the -- that portion? That kind of evens it off so that it would be a continuation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see a problem with that at all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's better. MR. VOLPE: There are liability issues that I've identified being a lawyer that apparently have existed for a period of time. So there may be -- that issue can be resolved be actually deeding it to the homeowners' association. They then become responsible for its maintenance, et cetera, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from the common line, that red line that's on there, if you go to the north edge of the pool deck and you go down to the south edge of whatever that white rectangle is south of the poo I -- MR. VOLPE: That's the playground. And that actually has some play equipment on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's basically a "Z". And I'm not talking about the one that extends all the way to the left across the back side of that parking lot. That little narrow strip isn't worth a lot. But that "Z" piece that's left on the south side of that playground to the north side of the pool deck, if you were to put a buffer there, do you see a problem with that? MR. VOLPE: I need a second, if! may. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would that impede the use of the toilet facility? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Because it would-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You wouldn't put it where the walkway is. MR. VOLPE: This graphic shows Tract H and then what is in yellow is that portion that is where we were discussing putting a boundary along here. This is the portion in yellow that we will deed Page 135 June 7, 2007 to the homeowners' association. So what you see in yellow would be -- would become an owner -- owned by the homeowners' association. So, I guess, in terms of your buffering along the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only buffer I'm talking about is a hedge between the parking lot and the playground. That's about it. MR. VOLPE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't want to confuse this, by any means. But you had mentioned you were going to deed it over to them and now make them pay for it. The homeowners' association is not paying for anything now. Are we going to cause a problem by making the homeowners' association start to pay for facilities that they've been getting for free? MR. VOLPE: What it is though -- the answer is it's mowing grass is really what it is. They already have the obligation of maintaining the other part of -- so the concern -- it's not going to put any kind of a financial burden. There's nothing for them to maintain, other than grass. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number five. Mr. Volpe, number five, "Type "B" buffering shall be maintained to replace on Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road." Any problem with that? MR. VOLPE: Again, I'm not sure why that -- this is an existing subdivision. I'm not sure why we would be required to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, because it says maintained or replaced. I mean, if it's -- died or something like that, do you have an objection? MR. VOLPE: No. Mr. Nogaj has just advised me that it is there already and we are maintaining it. And so, yes, we'll continue to maintain what exists there. Page 136 .-" ._._.._-~._.....-.._~._,.""-_._--,,~-,._--_.._. .. June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number six, "The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a parking lot on Tract B built to LDC design and use for requirement standards." I'm not sure what that parking lot would be for. That's -- that's for -- that's for the pool? MR. VOLPE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The pool doesn't take a lot of parking because the people from the community mostly walk, from what I understand. MR. VOLPE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with providing a cross easement to the further four parking spaces on the east side of that parking lot, just south of your Building H? MR. VOLPE: Again, I have no problem with that. They're available. It's not restricted parking, but I just -- if it would give them their right so that they would have parking available to them that they could touch and feel, I don't have any objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm saying. I mean, right now it may not be contentious. If it is contentious a year from now, at least the people can say, "We have a right to use four spaces." That's all I'm asking. MR. VOLPE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number seven, "The developer shall upgrade the lighting on Tracts G and H." Is there lighting there right now? MR. NOGAJ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to answer on the record. MR. VOLPE: I have pictures, which I -- let me -- let me submit, for the record, the pictures that I have of the -- of the lighting that currently exists. May I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. After we see them, we'll just make sure we give them to the court reporter. Send it this way, then send it back this way. Page 137 June 7, 2007 MR. VOLPE: These are different. COMMISSIONER CARON: That lighting currently exists. So based on some statements that we've heard from the -- and I noticed Mr. Midney's comments. There's been comment -- there's been belief that the lighting is adequate the way it is. MR. VOLPE: The lighting that exists is high intensity mental -- metal, shoebox fixtures. That's what's there now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know what you mean. When staff gets up, we'll try to understand why they wanted more lighting if it's already there and how critical that is to the process. MR. VOLPE: That photograph is the area on the tract which is the recreational amenity near the swimming pool. So you can see -- MR. NOGAJ: No, it's not. MR. VOLPE: I thought that was the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do know you can't have conversation off the record. So you guys can't do that, please. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I ask a question though? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There was a neighborhood meeting. You were at the meeting. Were these items that were brought up to you at that time that the residents wanted? MR. VOLPE: Which items? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The ones we just went through. MR. VOLPE: The items that were addressed were the issues about continuing being able to use the bathroom facilities, that they would be available for them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they didn't suggest that you build them -- they wanted new bathroom facilities? MR. VOLPE: No, they didn't. In fact, I think you'll hear from some of the residents that they're not interested in having either bathroom facilities separate and apart where they would have the Page 138 June 7, 2007 obligation to maintain and repair, and, likewise, with any type of a clubhouse facility or activity center. That that's an additional burden. These are low income people and the emphasis has been at trying to keep the costs of home ownership and the like with what's there affordable and continuing to be affordable for them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did they request buffering so they wouldn't have to look at this building? MR. VOLPE: Not that I recall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did they request a place to park so they could drive up to the pool? MR. VOLPE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Volpe -- well, actually I have -- I have a question of staff on this next one. I have a PUD question, but I think it's a staff issue more than yours. Let me run through it. I think I might be close to being finished. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me slip one more in. Did they request better lighting? MR. VOLPE: No, they didn't. I should mention that as the owner of these four tracts, the college will be a member of the homeowners' association. The homeowners control. These four tracts have 20 votes. So anything that changes in this community particularly -- the college will have to vote, along with the other voting members. So if there's a change in any regard as it relates to the common area -- as it relates to the common area, they're going to work with the college/university . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I don't have anymore questions, Mr. Volpe. Does anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll have the staff report Page 139 .' ~___~_'m.o___~.,,__"....__..._ __"__~_""__~_'__~___~___" _.^_.____________ June 7, 2007 now. Thank you, sir. MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. Again, for the record, my name is Kay Deselem. I'm a Principal Planner with Zoning. And I'll try not to go over the same issues. You have had a description of what's proposed. You have the staff report and the findings of fact to support the recommendations contained therein. As noted, staff has recommended that this particular petition be found inconsistent with the overall Growth Management Plan and we are recommending denial. However, we have provided conditions for your considerations. I will just touch the high points of the staff report. On page one you have the requested action, an explanation of the geographic location, and the description of what's proposed. It continues on to page two. You have the surrounding land use and zoning in text and you can see it in the aerial photograph. And you do have the growth management consistency discussion. And it's important to realize that although it -- this particular request has been deemed by comp planning and in their memo to be consistent with the FLUE, that is, the future land use element, as in the map, That's reviewing the uses pursuant to what's allowed in that land use category. And it doesn't necessarily deal with the idea of consistency. That's a separate review that's done by zoning. And that's, wherein, lies the issue. You have the transportation element. And, yes, they are consistent with the Growth Management Plan's Transportation Element. But the consistency that that's based upon and the review that staff performed in the staff report comparing the uses as it exists versus the uses that are proposed, rather than the consistency review pursuant to the direction in the Growth Management Plan that reviewed the trip generation report for the uses that were originally allowed versus what's being proposed, is where you see that staffs evaluation shows that what's proposed could actually be viewed as an Page 140 June 7, 2007 intensity of the project. And you have the analysis that continues on page three regarding the environmental review, the transportation review, and then it goes into the zoning review that I just alluded to. And you do see there where it talks about the GMP and the future land use element policy 5.4. And that is where this particular petition hinges is on that particular policy. And it has been broken down into several elements of concern. And, again, staff raised elements of concern. We didn't necessarily, nor do we, go into an evaluation of a concentrated analysis of the site. The site is different in several ways. One, it's developed and so that does, you know, change it. And as noted in numerous places in the staff report, the old PUD document did allude to the fact that this particular activity center/visitors' center was intended to be used by the community, to some extent. But staffs analysis has concluded that the proposed use exceeds what was originally proposed. And we go into the discussion of that in the staff report beginning on page four with the traffic comparison and our synopsis that there's a 19 percent increase in the trips over what's there now, which is what the residents that live there now are accustomed to and what's proposed. It talks about the neighborhood information meeting that you were speaking of. There was a concern about the entrance gate that was raised. And I don't know exactly that that's been resolved yet. Because there is an entrance gate there and I don't know exactly how that's going to work. But, again, I wasn't aware until we got the letters from the Nogajs that there is going to be a security guard on-site. So maybe those issues will take care of themselves, as far as the security gate with a security guard there. And we did have concerns about the private rest rooms. And it Page 141 .----_.~~._,_. ,-.--.. ._---,--,.._._.~ -_....._-~---_._._- June 7, 2007 had not been discussed whether or not there were interior rest rooms that would be available to the university students. It's possible there may be. But at this point staff didn't have that information to know. As the site exists right now; there are rest rooms that are shared and that was our concern. And on page five of the staff report, staff tried to do an analysis of what's proposed here, understanding that this particular site is truly different. You have a developed residential subdivision, but that developed residential subdivision has a component to it that has a commercial part and it supports the neighborhood to some extent. But what we have here is proposing a college use. And we compared it with Ave Maria noting that that is a much, much larger scale development and it was done as a DR!. And the Ave Maria campus is the focus of that particular project, rather than an added entity later. And we also looked at the Vineyards because there is an International College campus element within the Vineyards. But, as we noted in the staff report, that particular use is not adjacent to any kind of a residential use within the Vineyards. The campus is bordered by a park and a school and it does have access to a major roadway. And in this particular instance, as noted in the staff report, this particular satellite campus, college use, however you want to categorize it, does not have access to either a collector road or an arterial road. It strictly has access from local streets within a gated subdivision, which is a little bit unusual and is somewhat concerning to staff. And we have noted that buffering -- and the information that was provided just a short time ago regarding the changes of what's going to be deeded within Tract H that would go to Tract B, that was staffs concern. And apparently that might help to alleviate it if more of the land is, in fact, deeded over to the homeowners' association. You Page 142 June 7, 2007 won't have the disparity of the huge open area that apparently the residents are using, but you're still not going to get it buffered. And I think it's important to separate the uses because they are distinct and different. And usually in planning practices you do separate uses that are distinctly different. You have uses that are comparable, comparable and complement one another, But I don't think in this particular instance a college campus and a swimming pool and activity area for, basically, children, a playground, are necessarily complimentary. And I think the buffer is important. And I saw in the letters that we were receiving from the Nogajs that they -- when they did it, it was a financial hardship to put in a buffer. Again, financial hardship isn't a consideration that staff uses in evaluating a zoning proposal. We did mention that the parking conflicts and we had concerns about the parking. The letters that we received from the Nogajs later on talked about 50 some parking places. And if you look at the master plan, it talked about 70 some parking places. So somewhere along the line there's a discrepancy in the parking that's available. And I know that staff had conversations with the applicants or the applicant's agents throughout this process and there was discussions about using Tract E for the parking for this college. And that was one of staffs major concerns. Because the parking for the college would have to track through the residential units, the residential areas to get to that parking as is shown on page six. You can see Tract D is shown as part of the plat. And it's adjacent to lots 1, 10, 11, 20. And it's at the end of a local street within that single-family area. And you can see it in the aerial photograph even more clearly that the traffic would definitely have to go through one of those residential streets to get to that. So that was our concern. And we did not have all the information available to us, nor did we attempt to evaluate the total parking. That's not part of what we do Page 143 .._"....,_..,.."._...__.,,-,,_._.._-~.".,.._-... .--...-........-- June 7, 2007 in zoning. We did have a fairly detailed site plan in this case, but we were raising the issue as a concern based on the fact that the proposal appeared to use parking outside of the tract where the college campus use was going to be. On page seven the discussion continues about compatibility. And, again, we talked about students' safety. And that's where the lighting came in. With the proposal to have the college campuses -- college campus use after dark, it was a concern of staff about having people wandering through the site not knowing where they were going to be, if they were going to be wandering down to Tract E or wherever they might be going to reach their particular parking spot. And that's why the condition is worded the way it is to state that the developer shall upgrade. The implication, although it's not stated clearly, is that if it's adequate, then an upgrade obviously wouldn't be necessary. But we were not certain at this point that what was provided was adequate. We didn't go into that kind of an evaluation. Again, we were raising an issue for consideration. I think it's important to understand in this particular petition we've had a lot of discussion about Harvest for Humanity and International College and who they are and what they stand for and what they do. But it's important to understand that in zoning it's not about who, it's about what. It's about the use itself. The zoning runs with the land, stays with the PUD. There's no assurances in the future who might be the entity that actually runs this campus use. It's an educational facility and anybody that can qualify can run that facility. So I don't think you can go on the basis of any body's reputation. It's a matter of use, not of names or owners or petitioners or contractors or purchasers or anything like that. And, again, as I mentioned before, it's important to understand that financial considerations, although they're very important to the people involved, aren't an issue as part of zoning. Those aren't considerations that we Page 144 June 7, 2007 are normally concerned about. And I think you find that in the findings that staff has provided to you in support of our recommendation. It's repeated over and over again that financial considerations are not something that we consider. We have to look at the use and the reasons. And I think we've provided ample information to you to support our recommendation. But, again, we have provided to you conditions or stipulations for your consideration. And I know you've had discussions and I'm willing to enter into those discussions, as well. Commissioner Strain had indicated that he would also be asking staff about those. But it's important to realize that you have transportation consistency and you have consistency with the FLUE land use category, but you also have compatibility. And compatibility is a big element, the policy 5.4. Therefore, we are recommending denial. And I'm available if you have any questions about anything that staff has presented to you in the packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. With regard to the parking that you're concerned about -- and I appreciate your statement that your zoning plans are not predicated on reputations and the rest of it. Likewise, in attempting to -- you said that the -- that today -- the people today are used to a certain number of vehicles for parking. When this PUD was put together, the intent was to draw people to it. Would it not have been prepared -- were the number of units, parking spaces made intended to be for the maximum number that people would come on there and visit and look around and so forth? Wouldn't -- I mean, today if it has failed or not done well, there may only be 20 percent of the cars that they once had. Do we want to make a judgment based on what they're used to or what is possible? Are you clear with my question? MS. DESELEM: I'm not certain I understand your question. But Page 145 June 7, 2007 I can say that I'd have to go back and look at the actual SDP to see what use the actual parking for that activity center was based upon. But I can tell you for certain that it wasn't based on a college campus, But I don't know that it's more or less. Like I said, what we have is my concern with Tract E, which was supposed to provide overflow parking for the residents, visitors. And my concern was perhaps the college campus people would be using that. And I wasn't aware of any proposals to limit that access by signage until they said something today in Mr. Volpe's testimony that it was their intention to provide maps and some kind of signage. But he didn't indicate exactly how that was supposed to work. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that wouldn't necessarily stop students from parking there anyway. I mean, just the fact that they have signs. But were you aware that they intended to only have 80 students? MS. DESELEM: Yes. We went through that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wouldn't that be a limiting factor? MS. DESELEM: Very much so, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're saying that the number of parking spaces that calculate out are insufficient for 80 students? MS. DESELEM: We did not -- I'm sorry. We did not do the calculation. We were just raising the issue that it could have been an issue, as far as: Was there adequate parking? One of the concerns that staff had was the whole idea that this wasn't designed as a college campus, understanding how things work with the college campus and college classes. Say you have a class that begins at four and ends at six and you've got another class that starts at five and goes until seven, and you've got people going around, "I need a parking place," and the other class isn't out yet, so their parking places aren't open. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know that experience. Page 146 June 7, 2007 MS. DESELEM: Yeah. And you park anywhere you can find a spot, whether it be in the grass. And, you know, it wasn't designed for that intensity. And that was just something we were trying to allude to in our discussions. Like I said, it's a different animal. You don't normally have a satellite campus going into a residential campus. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I more appreciate what your concern was. You brought that point quite out. That makes real good sense. However, arithmetic would be very helpful in this case to really know what the numbers should be. Not as you've indicated, which was your basis, I am not quibbling with it, but what they've come to be used to. Because something could have happened in that activity center, things could have changed, a restaurant could have been viable and they could have had a whole lot of people coming and going at all given times. I mean, that's the thing that is weighing in my mind. And I'm not quibbling with you. MS. DESELEM: I can see that. And also we have Tract J, which really hasn't come up too much in discussion. But that's proposed to be used as educational facilities, as well. We don't know to what extent or for what, but there is some parking available there, as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MS. DESELEM: Like I said, I don't know that there's a parking issue. There may not be. We just wanted to raise the issue that there could be. CO MMISSI ONER MURRAY : You're a very good principal planner and I respect everything you do. So I certainly don't have to challenge you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, I've got some questions of Kay, as well, but someone just reminded me it's time for a break. Kelley and Katie could use it. We'll take a IS-minute break and be Page 147 June 7, 2007 back here at 2:15. Thank you. (A recess held from 2:00 p.m. until 2:15 p.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, can you turn us back on. MR. BELLOWS: You're on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now, we're back from our break. The last we left off Commissioner Schiffer was going to ask a question of Kay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, when these people go in for at least a certificate of occupancy or any kind of other work they'll do, that's the time in which you're going to check the parking. Everything they want to do is according to the LDC so there's no reason to really focus on parking. They have to meet it. There's nothing in this PUD that we're giving them any kind of variance on the requirements for parking. MS. DESELEM: I would say that's a pretty correct assumption. We just weren't sure where it was going to be on the site and we wanted to make certain that the parking for the college use was adjacent to or within as best as possible the college use itself on Tract H. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or on the site that the facility is providing parking for like the LDC has to have it or within 300 feet or whatever else is in the parking. So there's nothing they're going to get away with by this PUD, other than what's required by code. MS. DESELEM: You have to bring up a structure to the greatest extent possible. And if it's deemed impossible because the site is already developed, as in Tract H, that was the concern we had. We wanted to make it clear that if Tract H had parking or Tract G had the parking, but in any case the parking was provided and they wouldn't be going into the residential subdivision area and parking on the residential streets. And, I guess, you could do that as much with signage as anything else. It appears that -- based on what we've discussed today and what Page 148 June 7, 2007 I've seen that there will be adequate parking for the college use. I think that issue has been pretty well resolved. It's just a matter of where it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Kay? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: You mentioned that this was a gated community. It's hard to tell from the picture. Can you tell us where the gates are? Are they at Carson and Lake Trafford or are they on the internal streets? MS. DESELEM: It's a quasi-gated community, I guess is one way to say it. In talking with the applicant, it appears as though some gates are open in the daytime and closed at night. COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh. MS. DESELEM: Hang on. Let me grab the master plan. I believe that the -- there's a gate at the corner of Reflection Way, which is in the north end, that would go out to Carson Road. And if I recall correctly, when I was there that was closed. And I was there in the daytime. But there was also a gate, I believe, on Reflections A venue and Harvest Drive right as it comes in. But perhaps the best persons to answer your questions to exactly where the gates are and when they operate might be the petitioner. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Kay? MS.DESELEM: If I may, if you don't have any more questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. MS. DESELEM: Oh, okay. I was going to say I would go back to the conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, you forgot me. In the minutes to the NIM that you had with the residents, I had several questions, but I Page 149 June 7, 2007 boiled it down to one that seems to be -- didn't get answered. It's on page seven. And Ms. Deselem said the following, "We are here for a zoning process and the county is not a party to the homeowners' association document." Where did she go? MS. DESELEM: I'm right here. I just went to get my copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "We cannot enforce them, but ifit is part of the PUD document it can become a zoning issue, therefore, subject to code enforcement. And I want these people to have that assurance. " Now, Kay, my reading of that says that you believe the homeowners' association documents can be enforced by code enforcement. MS. DESELEM: I'm trying to find where you are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page seven, the NIM minutes that you-- that somebody provided. Staff provided. MS. DESELEM: I must not be looking at the same thing because mine stops at page five. I'm looking at the version that was submitted by the petitioner. It's a -- hang on a second. I'm looking at the wrong thing. Hang on a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one I have is titled, "Synopsis of Neighborhood Informational Meeting held on Wednesday, March 28, 2007." It was in the package. MS.DESELEM: I have just got to get to it. Okay. I got to it. I'm sorry . Would you restate your question now that I'm looking at the same thing you were? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page seven, under your name, Ms. Deselem, I believe you're trying to tell them that we can make the homeowners' association document part of the PUD and, therefore, subject to code enforcement. MS. DESELEM: No. My comment was that we are not a party to the homeowners' association documents. If they want the county to Page 150 June 7, 2007 be involved in the enforcement of any issue, it has to be in the PUD document. They're two separate documents controlled by two separate processes. The homeowner documents are a civil issue amongst the parties. Whereas, the PUD document is a zoning issue enforced by the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that, but I was surprised at your statement. Because the way it reads, it doesn't seem -- it seems like someone thought these could be part of the PUD and therein lies my next question. In the PUD the following paragraph reads, 7.2 (C), "The owner of Tracts G, Hand J shall be a member of the Jubilation Homeowners' Association, Inc. and as such member shall be bound by all of the covenants, conditions and restrictions applicable to said tracts by virtue of the governed documents and association." Typically we see the first part of that sentence and not the latter. "The owner of Tracts G, Hand J shall be a member of the Jubilation Homeowners' Association, Inc.," period. Having the rest of it in there, I'm concerned how we can assure ourselves that they are bound by those. And my other concern is that a homeowners' document is not necessarily, and many times does not follow a PUD zoning or a county zoning. So if you have a discrepancy in the homeowners' document and by the zoning document in the PUD -- disagrees with the PUD, which one would prevail? MS. DESELEM: I see your point. Perhaps it would be better to rephrase it, like you say, just to leave that portion that's normally in there. Because we don't control the homeowner documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think it would be much safer for the county not to go past the Inc. on Homeowners' Association, Inc. Drop the rest of it and let's just leave homeowners' docs as civil matters like they have been. MS.DESELEM: I believe that would be an appropriate action. Page 151 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other question I have, Kay, is in the PUD we read the project description concerning the residential sections, what they will have in regards to amenities. And we read a section of the PUD that contains language that is changed. In one it said "will have" and the other said "may have." I would recommend that we leave the "will have" language in there since the college in some manner and form is going to address it and we will stipulate that. And, therefore, they will be consistent with the PUD, rather than put in language with "may have" so that later on if the college vacates, somehow it becomes undone and yet they're not bound because the PUD does no longer make it strong enough to reqUIre. MS. DESELEM: I was following that or trying to follow that discussion earlier and I couldn't find the part in the new PUD document where this was supposed to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They took it out of the description and put it under permitted uses and structures. MS. DESELEM: Okay. That's why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's under 2-3 -- page 2-3 and it's talking about residential single-family and multifamily plan, Tract A. So the reference in the old one was taken out of the description and put there. And that's fine. It completely changes it, but as long as we know -- if we put the old one back in the description, then we can retain the amenities the developer was supposed to provide to the residents as he was supposed to originally provide to them. MS. DESELEM: I don't know that putting a "will" -- the word "will", rather than "may" in actuality would require it. I think if you want to require those things to be done it needs to be placed in the commitment section, rather than in the part -- because it's kind of hard to make somebody do a principal use. They're proposing accessory uses or the principal uses, but they usually can pick and choose which of those they want. So if you want Page 152 June 7, 2007 to require something, you have to put it in the commitment section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Klatzkow, does the word "will" -- is "will" mandatory? MR. KLA TZKOW: It is. I mean, "will" is mandatory, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's mandatory. I don't care where we put it, but I think it was a commitment made by the developer and it needs to stay in there somewhere. So, Kay, between now and the board I'm just recommending that they put -- not be struck and it be put somewhere relevant. I don't care how you work it out. And the applicant has already agreed to basically work all the differences out and we'll stipulate those and everybody should walk away happy with regards to that issue. MS. DESELEM: If it's acceptable to all parties, I will move it to the commitment section because I believe that's a more appropriate place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the Planning Commission have a problem? MR. BELLOWS: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray agrees. Michael, do you have a concern? MR. VOLPE: (No verbal response was given.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Indicating by a no shake of his head. That doesn't mean he's not shaking his head. It means he shook his head no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, my only question is that we don't have the developer anymore, do we? I mean, you're saying these are commitments that the developer has to provide. Who is the developer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to stipulate, I would assume, in our discussion the various commitments to use some of the facilities as we've talked about; the recreational area being expanded on being -- either easement or deeded over to the common area and all Page 153 June 7, 2007 that stuff. And that will meet the intent, I think, of what the PUD was trying to get to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For example, one of the requirements was a covered playground. They've obviously saw fit -- you know, the community wanted something different than a covered playground. So we're making who build a covered playground? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they've got a covered playground. But I think the homeowners' association was the recipient of the developer's -- it was passed on like it is in every project. The HOA eventually takes it over. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which they have already. MS. DESELEM: The playground area is within Tract B, which belongs to the homeowners' association. But I do see Commissioner Schiffer's point. Just simply moving this over to the commitment section isn't going to necessarily help because it has to say who is going to do it and when they have to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just leave it in the description section, Kay, because we're going to be stipulating the various issues so that should lock it up. MS. DESELEM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any other questions of Kay. Does anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I thought we were going to run through the stipulations to see -- because it appears to me that the stipulations purely came out of staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I mean, I went through all their stipulations with Michael Volpe. We have come back with alternatives for each one that he said would work. I thought that's how we were going to -- I thought we were going to -- we would stipulate that in the end. Do you want to go through them again? MS.DESELEM: IfI may, I wanted to ask some questions and Page 154 June 7, 2007 get some clarifications on those. And I was kind of waiting until you wanted to discuss those with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead. MS. DESELEM: And I can explain where each one comes from, but I kind of did in my explanation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, on number one and two they don't have an objection to that. So why don't we just pop into three. And three they expressed the ability to provide a perpetual easement for the existing non-shared restroom that's in the building on Tract H. MS.DESELEM: My question there, again, is a matter of timing. When, obviously, the developer or the university has to do it. Because it says the college/university entity. When do you want it done so that we can ensure that it's done? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It has got to be done now. Not now, meaning after this meeting. It has got to be open right now. They can't use the pool without a restroom. I believe there's a health code to the effect. MS. DESELEM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They wouldn't have got a permit without the bathroom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, I mean, I don't think it's an issue of when. It's already there and it has got to stay there. If they shut it down, they have got to shut the pool down, which they can't do. MS. DESELEM: What is it exactly you want to see? You want to see an agreement with them whereby the residents have exclusive use to that restroom? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the word "exclusive" wasn't-- well, it's been non-shared. MS. DESELEM: Non-shared. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Non-shared. And the reason that language is in there is because Mr. Volpe has said that that facility is not directly accessible from inside the main building. Page 155 June 7, 2007 MS.DESELEM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the intent. That they're not going to cut a hole in the wall and all of a sudden make that a restroom for the students. I just wanted to prevent that. So the intent was that they were providing a perpetual easement to the homeowners' association for access to those rest rooms and that those rest rooms will not be shared with the students. Now, how that sharing is defined is a question. There's not going to be any direct access to the main building. Is that a fair statement? MS. DESELEM: I understand what you're saying now. I wasn't thinking about knocking out the wall and all that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's all I'm worried about. MS. DESELEM: I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's all. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, could we also put in there, "Or provide bathrooms on Tract B," just in case they want to get rid of that requirement and they could build some bathrooms on Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good idea. So in lieu of the perpetual easement for a bathroom facility in the main building, they could always provide the bathrooms on Tract B. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wasn't it a thought that they didn't want to go to the expense of having to add those and the possibility of dealing with them? I thought I heard that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's an option, correct? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: An option? Okay. MS. DESELEM: And I don't mean to keep bringing it back up -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They could exercise the option. June 7, 2007 MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry. I just want to make it clear that -- so you're saying prior to the facility used as a college that perpetual easement has to be fulfilled that requires it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Created. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, all I know is they can't have a pool without a bathroom. The bathrooms are being utilized right now by some means. I don't know what that is. If the homeowners' association doesn't have an easement currently, well, shame on them. They needed to have it and they probably didn't realize it. So maybe now we ought to get it done as quickly as possible. I don't know how to put a time frame on that. But I think it ought to be done as soon as possible because you can't operate a pool legally pursuant to the health department rules that I know of. MS.DESELEM: That's correct. I did check with the health department and this does meet the standards now because it is within the prescribed distance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So it will become a serious problem if those bathrooms are now closed for any reason. MS. DESELEM: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have enough understanding of three to move forward with that? MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four. MS.DESELEM: And we're going to -- you had talked about in condition six -- again, you wanted to provide a cross easement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, let's go to number four, buffering. MS. DESELEM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We talked about a hedge along the north side of Tract G only. MS. DESELEM: Okay. Page 157 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's three items in that one. Do you want me to give them all to you first? MS. DESELEM: Okay. I'll try to follow. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hedge along the north side of Tract G. The second one was the perpetual easement or deed for the recreation area that's to the -- west of the pool and poolhouse right now. The open space that Mr. Volpe showed us in color on the plan. And the third is that there be a hedge between the western edge of the playground -- the partially covered playground and the parking lot. That's the only place a hedge will be needed. MS.DESELEM: Okay. A hedge along the western edge of the playground -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To separate the parking from the playground. That was the point. MS.DESELEM: I don't mean to be nitpicky, but just so that we understand and we can make sure that there's compliance. Can you refer to some element of the LDC or explain what you want that hedge to consist of so that we know their -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'll ask Kay Deselem to tell me what buffer it is out of the LDC and she'll tell us. If you drive past any of your newer parking lots, they all got little hedges around them. I think that's the intent that I -- MS. DESELEM: Okay. Just so I understand. I think we can work it out amongst ourselves from that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me say something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Myself, I'm not personally -- you know, I don't know why we're doing these hedges to begin with. I mean, the facility is built. Essentially the geometry that's out there is going to be the same. I mean, why are we doing this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The facility is built and the geometry is the same. And I think a hedge to separate a playground from a Page 158 June 7, 2007 parking lot may be in the interest of safety. It may not be a bad idea. I agree with you it hasn't been done and it didn't need to be done maybe in the past. But if they've agreed to do that short distance as a hedge and it helps prevent kids from just running over into a parking lot, that's a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why are we doing the one along the top of Tract G then? What are we gaining out of that, other than -- because they have trees planted there. They have like a little boulevard set up. There's not hedging on the other side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's got a parking lot. And generally parking lots are separated from roadways by hedges. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It looks like there might even be something around that already. MR. NOGAJ: There already is. MS. DESELEM: There is some limited vegetation. I mean, as I recall, it's like trees 30 foot on center, 25 foot on center. I don't recall a hedge. There may be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see a hedge. MS. DESELEM: The applicant is there every day. They can testify . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In this crummy picture I can see a hedge. The point is: What are we gaining by putting a hedge along -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have a lot of traffic there at night. People are going to be pulling into that parking lot. Their lights un-buffered will go into the residential section across the street or anywhere they want to. A hedge would just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm fine with the parking lot because I think there is a hedge. It's along -- the Reflections Avenue that I don't understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is what we said. Along Page 159 June 7, 2007 the northern part of Tract G that was stated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess where the parking lot is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the parking lot should be surrounded, I guess? It looks like it may be already. MS. DESELEM: We are trying to accommodate a parking lot that would be a parking lot for a commercial entity, trying to find something that was similar. Because normally you don't have a parking lot in the middle of a residential subdivision that services something else. And that was our concern was the glare from the lights. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But these parking lots were built for commercial entities. They look like they met the requirements for commercial entities already. MS. DESELEM: But it appears as though at 10:00 with students coming and going -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, whether it's a community meeting or buying blueberries, I mean, the thing was a commercial entity already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're not doing blueberry picking at night, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think it was built, permitted and constructed already as a commercial parking lot. Is that true? MS.DESELEM: I would have to check the LDC or the site development plan to see. I would assume that it meets the standards for some type of commercial parking lot. I don't know if it was designed for overflow for the activity center, exactly what it was. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When they come in for a CO to make this a new college, you will have an SOP kind of a process where you would review to make sure everything is according to what would be there. Unless we gave them some variance today, they would still have to be there. Page 160 June 7, 2007 MS. DESELEM: I don't know that an SDP would be required since they're not proposing any additional structures. And if nothing in our conditions required them to build anything else, I don't know that there would be any requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They would have to get a certificate of occupancy, which requires everybody else in the community to meet the standards. MR. VOLPE: Mr. Chairman, just one comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Michael. MR. VOLPE: We have already been informed that we -- even though it's only a change of use, even though the development has been built out, we have to go through an SDP process. So we are going to go through the SDP process. We thought it might be insubstantial. That's a determination that will be made by your staff, but we are going to go through the SDP progress. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So by being silent today, you'll have to meet the buffer requirements. MR. VOLPE: Whatever the requirements are at the time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If anything we do today by mistake, we may lessen the requirement. Next question. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, they are going through an SDP now apparently. Will a buffer be required around that parking lot through the SDP process? MS. DESELEM: I would believe so, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's kill that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we will still leave the perpetual easement or deed for the residential area. And there will still be a hedge requirement between the parking lot and the playground. Number five, there was no objection to so we can leave that. Page 161 June 7, 2007 Number six, the developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a parking lot on Tract B built to LDC design and use requirement standards. Instead of -- in lieu of that or an easement for the use of parking spaces within the Tract H to the extent -- four spaces within Tract H for the pool. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just jump in again. Why are we doing that one? Because this is a little community that everybody walks to the swimming pool. The only use of that swimming pool is by residents of the community. Why are we now providing -- is that a requirement to provide parking? MS. DESELEM: In my experience as a planner these 20 some years, when you work in a residential subdivision like that, when mom decides to take the kids to the pool for the day, she has to load up the stroller or the playpen for the baby to sleep in, Take the cooler for the kids' drinks and their snacks. By the time she's done and ready to go to the pool, she's got half of her house in her car ready to go to the pool. COMMISSIONER CARON: It will be very helpful. You're correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that as your opinion as a planner or-- MS. DESELEM: As a mom and a planner, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have an objection from the applicant. We have an agreement. What is wrong with giving the people the potential to have more space? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Unnecessarily -- to me it's encumbering the other people, but go with it if you need it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay, the last item that we need Page 162 June 7, 2007 to address and we started to address and we didn't finish and I want to talk to -- Mike might want to chime in on this. The activity center, the meeting room, you have space inside that building. And, Mike, when you and I met we talked about a possibility of an easement so that if the people through -- say a week in advance notice needed to have a room so they could meet, that could be afforded to them. Is that something that was able -- that you still feel might be doable? MR. VOLPE: Well, not by easement, but by -- the college makes their facilities at Northbrook Plaza, on Colonial Boulevard -- If your group wants to meet there, they have a program and a policy. So whatever the policy would be for any other not-for-profit organization, which is a homeowners' association, they certainly can use the facility to the same extent as any other not-for-profit organization. And I'm not sure about cost for this. There's probably no cost associated with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you mind if we state that it will be for no cost? MR. VOLPE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you don't mind? MR. VOLPE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's okay? MR. VOLPE: It's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. The only other addition, Kay, is that something will stipulate that an activity area will be available to the group just like it is to any other nonprofit through the International program at no cost. MS.DESELEM: We don't need to specify how much? I just wondered -- and I'll defer to the county attorney's office about how we would ensure compliance or -- MR. KLA TZKOW: Put it in the PUD. It would be a code violation if they refused. Page 163 June 7, 2007 MS. DESELEM: We don't need a specific space, an amount; just a room, a facility? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know how to-- MS. DESELEM: I don't either. That's why I'm asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To be honest with you, Kay, if you don't have a room, I think you've got a problem in compliance with the PUD because you don't have an activity center any longer. So I think you need something that people can meet at if they want the - opportunity to meet. MR. KLA TZKOW: Just call it a meeting room. MS.DESELEM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think there's going to be a lot of -- anybody going out of their way to violate this, at least I hope not. We're talking with a reputable establishment and an college, so hopefully they'll be good neighbors. Anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How about seven, the lighting; we're going to drop that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what about one? Why can't we just drop one? That was just redundancy from the code. And then two, I'm not too sure why we want to block off some of these other roads as private. We have the main road coming out of Lake Trafford as Harvest Drive. That to me would be a logical road to access this. I could understand the entrance is Serenity Drive and past the parking to Friendship Drive be noted, but -- and maybe Reflections Lane and up at the end Reflections Way. But the way it's worded in two, I don't think that's a good idea. MS. DESELEM: The staff is looking at the shortest distance that would have the least impact on the least intense use. Looking at the single-family homes that were located along Harvest Drive as opposed Page 164 June 7, 2007 to Tract G and the multifamily uses that didn't appear to be as impacted and a shorter distance. But I don't believe that it's a huge issue, but I think it should be limited to one particular area where they can come and go so the security guard can keep a closer track of where the students might be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the way you've worked it, you've limited access to the parking lots. So I don't think that's a good idea. In other words, Harvest Drive you're going to -- we want the parking lots not to be accessible? I think we do. MS.DESELEM: My idea was to limit the other streets so that it would only be for the main entrance in and -- I mean, yeah, obviously COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's do Friendship Drive, Serenity Drive, Reflections Lane, Reflections Way to be private. MS. DESELEM: I guess past the point of access to the parking lots is the way you'd have to phrase it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be right with the SIgn. MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I think the intent is that the private areas in this development remain private. Anywhere else needs to have a sign. Staff is really capable of doing that, I'm sure. MR. VOLPE: Mr. Chairman, I just have to comment. I apologize for interrupting. But we have to remember that this is a homeowners' association. And all of these signs that I've indicated before, we only have 20 percent of the vote. So all signage is going to have to be approved within. The concept of providing appropriate signage to ensure that the traffic that's going to be utilizing does not intrude into the residential areas, that's the commitment. But, I mean, if we start to get really specific, I'm a little concerned. I don't know. Because the homeowners' association isn't bound by this document. You're going Page 165 June 7, 2007 to bind us to it. And if they say no, which I don't anticipate, it could be -- we could have a conflict that we don't need. The concerns are we need to use appropriate signage to ensure -- and that's the homeowners' association who live there are going to tell us where they want the signs and where they don't want the signs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, Mike, I'd strike the whole thing. I'm just trying to -- MR. VOLPE: I'm just concerned that when we get down to that level of detail about exactly where the sign is going to be, the homeowners' association, again -- and homeowners' associations are wonderful, but we only have 20 percent of the vote. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll be picking colors in a minute here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we were done with one and two. Anything else of Kay? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Thank you, Kay. Ray, I know we have public speakers. MR. VOLPE: Mr. Chairman, just because you've been through those -- there may be some adjustment-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to get close to the microphone. MR. VOLPE: Of the stipulations that you discussed with your staff, the only one that causes me some pause and I think it just needs to be clarified. That has to do with the existing bathroom facilities. If you look at the PUD 7.1 -- page 7.1, it's 7.2(B). We've committed that the existing bathroom facilities on the exterior of the building located on Tract H will be available for use by the Harvest neighborhood residents and their guests using the swimming pool located on Tract B during normal hours of operation of the pool. The owner of Tract H shall be responsible for the repair and maintenance Page 166 June 7, 2007 of the bathroom facilities. That's the commitment that we have made. If you want us to commit that we will never allow for access to that facility from the interior of the building, we will commit to not providing access from the interior of the building. But if we start talking about easements and that sort of thing, I just don't know how we would do that. It is the commitment. It would be a violation of our commitment in the PUD. So what we're trying to accomplish I think we've actually thoughtfully put forth in that commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, that's fine. Staffhad it separately written up. So I'm assuming that the language in the PUD wasn't sufficient for staff. I just noticed the county attorney nodded in agreement, so -- with your statements. That's fine. So if you want to add that stipulation that you just said about access -- no access from the interior of the building, that would be fine, okay? MR. VOLPE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means we can strike number three. And number seven, of course, was out. So that leaves us with the rest. Now, Ray, can we have the public speakers. And public speakers, please, you need to approach either podium. And we have to ask you to limit your discussion to five minutes. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is Barbara Cacchione followed by Thomas Carmichael. MS. CACCHIONE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Barbara Cacchione. And I wanted to give you just a little bit of background on myself just so you can understand why -- what comments I have today. I have been a previous planner for Collier County from 1981 to Page 167 June 7, 2007 1999, heading up the Comprehensive Planning Department, working in the Zoning Department, and was here when this project was approved and helped work on it through the approval process. I think we have been kind of going around in circles a bit here today. This project has been found consistent with the Immokalee master plan by the comprehensive planning staff. It has been found consistent by your transportation planning staff. And they, in fact, have told you it's a reduction of trips on this project. When you look at the list of permitted uses when this is approved, you look at that whole range of permitted uses as being appropriate at their maximum intensity on that project when you decide that that project is compatible. And that is what was done when this project was originally approved. The permitted uses included a whole range of uses, including adult education services. It doesn't matter who provides those services, whether it's International College or another nonprofit organization or the school system. If they wanted to just provide educational services on that project, there would be no need for a PUD amendment, which is kind of confusing as to why we're even here today. So when I look at the issue of compatibility, what is changing on this property? The building is not changing. The use is changing somewhat to be all adult education, instead of a blueberry store and a retail store. It is now being all adult education. So the changes, in my mind, are actually reducing the number of trips. So when I look at compatibility, I'm not changing the building footprint. I'm not adding a new structure. I'm not doing anything different, but providing a use that is currently permitted in this PUD to operate full scale within the project. Now, because you have looked at it as a college campus, that raises a whole bunch of issues in your mind. And I think that was one of the reasons for the limitation of the 80 students. So that that could be alleviated as a concern in terms of the intensity of that use. Page 168 June 7, 2007 Now, this project is very different than what you normally deal with in Naples because the ownership is completely separate. It is not a clubhouse for the residents. They have access and use of some of those facilities as described in the permitted use list, but it is not something that they pay for and contribute to. And it has always been designed as separate uses. So I think that is something that you don't normally deal with when you look at projects coming through the process. You don't normally deal with these separate types of ownership, which is what you have here. The property owners were made fully aware through the descriptions that they were given at the time that this was separate ownership. That this was an activity center that would be a blueberry farm. And if it had gone to the level that we had all hoped it would have, the traffic would have been much more intense than anything we see with 80 students having adult education by adults in the evenings and on the weekends and things of that nature. When you look at the entrance they're going to be coming in, they're going to be going past five homes. And I think you'll hear from one of those homeowners here today, in terms of the impact she feels it would cause on her property. All of those five single-family homes are pulled in and out through a back alleyway. So there isn't even a conflict there with traffic coming by their home and then having to pull in and out of a driveway. That conflict is not there. I think when you look at Immokalee it is a different community. It is a community based on lower income families, which is what we have in this grouping here. And it is based on a walkable community. And basically every facility we have, because they are so limited, need to be used to their fullest. And we need to have multiple uses of facilities. And that is one reason this facility is so vital and important to the community. Page 169 June 7, 2007 And having the ability to have adult education in a community where 76 percent of the population doesn't have a high school education is critical. And being able to have this service here in this community that people can walk to, that people that are residents within the community can use is absolutely critical. And I would be happy to answer any questions. I hope that you can find it in your hearts to recommend unanimously to approve this project because it is so important for the community. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of Barbara? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, thank you. I have one statement to make and I want to read it to you. It's from the staff report. "In the purest sense of comparison for compatibility sake, if a college use is compared to the u-pick use that is going to replace, then there is in reality an approximately 19 percent net increase in trips." So there is an increase. I know how you measured them and I read your TIS. That is a maximum build-out that was not attained on this project. But if you really fall on the uses today, you are going to be increasing the traffic. MS. CACCHIONE: But that was just the u-pick. That didn't account the ability of the retail store. It didn't account the ability of being able to do more adult education within there at the same time. I mean, all of those permitted uses could be expanded under the current PUD than what they are today. That was just one permitted use on the property that was picked out for comparison. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you use the uses on the units that you provide today, you have a total of978 on impacts; whereas, the new uses have 1,005. So all I'm saying -- I understand your statement. In the purest sense of the form, you calculate out the maximum Page 170 June 7, 2007 use and the worst intensity, yes. What you're doing is not an increase, but that's not the way it's used today. That's all I'm trying to say. Thank you. Okay. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Thomas Carmichael followed by Elda Hernandez. MR. CARMICHAEL: Good afternoon. I'm Thomas Carmichael. I am president of Jubilation's association. I would like to address the conditions you are suggesting for the turnover of the Harvest activity center to International College/Hodges University from Florence and Dick Nogaj. I feel that there is adequate parking space now available. The college/university is projecting 80 students not all at the same time. So current parking will suffice. If the college/university feels a need for additional parking space, they will have the blueberry patch which they can build on. The suggesting of putting in parking spaces I think was in Lot B, in front of our homes, is not acceptable. And I will strongly urge the board of directors to not allow this. This is not what homeowners would like to look at each day. And the association would not be able to take on the added expense of maintaining such parking spaces. I feel we should keep our one way in and one way out with visitors using Reflection Lane currently in effect. It has worked over the years with many visitors using the cafe and gift store. The college/university will have a security guard on duty who can see that students do not drive into the residential areas. With Collier County approval our residents have been sharing the current restroom facility with the public over the years with no difficulties. To require a new bathhouse facility would not only be a great expense to the college/university, but a greater expense for the homeowners to maintain not only -- the county insurance problems. Again, I would strongly urge the board to disallow it. In fact, I Page 171 June 7, 2007 took a poll of all the board members last night. Some of them are here today. And they all agree that we do not want to see this change. Also, we have an agreement with the college/university that will be satisfaction to both parties. And by witness after the meeting today, it would be a little bit different. I've had meetings with the president of the college/university and they have assured me that we will have the use of the facilities for meetings and for other activities. It's open to negotiations, which we're looking forward to when the college comes in, but they've assured us that we will have use of the building. When I and other residents bought into Jubilation community, one of the reasons was the layout of the area. Not only the layout of the residents' homes, but the open green space. The space for community activities and open spaces for the children to use for soccer and other play. To imagine driving onto Serenity Drive and seeing a 20-foot buffer running down the center of our open area is a nightmare. You would be taking away one-third of our space. Using Ave Maria as an example is like comparing oranges and lemons and this proposal being the lemon. What you are proposing would add more maintenance expense to the residents. And I am sure, again, the board of directors will not sign off on this. We do not want to be isolated from the college. We want to share with them. As far as the need for lighting goes, I feel that what we have has served us well over the years. Again, this proposal would create additional expense on the residents. We all share the cost of the lighting. To sum up, I feel your proposal is not only unnecessarily large expense to the college and university, but a huge expense to the residents of Jubilation, which we cannot absorb. Proposals that the board of -- proposals that the board of directors of the Jubilation community cannot sign off on. If the proposals would cause this Page 172 June 7, 2007 exchange from going through, you are creating a nightmare for our residents. Florence and Dick Nogaj have already stated that they are closing down the activity building and that leaves the residents with a vacant building in their community. Even though Nogaj's would be responsible, being out-of-state owners the chances of vandalism are great. Values of properties could plunge that would possibly create the need for security for 24/7 at great expense. You have a chance to bring higher education to Immokalee more swiftly and less expensively by not putting unnecessary road blocks to hinder this exchange from going through. The Nogaj's are offering scholarships to our residents of Jubilation. And the board of directors and the residents of Jubilation are looking forward to a long and fruitful relationship with International College/Hodges University. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I believe the adjustments we made in our discussions with staff brought everything into compliance with the actions you just asked for, sir. MR. CARMICHAEL: I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we did a good job on that. MR. CARMICHAEL: I highly recommend it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Elda Hernandez. MS. HERNANDEZ: I believe I need to be sworn in. I came in late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for telling us. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. HERNANDEZ: Okay. Hi, my name is Elda Hernandez. I live in Lot 26. I have a family of four children. And they range from 7 year old to 12 year old. Page 173 June 7, 2007 And Lot 26 is actually right behind lot -- Tract B. I'm also a current student at Hodges University. I'm a senior. And my experience with Hodges is that there is a low census during the summertime and that's also when the swimming pool is going to be used. So I personally believe there won't be much traffic during the summer when most of the residents are using the swimming pool area. Also, I wanted to mention that, yes, I am low income. My household income is 55,000 annually, but at the same time we pay 1,300 or so for just association dues. So you can just imagine if we were to have more burden financials to my family. Also -- I'm very nervous. Also, I just want to let you know that, yes, when we purchased the home in 2003 we were aware that we were not the owners of the activity center. Weare to use it at the discretion ofMr. and Mrs. Nogaj. But we've used it. We are very comfortable with them. And I feel that we're also very comfortable with Hodges University while they're coming into the system with us. So we do welcome them. Also, for the swimming pool, we walk to our swimming pool area. We do not carry a --luggage into the swimming pool area. Of course, there is no glass around or you're not allowed to have any food in your swimming pool area. So my children change at home, then we walk into the swimming pool area. They only carry a towel. So with -- the fact that the zoning, we do not carry our luggage with us. And I have four children. Also, I wanted to mention that Tract Band H, that empty area, my children do fly kites there. Why? Because it's an empty lot where my kids can just play around. They're safe and secure. Also, there's no utility wires running around everywhere. So I know when they're flying their kite it will not be caught and they will not be in danger. Also, the parking area or the activity center is separated by some shrubbery, but that helps them out also for my little ones. But they Page 174 June 7, 2007 don't get into the parking area as it is. So I would prefer, for my family anyways, leave the area as it is now because my children will be using that area for flying kites, running around, playing soccer or touch football. What else? Oh, preferably no shrubs in between, which you have already mentioned there won't be no shrubbery between Hand B. And that's it, if anybody has any questions for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I appreciate your time. MR. BELLOWS: Carmelita Lopez. MS. LOPEZ: Hello. My name is Carmelita Lopez. I live at 1115 Serenity Way. I'm a homeowner since 2002. I was one of the homeowners that moved in first. And I also live in one of the front houses on Harvest -- in front of Harvest Drive. So I've never -- we've never had any problems with the traffic or anything like that. So that right there has -- you know, has been fine, you know, so far. Anything -- I don't know. I don't know anything else that might -- I'm an employee of the Harvest for Humanity. So I've been there since the beginning. Since 2002. So I was there since, you know, we were selling the houses. And all of the homeowners that we talked to, we did tell them that the Harvest activity center was not a part of Jubilation. So they did know that. And, you know, that's all I got to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great. Thank you very much. Next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Grisel Gaspar. MS. GASPAR: Hello. My name is Grisel Gaspar. I live at 1315 Reflections Way, which is one of the condominium areas. And I just wanted to say that I totally agree about the college coming into our community. Because it will be a great opportunity for our community in Immokalee for all the people that have, you know -- students that are going soon to college. So I just wanted to say that I Page 175 June 7, 2007 strongly believe that the college will be a great opportunity for Immokalee. And I just -- you know, I agree on the college, but not on the conditions on building or tearing apart our community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Froylan Resindez. MS. GASPAR: He would like me to see ifI can translate for him just a few words. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then you'll have to use the mic and let him speak to you and then you can repeat it in the mic. MR. RESINDEZ: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and everybody. I'm speaking little bit. I'm sorry. Jubilation -- in Immokalee. (Speaking in Spanish.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uno momento. Let her catch up with you, if you don't mind. MS. GASPAR: Okay. Well, he was just saying the same thing as all of us. He would like to agree about the college coming in in the community. And he agrees in all of that, except for all the conditions that they want to -- you know, coming in the parking lot and all that building area. I mean, he just don't want that because he has been speaking with all our relatives in the community, our neighbors, and they all agree about the college. But they just don't want the conditions that they are putting, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't want him to -- he doesn't have to stop. I just wanted to make sure he didn't get so far ahead of you, you couldn't repeat stuff to us. MS. GASPAR: That's all he was saying. MR. RESINDEZ: (Speaking in Spanish.) MS. GASPAR: And he was just saying about if they would have Page 176 June 7, 2007 decided to put the parking lot on the Tract B, it will be a great danger for our kids because it will be in front of the playground. That's all. He just wants to say thank you to Richard and Florence Nogaj about the beautiful community that they gave us and for the opportunity that the college will come to us. Thank you. MR. RESINDEZ: Thank you very much. MR. BELLOWS: Florence Nogaj. MS. NOGAJ: Hello. My name is Florence Nogaj. And my husband Dick and I are not developers. Dick was the civil engineer and I work in accounting. And my degree is in communication. But as retired people, retired a little bit younger and a little bit more energy than we needed. Immokalee was on the 10:00 news two years in a row when we were here and we felt a calling to Immokalee and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take your time. It's okay. MS. NOGAJ: Well, we were overwhelmed at the conditions in Immokalee and the housing, particularly the housing. Dick and I had volunteered with Habitat for Humanity in the DuPage County area. And we saw what a difference ownership meant to these families not being moved around from place to place, being able to have a safe and secure place for that family. So that's what we wanted to do there. And that is what we did there. And that's part of what we did there. The other thing we wanted to do was for future development in Immokalee because -- because -- oh, gosh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take your time. MS. NOGAJ: Because there were two PUDs in Immokalee in 1999. Thank you. And the people were waiting to see what happened in Immokalee. And so we said, "The county is not going to do anything. Page 177 June 7, 2007 The builders are not going to do anything." We had the time, the talent and the energy and we did it. We did spur future development. Arrowhead has taken off. It has been a shot in the arm for Immokalee and it has been a blessing for the people that live there. And Dick and I bought a condo and we live there since 2003. We have tried to organize and energize and empower the people that live there to stand up to those things that hold them down. And we believe that education -- that education is one of those things that can lift them, besides living wages and home ownership. Education will lift them out of poverty. And then I wanted to say one more thing about the main entrance. The main entrance is off of Lake Trafford Road. It has a telephone key pad. The gate is up from six in the morning until eight at night. And the residents have always had it that way. The residents are the ones that wanted the gate. We told them, "We have a business. We can have the gate open during the day." They said, "That's fine, just so the gate is closed at night." The gate is controlled by the professional management association in Fort Myers, BCH Management, by computer. The people that visit the activity center enter just the same way that all the other people that enter that community. That Lake Trafford entrance is the main entrance. It's open all day and closes at eight at night. When visitors come in and the gate is down, they dial the owner. He touches nine on the key pad and the gate opens. If we make the residents -- if we make the students use Reflections Lane, it just wouldn't be possible. There's no key pad there. It's by resident use only with a remote control device. There's no other way to open that gate. So I believe that whatever stipulation it was, Reflections Lane cannot be the main entrance for the students. It has to be Harvest Drive. And I think that's -- I mean, we built it as a model for Page 178 June 7, 2007 workforce housing. Everybody wants workforce housing, but not in my neighborhood. Build it in the next neighborhood. And we built Jubilation because we don't believe that affordable housing has to look like public housing. We built it a little bit better and a little bit nicer. The people are very proud of what they own. We were told a year after residents moved in it would look just like the rest of Immokalee and it doesn't. People own it. There's an association. They love it. They take care of it. And I think that's possible in all workforce housing. And I want to thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Richard Nogaj. MR. NOGAJ: Hi, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to address you today. I'm last so it's not going to be very long, so hang in there with me a little bit. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not sure you should try to compete with your wife at any rate. MR. NOGAJ: I can't follow that. But I just want to answer a question that all of you have in your mind. Who are these guys? Who is this couple and where do they come from? And why and what, Mr. Chairman, are they doing? To answer your what, It will only take a few minutes. You have all heard of the Blues Brothers. You all heard of them from Chicago. When we came down here, we're known as the blueberry couple from Chicago on a mission from God. This truly is a lay ministry for us. We came to Immokalee because we had previously been in Barahona, Dominican Republic building homes for Habitat, the third world. We previously started filling in for Habitat for Humanity in Page 179 June 7, 2007 DuPage County, a county of a million people. We started it and turned it over to a new board, executive director. Prior to that, we started our foundation. And prior to that, I sold my engineering firm to all my employees. And with that ESOP we had the resources. We were blessed. Because to whom much is given, much is required. We decided that we were going to retire, but not really retire. We were going to enter our give-back journey. This is the latter stage of a ten-year journey in Immokalee. We met last year in Toronto, Canada at an expo -- book expo with Scott Turrow. You probably know of him. He's a great author. He's also an attorney in Chicago. He talked to us about what we all did in Jubilation in Immokalee. He said, "You've got to sit down, Dick, and write your books. You got to get this story out." A year later, we're still trying to finalize the sales contract with International College because the third leg of our journey, of our commitment when we came to Immokalee, the education leg, we hadn't met. And what Florence and I came up with is not only running out of resources, but the under-utilization of this center that we had visualized, as Barbara Cacchione said in the PUD, for many, many different purposes. But Immokalee is not a Naples. It's not a high-income community. And to support that, we couldn't do it. So the under-utilization in that facility is why we had to close it. However, the Lord has brought us, you know, the partner that will make this a place of higher education. Our journey has been one of tremendous upheaval, tremendous give-back. All the experiences you'll be able to read about in our book. But when we came here to build a living wage farm, that's what the blueberry farm is all about. It's raising the minimum to 8.50 an hour. It's paying people 12, $14 an hour to learn how to be skilled Page 180 June 7, 2007 blueberry pickers so they can go north, come back, Do this year round, leave their kids in Immokalee and let their kids stay in school all year round. The living wage concept at the farm has now developed into the Fair Food America Campaign -- Fair America Campaign. We're going back to Chicago. That's what we're willing to do. But we're going to do it on issues throughout all of this country and we're going to take it globally so that we can keep promoting that fair food concept. Living wages, the breakdown, poverty. The anti-poverty models that we've built, not to eliminate poverty in Immokalee, but to show that you can have an agricultural farm that pays living wages and survive. I did it with a lot of work and help from the University of Florida/IF AS group blueberries because nobody ever grew blueberries this far south in the United States. We're the first. So when you come to the farm, which is under lease right now and the buyer -- potential buyer is supposed to close on it towards this year, but he's still going to continue the label and the living wages for his farm workers. The farm manager, who grew up with us in the last six years, along with Carmelita, he's working for them now, but he's going to be buying our condominium. Because we live with the community, with the residents in Reflections at Jubilation. Jubilation was our dream. Because when we built homes for Habitat, we never built a community. We always built homes one at a time. But in Jubilation we built a traditional neighborhood development designed by myself, as a registered professional engineer in Florida and in Illinois, with the help of other people. We built a community that we couldn't get loans to build the infrastructure. Florence and I put our money into that thing. We said $20,000 per home. We ended up giving the homeowners a $20,000 shared appreciation agreement, which retired in five years. That was a gift to them. Because the mortgage Page 181 June 7, 2007 companies would not give them $120,000 mortgages. They would give them 100, so we had to make up that difference. We've left that money. We have left that here. It's part of our legacy because we accomplished the second leg under our -- for our Journey. The third leg of education is the one we ask you today to help us with. The under-utilization of that facility is sad, but now we have the opportunity for optimization of that facility for education and for a higher purpose. Help us accomplish that higher purpose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I believe she has one question. MR. NOGAJ: Yes, sir. Sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: Your wife mentioned that the Harvest A venue or Harvest Road entrance off of Lake Trafford is gated and that that gate is open between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. MR. NOGAJ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: And you all believe that that is the entrance that the college should use? MR. NOGAJ: Anybody visiting Jubilation uses that entrance. Everybody uses that entrance and have for five years. We've had thousands and thousands of visitors to our center and that's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. NOGAJ: And that's what the transportation approved initially because it has a turning lane, which we put in at our expense. It has a proper approach. It's a safety issue. And Lake Trafford Road has always been used by everyone coming into Jubilation. COMMISSIONER CARON: Now my final question is: Now the gate would have to be open until 10:00 p.m. Is that an issue for the college? MR. NOGAJ: No. The college has assured me -- and Michael Page 182 June 7, 2007 can second this. Their latest class starts at six in the evening and will go to ten. So nobody will be coming in -- or 9:50 or 9:30. Nobody will be coming in basically after 6:00, 6:30 unless they're late to class. They won't be coming in at eight. They will all be leaving before 10:00. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So that's not an issue? MR. NOGAJ: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, are there any more public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gentleman that represents the homeowners' association, could I ask you a question, sir? Can you come back up? Sir, in your discussion I thought you had said that your association wants the entrance to be off Reflections A venue. Was I mistaken in hearing that? MR. CARMICHAEL: Yes. That's Harvest Drive. I've only been there a year and a half and I still get my streets mixed up. Harvest Drive goes into Reflection Lane, so it's Harvest Drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one you meant? MR. CARMICHAEL: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what was your name for the record again? MR. CARMICHAEL: Thomas Carmichael. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. No more public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Volpe, do you want any rebuttal of any kind? MR. VOLPE: Just very brief. In direct response to Ms. Caron's question, the commitment Page 183 June 7, 2007 7.2(0), the normal hours -- the normal hours of business for the education college learning site shall be weekdays, 7:00 to 10:00, and holidays and weekends, 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The entry gate to the Jubilation subdivision shall control access to the educational site after 8:00 p.m. So this is -- again, it's a homeowners' controlled, So we'll have security. So people will be able to exit after, but they won't be able to enter, in terms of the security. And there is the security issue. I started out several hours ago telling you that it was a privilege. This is truly -- I've done this for a long time. You've sat there for a long time. This is really unique in so many ways. I think that we have hopefully established that this is a compatible use within this existing approved PUD and that the issue of compatibility is one that has been addressed both from the residents' perspective, which is important as well, but also from the strict provisions of our Land Development Code. I appreciate your time and your attention. And we would ask that you approve the amendment to the PUD and send it to our Board of County Commissioners with a unanimous recommendation of approval. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Michael. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you looking for a motion yet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir, I'm not. I still want to ask Kay -- I have to close the public meeting before we can have a motion. Kay, in your number two you talk about all roadways within the project and you say, "Other than Reflection." Now, after hearing the testimony, do you have any problem with changing that to Harvest Drive and then that the entrance -- instead of Carson Road, Lake Trafford Road? MS. DESELEM: I have no objection to that. Page 184 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted that clarification so that when you write this up it's accurate. MS. DESELEM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now, with that, Ray, I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Schiffer, did you want to make the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sure. I would like to make a motion that we forward PUDA-2007-AR-I1081 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. And at this point I'm doing that with no conditions. We've talked all of them away, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray has seconded it. Discussion? First of all, I certainly cannot support it without the conditions that we discussed with Kay, items one through six or seven. There was two amended. We discussed the acceptance of one, two, four, five, six and we added the one about the meeting area. And we eliminated numbers three and seven. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I withdraw my second then because I misheard. I realized we had some revised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said without conditions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't hear that correctly. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, is there a second to the motion as Mr. Schiffer made it without conditions? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Tuff now is seconding Mr. Schiffer's motion, which is a recommendation of approval with no conditions. Page 185 June 7, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just so we don't miss a good condition. Why don't you run through them one at a time. For example, one is in the Land Development Code. Why we have that as a condition, there's no way we can -- they can not do that. Two is the private drive situation. That's something that they're going to work out in-house with their own association. We're micromanaging how to do that, I believe. Three was the restroom situation, which is clearly covered in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We said that was struck. We didn't include that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Four -- you know, if you want to read them off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, we've been through this three times. My concern is that -- I understand you don't want any conditions. These conditions coincide with what the condominium owners have asked us to put in place. And I think those are important to have here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then run through the ones you think are good. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All but numbers two -- number three and number seven. We've been over them with Kay ad nauseam here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the buffering we've taken that one out, except for around the parking lot, which I insist when they go in and get a certificate -- or SDP they're going to have to provide if it's necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We went over that with Kay. Kay, just out of curiosity, do you have any unclarity in the tedious effort we went through with you word for word on these conditions? MS. DESELEM: I think I'm relatively clear on it. And your reiteration about one, two, four, five and six and then you added a new Page 186 June 7, 2007 one about the meeting room. And we went back to the PUD document and clarified the restroom issue that -- we were going to do that on 7.2(B). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS.DESELEM: And then there were several things that came up about the security guard that I didn't know if you wanted that included. Because they offered that, but it wasn't a condition of the PUD. And then they also offered something about deeding over a portion of Tract H to the homeowners' association that was depicted as a rectangular section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That was in number four. One was perpetual easement or deed for the recreation area, which is that portion of "H" that Mr. Volpe clearly showed in the highlighting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, read me back how four is in your mind now. MS. DESELEM: Hang on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or, Mark, if you have it written down. MS. DESELEM: I don't have it exact because, you know, we were discussing it. But there was talk about the buffering shall be provided along the north boundary of Tract G. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I thought we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Around the parking lot. MS. DESELEM: Yes. Around the parking lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- once again, wouldn't that SDP process require a buffering around the parking lot? MS. DESELEM: It is my understanding it would, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Me, too. I mean, in the private end that we've been doing. So that's covered in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they don't come in for an SDP, would Page 187 June 7, 2007 they require buffering around the parking lot? MS. DESELEM: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they have it in the -- the testimony is it's there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then it's harmless to leave it here. It protects the residents. MR. VOLPE: COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, the only redundancy problem -- MR. VOLPE: If we're going to include it, I do need a little bit more specificity. I hate to belabor this, but what the staff is recommending is a 20-foot buffer. If we're talking about-- MALE VOICE: COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A hedge. MR. VOLPE: -- providing some privacy here, the staff is recommending a 20-foot buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to get closer to the mic, Michael. I heard you, but I -- from now on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's the point where I'm coming from. I think we've gone through these where essentially we have found out were they covered. Yes, you can say, "Well, ifit's in the LDC what is the problem. And the condition" -- I'm going to say, "If it's in the LDC, why do we confuse it with a condition?" And I don't mean to be a pain. I think Paul Midney is channeling through me or something. MS.DESELEM: IfI understood correctly, you also wanted to include a buffer between the newly described Tract Hand B and you talked about having it like in a commercial parking lot. That was my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a parking lot on the south side of Tract H that adjoins the playground area in Tract B. It's a small, Page 188 June 7, 2007 little section of land that should have a buffer between the parking lot and the playground so the kids don't go over and slip into the playground and accidentally get run over by a car. That's the only piece that we were suggesting having a buffer. MS.DESELEM: Correct. And that's what I was thinking that we needed to include in this. MR. VOLPE: Chairman, Mr. Strain, this is the area that you're talking about? MS. DESELEM: No. Down in the other part. MR. VOLPE: This part here? MS.DESELEM: Yes. MR. NOGAJ: But that's a hedge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a hedge. Kay, by buffer we have referred to repeatedly a hedge. MS. DESELEM: Yes. And when I asked for specif -- yeah, that. To specify what it was going to be, we talked about what it would be for a commercial parking lot, which is like an "A" buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five foot or something like that. MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, why don't we do this. Why don't we just require that they go through the SDP process and that way you would pick up all of our beautiful standards. They've had to go through the process anyway. They're probably all there anyway. This was a commercial parking lot the first time. It's a commercial parking lot now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ifwe fail to specify the things that we've worked out to benefit the residents, we -- it will be an SDP that staff may -- that could create difficulties for the association. I think we're doing a service by -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, no resident testified that they wanted any of these conditions. As a matter of fact, they testified against -- Page 189 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first gentleman stood up here and he read a litany of things and they matched it word for word. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That he wanted these conditions? I don't recall that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not the conditions that staff imposed, but the conditions that we corrected for the benefit of the residents. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then we asked staff and we can't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have got to get past this. Mr. Schiffer, you made a motion, no conditions. It was seconded by Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am not in favor of a motion with no conditions. I am going to vote no on that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Me, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is there any other discussion on it at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor of the motion as Mr. Schiffer recommended with no conditions signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed in the same sign. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion is opposed. Therefore, it doesn't carry . Page 190 June 7, 2007 Now we will entertain another motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion for approval of the subject before us subject to the modified stipulations that we have worked over and over. And if Chairman would like to restate them, fine. But I think they're in -- they're in the record. And if they need to be specified in order for everybody to have clarity, I guess that's fine. I'll take a shot, you'll take a shot, whichever. But that's my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? CHAIRMAN KOLFLA T: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat seconded it. Mr. Murray made the motion. MR. VOLPE: Now, Mr. Chairman, I request that we -- if you would specify, just because there's been a lot of discussion. I've got some notes. It sounds like our principal planner -- just so that we know precisely what are going to be the conditions that we will comply with. We have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me run through them. MR. VOLPE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number one and two. The staffs recommendations will stay. Number two will change. Instead of Reflections Drive, it's Harvest Drive. Instead of Carson Road, it will be Lake Trafford Road. MR. VOLPE: Can I ask, as you go through them, you say one and two will stay. The first one is the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One will stay. MR. VOLPE: That has to do with the parking on "G" and "H"? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Number two will stay with the exception of the changes that Reflections A venue will be Harvest Drive and Carson Road will be Lake Trafford Road. Number three is eliminated because it's addressed in the PUD. Page 191 June 7, 2007 Number four, the buffering around the parking lot in Tract G will be that commercial type that's a hedge-type buffer. In addition, we've weaved it into number four because it was a buffering one. There will be a perpetual easement or a deed for that recreational -- it's a rectangular area next to Tract B that's now in Part H for the residents -- to the benefit of the residents of the community. And the last one would be that the -- there will be a hedge between the parking lot and the playground on the south side of Tract H and the south side of Tract B. Number five, Type 0 buffering. That will stay as stated. That's just simply a maintenance and replacement if needed. Number six, the developer will provide an easement for the residents for up to four parking spaces in that parking lot on Tract H next to the playground to be used for people who may want to park and drive to that pool. Number seven was omitted as written here in the staff report, but we interjected a new number seven that stated that there will be an easement -- oh, no. There will be the conditions utilized for the -- by the International College for the use of their meeting rooms will be freely utilized for the people of this community in the same basis that you do for others. Although, there will be no cost allocated for it. Is that understood? MR. VOLPE: It is. And the only other is that we had discussed prohibiting access to the shared bathroom facilities. There was a commitment that was made in the PUD, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. VOLPE: So that should be added to the PUD that we will not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was only going over the staff provisions. The conditions we -- language changes in the PUD are automatically done by staff and we make -- unless we object to them. MR. VOLPE: I apologize. Thank you. Page 192 June 7, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did I miss anything, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, sir. I think you covered everything. I thank you for your good records. You meet what I've marked out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members -- anybody else have any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion has been made. It's been seconded on the conditions as stated. Signify by saying aye and raising your hand. All those in favor. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven in favor. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One opposed. Motion carries. Thank you all and I wish to tell the Immokalee community who's here today, I apologize for making you wait all day. I apologize for having you have to drive this far. The intent of this meeting was to have it in your community. In the future we will try to do so and be more diligent in that manner. So thank you for your patience today. MR. NOGAJ: Thank you. Items #9 & #10 Page 193 June 7, 2007 OLD BUSINESS & NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Old business. There's one item of old business and it's basically a thank you to the zoning staff for their copying us with this official interpretation that was provided to us today. These can be added to the book that was previously distributed. And I certainly appreciate staff being conscientious to get that to us. Thank you. We also have a package in our -- with us today from transportation. I would suggest that we defer discussion on that package until our next meeting. I know that Mr. Casalanguida needs to review it and so does Mr. Tindall. So all of you please -- it was several pages of multicolored discussion about staff standards in regards for transportation. So please take a look at it and we'll have that discussion at the next meeting. Is there any other old or new business on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion -- no public. Motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made and seconded. We are adjourned. Thank you. Page 194 June 7, 2007 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:34 p.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 KELLEY MARIE NADOTTI, RPR Page 195