Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/16/2007 R August 16, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 16,2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolflat (Absent) Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 16,2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 330 I T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE 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 - Not Available At This Time 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JULY 24-25, 2007, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: V A-2007-AR-11703. Kurt Lutgert, represented by Q Grady Minor, and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire, Goodlette Coleman and Johnson, P.A., requests a variance to legitimize the legally-constructed 000- conformities and permit a minor additlonal encroachment along the front of the home to enclose and modernize the carport as a standard two-car garage. The applicant would like to enclose the carport, and expand the width of the home along the east side of the property to the current side setback requirement of7.5 feet. An addition was added to the original home on the northwest side and, although it was legally perrnitted, the current survey indicates a 1.5-foot encroachment into the required front yard. The subject property is located at 180 Channel Drive, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates subdivision, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) RE-ADVERTlSED FROM 8/2/07 B. Petition: RZ-2006-AR-9572, Donald S. Modesitt, represented by Tim Hancock, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Residential Multi-Family Zoning District (RMF-6[4]) for a project to be known as Eljack (formerly the St. Claire Shores project). The subject property, consisting of 9.62.::l:: acres, is located at 629 and 771 St. Claire Shores Road, in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) 1 August 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the August 16th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY CLERK CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ifwe could have the roll call by our secretary. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat is absent. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Almost a full board. Mr. Kolflat is on an excused absence today, as we all know. Item #3 Page 2 August 16, 2007 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Addenda to the agenda. And I know our bearded county attorney -- by the way, I have to say that he's letting his catch up -- may not be the one to ask for the continuance, but I understand there has been a continuance requested. Although the application today was asked for by the county attorney's office, so I'm assuming they concur with the request? Does anybody know? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Yes, staff is in concurrence with the request to continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that will be for the Cocohatchee review of the Bert Harris claim that was remanded to the Planning Commission by the Board of County Commissioners. Ray, during the time period between now and the next time it can be heard, which I'm sure you'll try to schedule appropriately, but I believe it's going to be in November, I think the Planning Commission could get more I paperwork involved in this issue. One thing I would like to see each of us have is a copy of the permits that have been issued for the project in regards to the Corps permitting. There's a package available from the environmental department that I'm sure we all could benefit from reading. And Ray, the other thing is I think it would be helpful for us to see a strike-through version of the PUD that's affected by the changes that are requested in the settlement agreement. Then we would understand how those impact the PUD as a whole. And I think that would be important to a good evaluation, as requested of us by the Board of County Commissioners. Is that something that staff could do between now and November? MR. SCHMITT: The -- for the record, Joe Schmitt. The strike-through and underlined PUD has never been prepared. It was the opinion of the county attorney that the settlement Page 3 August 16, 2007 agreement, for all intent and purposes, is the amendment that becomes a supplement to the PUD. So there's never been a strike through and underlined. The intent of the settlement agreement was not to amend the PUD. But if I'm hearing from you that's the way you want it to go and that's the way you want it presented, I mean, I'm going to probably have to look to the applicant or the property owner to look at that as well. It's in effect almost a new application then. This is not a PUD to PUD rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I know you may be going in a direction I'm not trying to go in. I'm simply thinking that -- I mean, I could be wrong. And so before we go too much further, let me explain what I think would help, and then let me ask the other panel members if they agree with me. And if they do, I can ask the county attorney if we have the ability to request this, which I believe we do. And if we do, let's just get it to us. My purpose is that those development standards within the settlement agreement have various impacts on different paragraphs of the PUD. In fact, they introduced a new use that has different developmental standards that if they were added to the developmental table it might be more helpful to understand how they apply. Secondly, if a staff member in the future was ever to pull up the zoning on that piece of property and they were to look for the Zoning Ordinance 2000-88, it would certainly be nice if all the development standards were in the ordinances they were looking at, instead of them having to know that there may be a settlement agreement involved in this case. I was thinking it would be certainly a better way, an easier way for this panel to evaluate it as requested by the board. That was the only reason I was asking for it. MR. SCHMITT: And I don't argue that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 4 August 16, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: My problem is how do I fund and pay for a fund for that service. And that's the issue here. I would have to put staff on that, and it becomes an issue I have to deal with internally as to how I would provide that service. Because the settlement agreement, there's no application fee, there's nothing involved in that. I would have to go back to the board to address with the board how something like that would be funded to pay for the services that are being provided. I may have to turn back to the applicant to pay for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go too far, Mr. Y ovanovich, are you here to save the day? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm here to help you, if I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Rich Y ovanovich, for the record. I represent one of the parties in that settlement agreement. I think what you're saying, Mr. Strain, is you would like to see the very few provisions in the PUD that are being amended by this PUD in a strike-through and underlined version. For example, one of the structures goes from 15 stories to 17 stories. You'd like us to strike the 15 and put the word 17 there in that one document so you could see all of those changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exactly. And a couple -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me ask you a question. What we had originally anticipated doing and we were told not to do it, for whatever reason, is we had a settlement agreement with an Exhibit A attached, which would have been a development standards document, which would have been the PUD document exactly as it used to be with the 15 struck, showing 17, a new development standards table for the single-family development that's allowed on the east side of the road. We were going to attach that to the settlement agreement so you would have one unified document to look at. We were told the preference was that we leave the PUD alone Page 5 August 16, 2007 and have simply an amendment that refers to the paragraphs that are being changed. To us it's six to one, half dozen of another. We can do it either way that the county thinks is the best way to assure that whoever's reviewing subsequent submittals is reviewing the complete document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- from my perspective I know that I could -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I don't want to go through a PUD amendment process. We want to go through the process we're going through. But as far as providing you the information you need to understand the change to the underlying PUD, we could provide that document. MR. SCHMITT: And Rich is correct. Basically there's been several iterations of that strike through and underlined. We've been through the negotiations. And then at one time there was an there was an opinion rendered that the method would be simply to proffer to the board a settlement agreement. Then the settlement agreement for all intent and purposes would be an addendum to the PUD. But I agree and don't argue with exactly what you're saying. It's just a matter of to do that and to figure out what kind of staff needs to be devoted to that in order to provide you with that. Because basically it would provide you, and the board certainly, but you as well a kind of an easier road map as to what is being amended by the document. W e'lllook at that, I'll figure out a way that I've got to deal with it. But that's something financially I'll have to determine internally how I deal with that and whether I have to go to the board for a budget amendment to pay for that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's a simple document -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to -- MR. SCHMITT: But it's the county's presentation to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you guys can talk about all this Page 6 August 16, 2007 stuff, you can come up with excuses as to why you don't want to do it. The prerogative of this board -- not you, Richard, I'm saying Joe and anybody -- if this board wants it, you're obligated to provide it. We have an enabling act that gives us that right to ask for additional studies when and if we feel like them. Ms. Caron, do you have any comments? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just going to say, yeah, I don't see where it's a very big deal. And the petitioner has offered to at least submit it to you. You can then take a look at it and if you don't like it then you can try to find a budget amendment and get it done however you'd like. But I don't see where it has to be all that involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad and then -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll give you my copy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just had one thing. In studying it, I wasn't sure of the -- could I have something that shows the chain of ownership of the project from the milestones? The one would be the first PUD, second would be the amended hearing, and then today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, is that doable? MR. SCHMITT: That was not in the PUD amendment packet that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You could e-mail and tell me where it is, if it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, my only question is would we be talking about an entire strike through for the entire PUD or just a few pages that are appurtenant to it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whatever pages have to be struck through to be consistent with the settlement agreement. If it's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So just those appurtenant pages. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. Page 7 August 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'd have to get the whole PUD. But not every paragraph may be affected by a strike through. The fact that they've eliminated R-l and R-2 and dropped down to R, that certainly will affect more than a few paragraphs. So someone has to go through it. And I've actually done part of it -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sure you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- trying to be prepared for today until I heard today was going to be continued, so I pulled off of it. But I thought coming from staff over the next months or two it would be a lot handier having it in the norm than we're used to. And if that was the concurrence of the rest of you, then we ought to get it done. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My only thought was I read the documents in the sense that the settlement agreement was intended to be the final subordinating agreement in terms of where it fixes everything. So I have no objection. I certainly would read it if given it, and I have no problem researching. That would be good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else from anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray or Joe, do you guys understand what we need? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. So is there a motion to provide for a continuance? And maybe the county attorney can tell me, do we have to suggest a date or can it just be continued to a date that will be provided in the future by staff? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I mean, unless you have a date that you can set right now, you're going to have to just continue it until you can get that date. MR. SCHMITT: Originally when I was asked by one of the attorneys representing the applicant, I originally told him that the Page 8 August 16, 2007 earliest I could do this was October 4th. October 4th agenda is full, quite honestly. The 18th of October is full. November 1st is probably even more full than the others. If I were just strictly looking at scheduled items, the earliest we could probably do this is the 15th. But that day is also adoption hearing for the GMP amendments on the November 15th. So I mean, this is -- I'm almost into December before I can even schedule this thing again. And I'm not sure what -- as far as the petitioner, the petitioner requested this delay. We were scheduled to do it today. And looking at Planning Commission agenda items, and I jokingly say in this time of slow down, if you want to look at the schedule it's pretty intense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: December 6th looks clear. MR. SCHMITT: December? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: December 6th. MR. SCHMITT: The earliest I have is -- there's one item on December 6th right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's what I mean. So that might be a good date to aim for. I don't know if we have to announce it to anybody, but-- MR. SCHMITT: Unless we try and schedule a special hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any objection to that, as long as it's after -- say sometime starting after -- starting in October, maybe November. MR. SCHMITT: It would have to be -- and I don't know, since we're talking about calendar, did Ray hand out -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have the calendar here. In fact, I took Ray's calendar and two of the other calendars that were given to us and comprised them, boiled them all down, put them in one calendar so it's a little easier to follow. MR. SCHMITT: I've got kind of general calendar that just shows between AUIR and LDC and GMP and all the other alphabet soup we Page 9 August 16, 2007 throw at you. MR. KLATZKOW: You'll have to continue this without a date set then, Chairman. MR. SCHMITT: I would -- well, we'll continue without a date set. I may look -- I need to talk to Mr. Y ovanovich, and I need to look at maybe even scheduling a special date for -- of the Planning Commission to review this. I would anticipate this is going to be at least a three to four-hour -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh, easily. MR. SCHMITT: -- review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you get to a point where that date's starting to get solidified, we ought to communicate on it, though, so -- MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we make sure we have-- MR. SCHMITT: And like I said, just because of your schedule, looking at even -- and with AUIR, I just don't expect it to be until sometime in October or beyond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Since we're talking about that, there is a -- since we're talking about your schedule, we did have for you the water supply plan, and we were looking at bringing that to you on the 6th of September. That water simply plan, the data used to prepare it was based on the old population projections, not on the new population projections for the new AUIR. I am attempting to try to get that date moved through DCA. I cannot see the merit or the value of presenting to you a water supply plan based on population projections that we're not going to use. So we're -- we need to go back, because we just finished those population projections anyway. So I'm looking at changing that date. So that date that I sent you an e-mail on, Commissioner Strain, is now Page 10 August 16, 2007 -- probably will change. But you do have another rather significant item coming to you on the 20th of September, and that's the school concurrency interlocal agreement. And that's the transmittal hearings for the school concurrency. Besides, what, five petitions we have the school concurrency. I'll go back to the 6th, we're going to do a kind of school concurrency 101 presentation, just to prepare you for the 20th, on how they do modeling and student loans and projections and those kind of things. And I know that school concurrency GMP amendment is going to be a rather significant document to go through as well. It involves a lot of new concepts and new requirements for concurrency. So between -- when you're looking at your September into October with AUIR, we've got you guys pretty well committed. I know you're going to be looking for a pay raise this year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. SCHMITT: 1 st of October. Cost of living. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll just go ahead then and leave the date for something to be determined as time goes on. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. So I'm looking at November. I need to talk to Mr. Y ovanovich, and we'll probably look at sometime in November or even December now before this gets to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, two questions. One: Joe, since the commissioners had this on their agenda and it was moved for us to review it, are they expecting us to have this reviewed when they come back? And who canceled this, staff or the applicant? MR. SCHMITT: The applicant canceled it, at their request. Their attorney contacted me on Friday and requested that it be delayed. I explained to the attorney, that was Mr. Saunders, I explained to him that the earliest I could reschedule this is October.y Page 11 August 16, 2007 At the earliest. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the Bert Harris time clock is MR. SCHMITT: Basically the Bert Harris time clock will be stayed. It has to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then my second question is, is this advertised for the public in that neighborhood? MR. SCHMITT: It is not an advertised item, no. It -- well, I believe we did advertise it. I directed staff to advertise it just as a notice. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, did you want to chime in, since you stood up? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any objections to the discussion then regarding the scheduling? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we understand that it's going to be flexible as to when we finally get in front of the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you think that the time frames -- still trying to make it, no matter what we're trying to do here -- do you feel they're reasonable in our efforts? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, yeah, we understand. But I do want to say, this was a joint request for the continuance. Because there is some word-smithing that needs to be done to the agreement, and we know how much the Planning Commission doesn't like to be handed a document last minute to look at changes, so we thought it was better to make the changes between Mr. Pettit and myself and present you a clean document that we both agree is the product that needs to go to the Board of County Commissioners. Page 12 August 16, 2007 So I don't want it to appear like it was just us. It was a mutual agreement to continue this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, do you agree that the time clock is stayed? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've already sent an e-mail to Mr. Pettit to the effect that we acknowledge that the 180-day period for the county to respond has not yet run. It will not run until the county has a reasonable opportunity to respond, based upon our mutual agreement to continue it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That e-mail was copied to all of us, so when you get a chance, it was -- you might look at some of the e-mails on your county website. Okay, is there a motion to approve a continuance-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to a time to be determined? Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Caron. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 13 August 16, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. Just so everybody knows, we have two LDC meetings scheduled for the -- one for the 22nd and one for the 29th of this month. I do not believe that we're going to need those. And since Ray and Joe are talking, they're probably not hearing what I'm going to say. Fellows, after today's meeting this morning, we have an LDC meeting that starts at 1 :00 today. I understand we may not be able to finish every item at our 1:00 meeting today. I don't know if it's necessary to continue them to another pre-scheduled meeting on the 22nd or 29th, as there currently is scheduled. They're at 5:00 p.m. and another one at 1 :00 on the afternoon on the 29th. Rather than tag it on to the end of our next regularly scheduled meeting, which is the 6th of September, do you have any problem with that? It would probably the last meeting of the cycle that we would need to have, and I would imagine by then there would only be one or two items left to even discuss. MR. SCHMITT: 6 September we have -- well, the water supply plan is not going to be heard, I can tell you right now. We could probably do it on the 6th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was thinking. MR. SCHMITT: Two petitions and I have school concurrency -- kind of school concurrency 101. So it would be moved to the 6th. But I'm looking on my calendar just to make sure. That should not put us in a difficult bind with the board. Our first meeting with the board Page 14 August 16, 2007 is the 11 th of October, so that would work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then our next scheduled meeting, since the 22nd and 29th may not be happening, because after today's 1 :00 meeting we may continue then to the 6th of September. Mr. Klatzkow, do you see any problems in what we're proposing? MR. KLATZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is everybody planning to be here on the 6th of September? Anybody know if they're going to be absent or not? Well, then the 6th of September will be a good day. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NONE AT THIS TIME Approval of minutes, there's none available at this time. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS The BCC reports and recaps, July 24th and 25th. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The BCC is on vacation so there's no items to report. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. I think I just about wore out my discussion during this continuance issue. Page 15 August 16, 2007 Item #8A PETITION: V A-2007-AR-11703 We'll go right into the advertised public hearings. First one of which is Petition V A-2007-AR-11703. It's the variance to the Kurt Lutgert residence in Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates. All those wishing to speak on behalf of this issue, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had some questions on this petition; I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich by phone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I talked to Mr. Y ovanovich, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rest of you? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich didn't like you guys, okay. I spoke to the applicant's representative, Mr. Arnold, and I may have mentioned it to Rich. I can't remember if we had or not, to be honest with you. But it was quite a while ago then. And our discussion basically was around exactly what this was about. So with that, we will move into the presentation. Heidi? MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. My name is Heidi Williams, I'm a certified planner with Grady Minor & Associates. I'm here Page 16 August 16, 2007 today with Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of Kurt and Scott Lutgert, regarding a variance request for 180 Channel Drive. The project location is shown on the visualizer, and I have a more detailed site plan for you to look at. The subject property is located in the RSF-3 zoning district. There is an existing home on the site that has been there since 1952. We don't have a permit that we can locate for that home, but we do have a survey dated 1954 that shows the structure and illustrates the reason that we're asking for this variance request. This is the 1954 survey that illustrates a single-family home with a carport attached in the front. It illustrates a 27-foot setback. This structure was legally permitted. At the time the zoning district required a 25-foot front yard, and I think that survey practices have changed over time. We've resurveyed the site. This is actually a 25.8 foot setback from the right-of-way at this time. Going back to current condition, the carport that was legally permitted is -- remains in place. An additional expansion to the home was legally permitted in the Nineties, 1990. Your staff report and packet include the permit, the certificate of occupancy that show that this was legally permitted. Upon surveying it, it actually has a 4.2 -- I'm sorry, that's the first one. It has a 1.2 foot encroachment into today's setback of 30 feet, so it's 28.8 feet from the right-of-way. And that's the reason we're here. Those two are existing nonconformities. Our client would like to be able to enclose the carport into a standard two-car garage. He would be able to do that if we can grant a variance to the front yard only. He can meet the side setback by doing that expansion. This is an existing condition that's been in place for many years. My opinion is that it is ameliorated by the width of the right-of-way, the minimal width of the pavement, and the distance that that pavement is from the encroachment. Page 17 August 16, 2007 This may not be very clear, but the subject property is labeled there. Ray's got the pointer on there. My pen is pointing to the property line. And there is quite a distance between the pavement and the property line, the edge of the right-of-way. We're not aware of any expansion to the road. It's a local road with -- in a single-family neighborhood. So that green space remains. You can also see that the existing carport structure is generally in line with the other structures on the road. I don't know their permitting history or their setbacks, but it does fit the character and nature of this neighborhood. And so we're here pretty much for a simple request. We'd like your support. We don't have any opposition from the neighborhood, we've got a staff recommendation of approval, and we'd appreciate your support as well. And I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Heidi. Are there any questions of the applicant in this issue? Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. When I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich, I had a couple of questions that I said that I wanted answered today. One concerns the .5 encroachment over by the garage. MS. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, where is that? COMMISSIONER CARON: The -- currently as it sits now, there is a 0.5 foot encroachment onto Lot 23. And I wanted to know what that was. Is that a fence that is encroaching, is that landscaping that's encroaching? MS. WILLIAMS: This is our current survey that was done specifically to submit with this petition. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MS. WILLIAMS: That minor encroachment is actually just a concrete or asphalt slab. Page 18 August 16, 2007 Everything's just a little bit off. You can see on the other side on the fence line of the other property there's a wall. It's just asphalt and it's not going to be expanded in any way. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. During the construction of this garage, is it possible to correct that? Is that concrete going to come out of there? MS. WILLIAMS: It can be fixed, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, it seems to me while we're cleaning things up as best we can, let's do that. MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I also had asked about the structure in the back, the -- what is labeled as a storage. MS. WILLIAMS: It's shown on the existing survey, today's condition. And I can show you the 1954 survey as well. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just concerned about today. I just want to know whether it's legally set back. MS. WILLIAMS: The original structure as shown here, same location, same structure, in 1954 was a utility room. And although I didn't research the requirement at the time, today's standards for a utility room is a 10- foot rear yard setback and a seven and a half foot side setback. They do meet that, so it was legally -- in my opinion legally constructed. And today's use has changed. There is no definition for a utility room. It's used for storage today, that's why it's labeled as storage. That could require a 25- foot setback. But it is my opinion that that's legally nonconforming in the worst case. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a presentation by county staff? MS. ZONE: Good morning. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner Page 19 August 16, 2007 with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. As the applicant's representative stated, that these are after-the-fact variances that were permitted with the county at the time when the setbacks were consistent. Through research we found that the surveys were conflicting, but the applicant is doing their due diligence in coming before you today to make this a legal permitted setback per the variance process. We've researched everything, the permits, everything is consistent with the applicant's request. And there are no concerns with any of the departments and reviewers. So if you have any questions, I'd like to entertain them now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Melissa, this is -- first of all, how did you verify the existing setbacks? Did you go back -- MS. ZONE: I went through every zoning code book that we have that started from 1959, 1965, and I compared them to each submittal and any improvements that they did on the home. And at that time setbacks met with the permits going. The discrepancy is with the 1990 survey, and today's survey, which as you would know, Mr. Schiffer, that the instruments are much more accurate today than they were then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you verified that-- MS. ZONE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The second thing is on Page 6 of 8, which is in your analysis number (sic) C, you state if we don't approve this today, that the existing structure would have to be razed? MS. ZONE: Well, certainly. Because it's a nonconforming. Maybe not the whole structure, but definitely the portions that are encroaching into the property. And we're creating a hardship to the applicant, because at the time the setbacks were 25, where today's standards they're 30. And Page 20 August 16, 2007 when we changed our zoning codes, why they deemed that the 30- foot setback in an area that was -- had several homes already there following the 25- foot setback, I -- there was no one there to -- you know, that I was able to meet with to discuss what was their intent. Even meeting notes from back then, I looked as to why would we change that to make these homes nonconforming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, personally, I think that you may have misstated some of the thoughts there. Mr. Klatzkow, would you opine on whether or not this home would have to be amended in any way to meet a conforming status when I believe they'd be a nonconforming -- legal nonconforming? MR. KLA TZKOW: I think the only issue before the planning board is whether to keep the status quo, which means no razing of anything, or to allow the carport to be enclosed. That's the only issue. Nothing's going to get razed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was going to say. The question from Mr. Schiffer, though, was in response to part of the -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's a legal nonconforming use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- packet that said this house would have to be razed. Okay, that takes it a little farther than I think-- MS. ZONE: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you have to go. MS. ZONE: I will make sure it doesn't go into the executive summary to create more hardship. Not that I was trying to make it look better on the applicant either, but once they come in to improve on that home, you have to follow that 50 percent rule on improvements. And improvements today on a home, certainly once they hit that 50 percent rule, regardless, you would then have to conform to current standards. So the applicant would have to leave the home as is and be a legal nonconforming. But if they did any other alterations -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're digging a deeper hole we don't Page 21 August 16, 2007 need to go into. MS. ZONE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Melissa, the utility room, do you agree that it's just a legally nonconforming structure? MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Secondly, I do want to get into this business of potentially adding onto this home under the current footprint, if we allow these variances to happen. If six months from now, a year from now, whenever, they decide to put a second floor on, or a room, for example a room over the garage, that would be what I would consider a further encroachment. Would staff also consider it a further encroachment? MS. ZONE: Our regulations follow the footprint. Now, would they -- to expand, I would want to defer to Ray Bellows on this. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, we could tailor the approval subject to the one-story carport/garage as depicted in the attached survey. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. I think that would be a stipulation I would like to make. And because I have no problem with the variance as it stands. I just would not want to see that grow. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, any growth on this structure that contributes to over 50 percent of the structure's value, though, would then make the whole structure have to conform to our code. So in that case it couldn't happen, because they'd have to take the nonconforming portions away, if I'm not mistaken. So, I mean, I understand where you're going and that's fine, but I just wanted to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand the 50 percent rule as Page 22 August 16, 2007 well, Mr. Strain. My concern was what if they just decided to put a room over the garage. Many people do that. And that would not be 50 percent of this building, and yet it would affect the encroached part of this building. And I don't want to see any further encroachments. So if it remains a single-story structure with the setbacks as they are presented here, I don't think that we should have any problem with that. MS. ZONE: Commissioner Caron, I could work with our county attorney to make sure that it's also in the variance ordinance, so that it not only is part of your request to the BCC but that we would ensure it through the -- in the variance. So when staff pulls up the building permits, it's right there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I just want to clarify that any request for remodeling of this building will have to go through the building department, through the formula for the flood insurance process to validate. And it's 49 percent, in accordance with our flood ordinance. Just for the record to indicate that. And it will have to be verified. And if it breaks the threshold, then it has to conform with the new flood insurance rate map standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the second story that's been discussed would be prohibitive over the nonconforming portion of the structure. Thank you. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Move we approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Tuff to Page 23 August 16, 2007 approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Is there a discussion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just with the stipulation that I made, and I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The stipulation that Ms. Caron made was that there be no second story with a nonconforming portion of the structure. Is there -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, one quick thing. There was a drawing, Heidi, that you put up there that shows where they want to intend to do this addition. I don't have that in my packet. Could you include that in the packet so that it's clear? MS. WILLIAMS: This was included in the packet, what I actually drew in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in other words, I think this would be good if this was included, because it would show what we're doing at this hearing. MS. WILLIAMS: Sure. We can revise this to have those hatchings on there to show the intended expansion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, that may help to clarify in the future what we did here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does the motion maker and the second accept the -- MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Does the motion also include the removal of that five-foot strip? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, actually, that does have to be included in the motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Six inches. Page 24 August 16, 2007 MR. KLATZKOW: Six inches? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Six inches, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: For Mr. Schiffer, if I can. I just want to make sure that the document you want to attach, not that entire area of crosshatching is part of the variance. Actually, it's -- the crosshatching, if you go back basically 4.2 feet, that's the only portion that would be subject to the variance. The remainder of that all complies with the existing regulations. So I just -- I didn't want this document per se to be attached. I don't mind if we modify it, but I just wanted you to know, we would need to modify it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I appreciate it. You could double hatch that area where -- that's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's been two stipulations requested. One is that there by no second story over the nonconforming part of the structure; second is that the six inches encroaching on the lot next door over the driveway would be approved. Is that okay with the motion maker? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Nods head affirmatively.) COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see a nod of the head yes of Mr. Tuff and a nod of the head yes ofMr. Vigliotti. Okay, with no further discussion, we'll call for the motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 25 August 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. Richard, you were here for window dressing today. Item #8B PETITION: RZ-2006-AR-9572 Okay, the next item up on today's agenda is at the Petition RZ-2006-AR-9572, the Donald S. Modesitt property known as Eljack, on Clair Shores Road, for a rezone to RMF-6(4). All those wishing to testify on behalf of this project, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For all of you who are going to speak, please try to give a slip to the gentleman over here -- the slips are on the outside, if you haven't filled one out -- with your name on it so that he knows enough to call you for speaking. MR. BELLOWS: I haven't received any yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all of you that just rose, if you all intend to speak, please get those slips that are out in the hall, fill them out and have someone give them to Ray over here, and that way we'll get you on record. That's an important part of the process. Are there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I met with Mr. Hancock yesterday. We talked about this project in length. In particular the compatibility issues involving the project. And that's -- I think that's the only discussion I had with anybody involving it. Okay, with that, Mr. Hancock, go ahead. Page 26 August 16, 2007 MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Tim Hancock and I'm the agent for the property owner for Petition AR-9572, known as the Eljack rezone. The petitioners today are property owners, Judge Don Modesitt and Mrs. Jackie Shindehett (Phonetic). Judge Modesitt and Mrs. Shindehett, who are brother and sister, are intimately familiar with this land, since it has been in their family since 1968 when the land was purchased. The family residence was then constructed in the latter part of 1968, including a garage and associated land clearing. As you can see in this picture, at one point the home and a mobile home just behind the brick structure that you see occupied the two parcels. In the picture are Jackie's son in 1971 and her mother. Judge Modesitt could not be here today, but Mrs. Shindehett is here present on both her and Don's behalf. Any questions you may have regarding the property beyond the technical aspects, Mr. Shindehett will be happy to discuss with you. The request before you today is to rezone the subject property totaling 9.62 acres, of which one-half acre is committed to a roadway easement and to rezone that property to RMF-6 with a density cap of four units per acre for a mixed use project containing both multi-family and single-family residences. The request specifically is for a maximum of 36 residential units, which equates to a density of 3.74 units per acre. The property is located on the aerial here at 629 and 771 St. Claire Shores Road. It's approximately one-quarter mile north of Radio Road, and just under two miles a little bit to the east of Airport Road. As you can see from the aerial, the area around the property varies in residential transient development intensity from one unit per two and a quarter acres to both the north and to the west, to approximately four units per acre in the Berkshire Lakes PUD lying to the east, and variable densities ranging between 7.6 units per acre in Page 27 August 16,2007 the Blue Skies Mobile Home Park and 14.7 units per acre within the Endless Summer Mobile Home Park immediately south of the property . The general area has two access roads. One is St. Claire Shores Road, which goes right here in between two existing mobile home parks, bends to the right and then heads back up to the north all the way to the canal. San Marco Road, a second way to access the general area, goes from Radio all the way back again to the canal with a connector road to the rear. The subject property, as well as surrounding properties, are designated on the Future Land Use Map as urban residential sub- district. This is, however, one of only a few areas within the urban designation that contains Estates zoning. This property was not a part of the original platted Golden Gate Estates, but was at one point in the past recognized as not being appropriate for agricultural zoning and the Estates zoning district was applied, thereby allowing it the time for an increase in the allowable density to one unit per two and a quarter acres. This change I believe occurred in the latter part of the 1970's. Areas with this same future land use designation but zoned Estates elsewhere in the urban area have typically slowly transitioned through small parcel rezones over time to a more urbanized level of development, primarily due to a combination of surrounding development pressures, availability of water and sewer in the area, and market demands. One such example is the Bailey Lane area lying west of Airport Road. Airport Road runs north and south on the right side of the exhibit, and Bailey Lane here runs east and west where, over time, parcels have been rezoned from agriculture and Estates zoning, urban densities of three to five units per acre. This area continues to transition, and while it may never be fully developed at the higher densities, the clear implication by virtue of designating areas such as Page 28 August 16, 2007 this is urban residential. Despite their Estates zoning is a de facto recognition that future growth is more appropriate in an urban area where infrastructure and services can best accommodate future growth without encouraging increased sprawl. The St. Claire Shores area is one example of this designation. More to the point on the subject property and its surrounding zoning, the property is uniquely situated immediately adjacent to two higher density mobile home parks to the south. An average of four unit per acre residential density existing within Berkshire Lakes here to the east and approximately six single-family lots do back up to this property within Berkshire Lakes. And then again you have the Estates zoning immediately to the north and St. Claire Shores with Estates zoning across to the west. The development pattern along St. Claire Shores Road and San Marcos Boulevard is varied in nature. While the density in the Estates zoning is one unit per two and a quarter acres, the existing pattern includes homes such as the Modesitts, which has been in place for 30 or 40 years, as well as newer, sizeable homes on large tracts. You'll also find toward the end of St. Claire Shores Road Clark's Nursery, a 12-acre commercial nursery generating large vehicle traffic and trips from employees of the nursery operation. Many both new and older homes have large metal sheds on the property, and some lots contain just one single-family home or a home and a guest house. The properties on the east side of St. Claire Shores Road back up to Berkshire Lakes, again, a mixed use PUD approved in 1983, clearly what I call a suburban pattern of development. We tend to call four units per acre urban, and I think someone disputed that, but we'll use the terminology at hand. Berkshire Lakes was approved in 1983 at a density of3.99 units per acre. Of all the properties along St. Claire Shores Road, 65 percent of them have been sold or resold since the development of Berkshire Page 29 August 16, 2007 Lakes. I think that goes to show that living in near proximity or in half of the cases immediately adjacent to a more urban style of development has not apparently adversely affected the sale and resale of these tracts, some of which have fairly new and fairly large single-family homes on them. The property owners would like to build their own retirement homes on this land. Unfortunately, or I guess fortunately, depending on where you stand, neither one is at retirement age at the moment. And combination of taxes on a non-homesteaded property and the upkeep associated with an older home has caused them to look at reasonable options for the property. Until 2001 Jackie and Don's mother and father lived in this house, and her mother passed in '01 and father passed in '03. So the last four years they've been coming down at different times to try and upkeep the property, they've attempted to rent the home and maintain the home, and it's becoming increasingly difficult and quite candidly a financial drain being a non-homestead property. This has really been the driving force behind the petition you see before you today. This condition of being Estates zoning in an urban residential area and next to a mobile home park is shared only by one other property in the immediate area, and that is Estates zoning across the street, partially owned by Mr. Tommy Turner. To indicate that the only acceptable level of development on this parcel adjacent to a mobile home park is low density, single-family Estates development I do not believe is supportable. One of the further difficulties faced for this property is how to transition from a higher density development, the mobile home park on the south, to the lower density Estates property on the north when you really only have 640 linear feet within which to make that transition. We recognize that for surrounding properties two-story Page 30 August 16, 2007 multi-family development along the southern property line, which is shown here on the site plan as R-2, with more traditional single-family along the northern property line, shown as R-l, made the most sense from a transitional land use perspective. Thereby again, transitioning uses from the higher density to the south, lower density to the north, and an equitable density to the east. The plan before you addresses that restriction by limiting the northern 150 feet, plus or minus, to single-family development only, while permitting either single or multi-family in the R-2 designated areas for the tracts to the south. Development standards within the RMF -6 district are comparable to those within Berkshire Lakes. They're not identical. You can have a slightly smaller lot within RMF-6 for single-family development than you can within Berkshire Lakes. Our initial plan was to place the required native vegetation buffer along the northern property line, thereby creating a little more separation, a little more buffer of the Estates property to the north. The very first plan that I drew up actually had an L-shaped buffer across the northern and coming down the side next to Berkshire Lakes, varying from 20 to 40 feet in width. One of the problems we ran into is the LDC criteria for preservation of native vegetation precluded this option. Because of the FLUCCS mapping of the property, it was county environmental staffs opinion that one of the only suitable areas to set aside the required amount, which is .89 acres, just shy of one acre, is a fairly central location here on the property. The main reason being that about half of the northern property line here was impacted due to the single-family homes. So while you may have standing pine trees, you really don't have a lot of undergrowth in some of that area. There is that same code that applies to this area, does extend along the northern border, ranging and varying in widths from 15 feet to as much as 50 feet. But even if we were to put approximately a Page 31 August 16, 2007 60-foot swath across that whole side, there would be some areas that you'd have to re-vegetate. So when you look at the Land Development Code criteria on where you locate native preserves, the fact that you'd have to re- vegetate that dropped it down that list. And so we're kind of stuck in a position of applying the LDC in such a way that it may meet the environmental standards, but it really doesn't help with the compatibility issues as much as we would like it to. Whether that can manifest itself into a recommendation from this body to be addressed differently, I think we can discuss it, if it's your desire. And I may have some ideas how to do that, but again, we'll address that as it comes. Further complicating this issue of redevelopment of this site is that in order to rezone the property for any higher intensity, water and sewer must be provided to the site. It's going to have to be run from Radio Road, which is about a 2,000 foot run. Not an inexpensive proposition. How that affects what we're trying to do here is that the cost of that run has to be shared by whatever development scenario is applied to the property. If a unit count drops below a certain point, it then becomes unfeasible to run utilities to the site. So you're in a no man's land there. Is 36 the magic number? Probably not. The number may be as low as 30, possibly as low as 25. When we initially started this project some two years ago, the costing out at that time is not the costing out we have today. We may very well get better pricing on those utility runs today than we did two years ago. By the same token, the average valuation for real estate is also down, so I don't expect the difference to be material in that regard. One of the concerns we've heard from folks that live along St. Claire Shores is that if water and sewers run to this site, they're going to have to hook up to it. And Mr. Klatzkow, if I'm miss-stepping this, I'm sure you will Page 32 August 16, 2007 correct me quickly. But in the past the county code has required if you run water and sewer up a public roadway, only if that water and sewer crosses in front of the lot is the homeowner -- the possibility to force the homeowner to connect is there. Because there are no Estates zoned parcels between this parcel and Radio Road -- there's only one right across the street owned by Mr. Turner, and he's expressed no concern about our running water and sewer to this site -- a mandatory hookup for anybody else would not be triggered. As the applicant, we're willing to attach a conceptual site plan, such as the one you see here, that will limit the type of construction within proximity to the Estates zoning to the north. We think under straight zoning that may be the only way to ensure a degree of compatibility. We're further willing to commit that limiting development to two habitable floors within the 35-foot height limitation for the entire project, we think that's important. Nothing has been envisioned in three stories here. And we've been consistent in those discussions, from the neighborhood information meeting through today. With the limitations I've discussed with you and the commitments that the applicant is willing to make, I feel the project does represent a transitional zoning approach to address surrounding land use conditions that make development under the current zoning difficult at best. Jackie has continued in discussions with several of the neighbors who attended the neighborhood information meeting, and we're certainly not closing the door on continued discussions with regard to improving the project, as it's presented here today. The applicant does concur with the analysis provided in the staff report, which includes recommendation of approval, as well as recommendation of approval by the Transportation Planning Department. Page 33 August 16, 2007 This project does represent what's known as diminimous impact of .75 percent of traffic on Radio Road. I believe the peak hour trips were around 33 or 35 total trips coming and going. And we think that's certainly within an acceptable range. I ask that should questions be raised during the public comment that the applicant have a brief opportunity to address any outstanding issues before your final deliberations. And it would my pleasure, and if you have questions of Ms. Shindehett at this time, to answer any of those questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions from the members of the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, would you have a problem putting a restriction of a setback from the property line for multi-family of30 feet, single-family, 25? The concern I have is you could build a 35-foot high multi-family building 20 feet off the property line. MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, I think those setbacks are reasonable and very achievable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just having to do with stormwater. What year storm -- just for the record, what year storm are we relating to when we take care of drainage? MR. HANCOCK: When you see -- and the lake size here is based on a calculation of a three-day a year, 25-year storm event. However, the finished floor elevation of the homes must be above the 100-year storm event. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the concern for the neighborhood of course is extra drainage issues that they would have. And so again for the record, in the manner in which you would handle Page 34 August 16, 2007 drainage, would you give us some insight into how the water now will accumulate. How will that be taken away? MR. HANCOCK: The primary difference is in this area, when someone comes in to build a single-family home in Estates zoning, we typically mound up to the base of the home, the water runs off. But typically there's not any type of a containment berm or larger system that's installed, the water just percolates into the soil. When you begin looking at a project like this, what you have to do is you have to do a complete water management plan that in essence traps the water on site. The perimeter of the property is bermed. And the water that falls on the site is then shunted into a small lake or dry detention area, not really determined one or the other, where the water's treed. It's then discharged back into the St. Claire Shores Road right-of-way. The key being that the post-development discharge, the amount of water that we shunt off the site, cannot be more than what was historically draining off the site prior to development. In other words, we're precluded from making the condition worse and, in fact, there's every reason to believe the drainage area or the contribution to any drainage problems in the area would be improved at least for how this parcel mayor may not have contributed to that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there a history of flooding in the general area? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And I think when we look at areas like this, you know, it's Estates zoning. When Berkshire Lakes was built, that gets raised up a little bit. And it's what I call the sump effect. As everything around it has built up, this becomes the low point. Now, grant it there is the Golden Gate Canal to the north. And, you know, as that water moves through there it obviously has had a draining effect on this land over time, but you can't make the water run any faster. Page 35 August 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How have the neighbors, those concerned individuals, been educated or made to be aware of how the system will take that water away so they will be assured that that will not increase their problem? MR. HANCOCK: The same explanation I just gave you is nearly identical to the one we presented at the neighborhood information meeting. And I will tell you, it's hard if you're someone who has stood ankle deep or shin deep in water in your backyard a couple of years ago when we had the heavy rains to believe that this isn't going to make it worse. I understand that that's a difficult mountain to climb. But the reality is that currently whatever water falls on this property goes where it goes. There's no system in place to deal with it. Development of this site and this nature would require a system to address it, and so it cannot make the situation worse by law. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The roadway easement that you were talking about, Mr. Hancock, is that the 30- foot easement to the south? MR. HANCOCK: To the west. The roadway easement is on the west side of the property that makes up one-half of St. Claire Shores Road. To the south is an access and utility easement. The mobile homes park to the south have a pump station just on the other side of that easement. And they've been using that easement to -- for the county to access that pump station. We're not sure we can tie directly into that pump station. It may not be sized correctly. We may have to do our -- a separate eight-foot lift station. But the easement along the south is strictly an access and utility easement to serve that pump station. Page 36 August 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So the easement to the west then, how much did you say that was? MR. HANCOCK: It's just under a half acre. I believe .46 acres is comprised of that easement. And that's why if you exclude that easement, the property acreage and that acreage drops to about 9.1 acres, times four is 36, so we tried to operate pretty much on a net basis in looking at the number of units on the property. And candidly, we dropped some tentative buildings in and lot dimensions and found that anything more than 36 is not realistic or achievable, so there's no point in asking for it. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just looking at this plan, and there's a 30-foot road easement to the south. MR. HANCOCK: I'll be honest with you, I -- that may very well be a road easement. It's not been utilized as a road easement. You know, it's too narrow to be improved to a roadway because there's no corresponding 30-foot easement on the other side of the property line. I know it has been historically used by the county to access a county pump station. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, you had two things. You had a plan that you started out with an aerial that showed this area. Can you put that back on here again? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, the one you just showed before that, let's go back to that one. Actually, we'll -- no. Okay. How many acres of Estates are in this area; do you know? MR. HANCOCK: If you take St. Claire Shores Road all the way up to the canal from our property all the way up is around 111 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you said there are other Page 37 August 16, 2007 areas that you believe are like this in the urban area? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Two that I know of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you mentioned that because you think that they might be more or less converted in the future or possible conversions in the future; is that the intent of that comment? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. The point is to show -- and the two that I'm aware of are both to the west and the -- you know, the portion of the county that has developed a little bit faster it. My point is that as development pressures have increased out to the east, I think we're going to see properties like this that are designated urban residential and zoned Estates get more attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if it's designated urban residential and zoned Estates, the idea is that it should be consistent then to have an increase in density. MR. HANCOCK: I think it's reasonable to assume an increase in density is possible, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the urban boundary goes to 951, right? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you're thinking that it would be appropriate for the Oaks Boulevard area and all of that -- I mean, that's all Golden Gate Estates and the Santa Barbara area? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, you actually -- I think you stated the key there. Those are Golden Gate Estates. They were part of the original platting of the Estates, which it has been treated differently in our Growth Management Plan. The idea that I'd come here and ask for a GMP amendment to take something out of the original Golden Gate Estates and convert it is something I'm not even crazy enough to try. So my point being that when the county adopted the Growth Management Plan in the late Eighties and designated these areas as urban residential, I think they did so with an eye toward the future, Page 38 August 16, 2007 that infill development would be most appropriate in an area like this versus reaching out to the eastern part of the county and developing more sprawl. I believe that was the intent. I was here for some of those discussions. And my point is drawing out some of the other areas is to show that the commission over time has recognized through rezoning of small parcels that in certain cases that type of a rezone action may be appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll ask for staffs presentation. MR. BROWN: Good morning. I am Willie Brown, a Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. As mentioned already, the property is located at 629 and 771 St. Claire Road, half a mile north of the St. Claire Shores/Radio Road intersection. Excuse me, I'm getting over a cold here. The subject property consisting again of two tracts is 9.62 acres. The petitioner's request, as noted in the staff report, is to rezone again the subject property from Estates to residential multi-family six with a density cap of four for a maximum of 36 dwelling units, or four units per acre. Currently only one dwelling unit per two and a quarter acres is allowed. The site is primarily abutted by large single-family dwellings -- sorry, large lot single-family dwellings north, east and west of the site. A mobile home park is south of the site. The Future Land Use Element designates the site as urban mixed use and urban residential sub-district, according to our Compo Planning Department, which allows for higher density residential uses. The applicant's proposal is consistent with the Future Land Use Page 39 August 16, 2007 Map. The applicant's justification for approval is based upon the project serving as a transitional residential development, which transitions from mobile home park to low-density residential with a mix of multi-family and single-family uses in between. This is a plausible justification, consistent with urban planning practice and theory . The site is walking distance of a major roadway arterial, shopping, restaurants, personal service shops and transportation servIces. There is a national trend to reseed (phonetic) urban sprawl or large lot single-family dwellings scattering the earth's surface. The objective is to provide for a mix of uses or higher densities near multi-model transportation modes, which encourages cycling, walking and reduces long commutes. The effects of global warming are reduced as well. This trend will be unpopular with neighboring property owners, but it's consistent with your GMP policies. Seven letters of opposition were received, as well as two petitions. A petition from Endless Summer Mobile Home Park with 52 signatures and a petition from St. Claire Shores Estates with 50 signatures. Both petitions favor denial of the proposed rezone. No conditions of approval are proposed by staff as the site is designed with a type B buffer -- type B buffers around its perimeter, along with a 0.89-acre preserve and 0.6 I-acre water management lake. These design features in my opinion mitigate visibility of the site from adjacent uses. Lastly, the site is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the transportation element of the GMP. Policy 5.1 states, the county shall not approve a request that is significantly -- that significantly impacts a roadway segment already operating and/or projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service. Page 40 August 16, 2007 Staff, this includes your transportation, comprehensive planning and zoning staff, recommend approval of the rezone. I will point out that the applicant's proposed conditions are acceptable, limiting the height of multi-family buildings to two levels, and imposing greater setbacks adjacent -- where adjacent to single-family dwellings. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of county staff? Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The two letters, the two petitions you got from the neighbors requesting denial, what is the zoning there, how many units per acre, what is their density; do you know? I know one's a mobile home park, but how many units -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're asking for the density of the signatories or the. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: In other words, the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. On the signatures on the application -- on the petition, you want to know the density of their -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm not sure staff would know that without looking up each address and seeing whether -- MR. BROWN: I'm not certain, but I do have those letters that came after the fact that I can share with you from -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine. MR. BROWN: -- opposing neighboring property owners. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that Mr. Hancock may have supplied some of that information by the comments he made about the density of the two mobile home parks. I think one he said was 7.6 and the other was 14.7. That may be what you're looking-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I missed that, I'm sorry. That's the answer I'm looking for. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One way or another we'll get to your Page 41 August 16, 2007 answer. Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes, I'm newer on this board so I don't always -- I guess my question is, is I'm looking at an area where I believe that the mobile home use probably has a chance that it may go away some day, just because that's what's happening. And then you have this -- you know, it's a beautiful area of very rural, and it looks like that's the trend and it's been developed and it has been that way. And it's -- and I could see why this could be a place where this urban residential could be. But now I guess why I was so surprised is that it got approval. Because the justification to get where yeah, this is the one that we should do and we should do this here and make this -- because that's a large density compared to, you know, you've got 36 units and all these two and a half acre lots could be one. And maybe I'm questioning whether that designation is right or that -- that's not saying that it has to change to that urban residential, it's saying that it could if it was appropriate to fit in with the neighbors, I guess. Because I don't see any compatibility with this project versus what's there now and what has been there. And if I made sense to you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you're making a statement, not a -- or are you asking a question? COMMISSIONER TUFF: No, I really am curious. Because when I read this, I didn't talk to anybody, didn't see anybody, I said boy that just seems like this doesn't match. And so then you have an urban residential sub-district put on that. And that's a thing that people believe that it could be. That we all said it could be. But yet at the same token, Estates residential zoning is there, and it's very well used that way. And I'm wondering where those -- I can't see making that transition on this -- a use like that to this. And I'm thinking is that because I -- I'm not doing a good job explaining what Page 42 August 16, 2007 I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to help you get to your either question or statement, so -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: I guess where does it weigh heavier, to change all that that's there, that has been and will be and people love versus what well, it is allowable. And so what I'm saying is we're taking a thing that could be allowable versus what is the appropriate thing in compatibility. And I'm not sure, to come to that conclusion that you did. And I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way best way to answer your question may be to wait and hear how the rest of the speakers discuss their neighborhood, and maybe you'll get some insight as to whether or not -- some answer to your question of compatibility and consistency. I don't know, I'm just suggesting. I don't know ifMr. Brown can say any more than he's said in the staff report. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I guess which weighs heavier, compatibility or theory and idea to make this happen that way? MR. BROWN: I guess in short it's perhaps unpopular again for the neighboring property owners who live along that street, but it's not an uncommon thing for uses to transition from single-family to higher densities and then on to commercial. And that's what the applicant is proposing here today. And I'm saying it's a reasonable justification. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Reasonable enough to -- MR. BROWN: Going from single-family to multi-family to mobile home park to commercial. That's the transition. And I'm saying that's not an unreasonable request here. The lot is presently single-family. One dwelling unit per two and a quarter acres is allowed. I think the land has been sitting idle for a number of years, perhaps because of those more intensive uses to the south, being the mobile home park. This does away with the eyesore. The lot's presently overgrown, the house is deteriorating. This puts perhaps something more pleasing Page 43 August 16, 2007 to the eyes there at this location. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you indicate you wanted to speak, or you still do? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to make the comment, probably sounds a little out of joint, but I wanted to compliment the gentleman. I enjoyed reading his presentation. Well structured and it was -- thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Brown, how wide is St. Claire's right-of-way; do you know? MR. BROWN: I'm not sure now. I'll yield to transportation staff. MR. TINDALL: Good morning. For the record, Phil Tindall, transportation planning department. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I didn't catch the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How wide is the right-of-way for St. Claire? MR. TINDALL: I would have to look that up, but I can do that real quick and answer that. I don't have that off -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if you -- well, do you know the maximum number of lanes you can build St. Claire at? MR. TINDALL: To the best of my knowledge, it's just the two lanes existing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would assume then on both sides of the right-of-way it's privately owned property? MR. TINDALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You don't see a problem with 36 units here? MR. TINDALL: No, sir. Based upon the TIS, it meets the consistency test for the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifit was 520 units, would it be okay with you on St. Claire, with two lanes? Page 44 August 16, 2007 MR. TINDALL: Well, it would -- just to the significance test is the 3-3-5, based upon the data submittal. As you're aware, I'm sure, the LDC has been amended, as well as the GMP, to change the significance test to the 2-2-3. It would be generating based upon a TIS 16 peak hour directional trips. You'd have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going in a direction I didn't ask. MR. TINDALL: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this project was for 520 residential units, do you think St. Claire, as a two-lane road with the capacity that's on it currently, could take that? MR. TINDALL: Possibly not. We'd have to do obviously the calculations, but I'd say chances are no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the rest of the Estates area that's in this, if it was converted in the same manner this is being talked about, would generate a density of about that many units, based on the testimony I heard earlier about the number of acres that are there and the conversion rate. MR. TINDALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if that's the case, St. Claire Shores would probably have to be widened to accommodate, which means eminent domain for the neighbors and things like that. I just didn't know if the trend we'd be setting here today is the right trend to go forward with, based on the availability of road services, utilities and the other things that the whole area then would have a right to. So that was my question and you have answered it, thank you. MR. TINDALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Okay, Ray, do we have any pub-- I know we have public speakers. Just so the speakers know, I've got to ask that you try to limit Page 45 August 16, 2007 your discussion to five minutes. Try not to be redundant. It would be more effective if you have something new to say. Or at best in some cases if you agree with your previous speaker, just tell us you certainly agree and we'll accept that. And just so you know, we have a court reporter who's working hard to write down everything that you say, so you have to state your name and talk slow enough so she can type it. But at 10:00 we are going to take a 15-minute break so she can rest her fingers, along with Kady across the hall, who is moving cameras every five seconds. So with that, Ray, if you'll call the public speakers. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we have six registered speakers. The first one is Dr. Raymond Genick. DR. GENICK: Yes, sir, thank you. Thank you very much for letting me speak today. I appreciate this. I'm one of the residents. I live at 1011 St. Claire Shores. I'm just down a way from the property in which you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you state your name first for the record, sir. DR. GENICK: Dr. Raymond Genick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. DR. GENICK: 1011 St. Claire Shores. I've lived there for nine years. I bought this beautiful property because it is unique, as Mr. Tuff had said. It is very unique. And I don't understand this density stuff and QUS and PUQ and all these things because I'm kind of a layman in this respect, so you're going to have to bear with me with this. I did send a letter in to Mr. Willie Brown, exercising my concerns about this property. Yes, the property is overgrown. I understand the owners have some difficulty financially, maybe, but for a project like this I don't think it's financially difficult to do this project. Page 46 August 16, 2007 So the other thing is the house has been rented for a number of years, and the property hasn't really been kept up as well. But I think if they were to sell that property to a private owner, they would probably take care of it much better. On the south side, that is an access road, from what I understand, from what I checked on. It's not just to check the utilities. I don't have as much clout as our former commissioner does, but as far as I know it's an access road. When you have 36 dwellings go in there you maybe have the possibility of 72 cars on that small tiny road. It's going to present a difficult situation. Let me just talk briefly about some of my concerns. And one of them you brought up already is the seasonal flood. The gentleman doesn't live there. We have our colleagues to the east of us, Berkshire, and we get a lot of flooding from Berkshire because that wasn't done properly. Fortunately my property backs up to this turtle preserve, which I think butts up to this property also. So you may take a look at that, because nothing can be built on this turtle preserve there either, so -- traffic congestion, we also have a big runoff from Blue Skies when the flood season is in full form. Noise pollution. And the main concern is the water runoff and the noise pollution and how they're going to accommodate all of these situations. What I don't understand is that we talk about mixed use, and I tried to look for a corridor study for this area and I didn't find one. Now, maybe there's one. Maybe you can refer this to me somehow. Because we have about three new divisions, subdivisions now: Dolly Madison, Sapphire Lakes and some other rental properties that were converted into condominiums just east of Santa Barbara. So my -- to leave you with my thoughts, one of the things that I have read and did a little research on is that Collier County talks about integrity of neighborhoods. Well, this doesn't seem to me to be a good Page 47 August 16, 2007 integrity for my neighborhood. We spend a lot of time, a lot of energy preserving that area, fixing our houses up, investing in it. Our taxes go up every year. Now we've got this proposal going. I urge you to not pass it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please? MR. BELLOWS: Gary Davis. MR. DAVIS: Davis for the record, my name is Gary Davis, 179 Sand Drive, Blue Skies. Our park did not send up a petition, but I'm speaking as a resident. I'm concerned about flooding. Right now with the drainage system that exists along St. Claire, we have with a serious flooding problem from Blue Skies. We get back water, because the system cannot hold the water. We have units that have a tremendous amount of water underneath their units because of the backup, all because of inadequate drain as it is right now. So the addition of these 36 units will add to that problem. Currently that easement on the south, the county has identified that easement as property owned by Blue Skies. We recently had to spend a lot of money to upgrade that easement property, that road, in order to have access for our garbage removal and also for the county to come in and attend to their county lift station. That is an access road; the county uses it and we use it for our garbage removal. We also have a problem with the property across the street, the Turner property. That is also a two-story property. And in a mixed zoning that has a tremendous impact on our property. They have a security lighting system that's at the extreme height of their property, or their buildings, that floods into our mobile home park and creates serious problems for residents that are bothered by that lighting system. I'm concerned with additional two-story property along that Page 48 August 16, 2007 southern easement would add to that problem if they put a lighting and security system in there. And as the gentleman that preceded me indicated, that that access road would probably be an access road used by the residents there. I'd like to have that easement identified as to who, number one, granted the easement to the county. Was it the property of the petitioners or was it the Blue Skies or the mobile home park south of us, Summer Acres? So I'm concerned about the drainage as it is right now. The drainage along St. Claire Road is the only system that moves water to the canal, and that isn't properly maintained by the county. When we have a flooding system, it backs up right into our pond. And it -- and that fills up and it backs into our streets and our homes. So I'm of the opinion that the addition of this 36 units will add to that problem. As it is, we have a high density there right now. With Blue Skies we have 197 units on 14 acres. And just west of us, we have South Wind, and then east of us we have Endless Summer. So it is a high density area right now on existing acreage. And this is going to add to that. It's going to affect the water table, it's going to affect the drainage, and it might affect the problems that we have with lighting that exist there. And I'm concerned about the access road and the impact that that might have on the new construction in that proposal. So as one resident, I would not support that proposal. I think the addition of that number of units in that area already with a high density of population is only going to add to the problem. So thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Michael Lentovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can use either podium, too. Page 49 August 16, 2007 MR. LENTOVICH: My name is Michael Lentovich. I live at 1270 St. Claire Shores. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your last name? I know she probably -- MR. LENTOVICH: L-E-N-T-O-V-I-C-H. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that speaker you may have to bring a little closer. Doesn't sound like it -- MR. LENTOVICH: Okay, is that working? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is that one turned on? Here comes the fellow now. There we go. MR. LENTOVICH: Okay, Mike Lentovich, 1270 St. Claire Shores. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, IT. MR. LENTOVICH: We've lived there for 19 years, and we bought the property for what it is, not what these people are trying to make it into. Across the street from me at 1270 St. Claire Shores, there's five to seven vacant acres right now. If that happens down there, what's going to stop the people from wanting to do the same thing right across the street from me? On San Marcos there's vacant land. The same thing would be trying to happen over there that they're trying to do at the beginning of the street. And I can't understand, I agree with Mr. Tuff, why would we need to change our neighborhood to accommodate this, for what purpose, other than maybe their own financial gain? It's going to do nothing for us. Now, to the flooding, I don't know the size of their new structure and parking area, but I was just taking a wild guess. The current property probably -- housing probably covers 3,500 square feet, the house and the substructure, their guest house. By the time they get Page 50 August 16, 2007 done, I imagine they'll be covering 30 to 50,000, maybe even more square feet with bigger buildings and parking areas that's going to allow a lot less percolation. So they're going to cut off their own drainage, going to put in a tiny lake. There's a trailer park, it's on the -- would be on the west side of St. Claire Shores Road. When this area floods, these people pump their lake into the ditch on St. Claire Shores Road, adding to our flooding, but they're trying to get rid of their water, which I understand. Now, if they're talking about it's a financial thing, they could raze the house and let it go back to natural woodlands. I don't think anybody would have a problem with that, if they want to save it like they were talking about their future retirement plans. I don't think they are. Well, that's pretty much what they could do if they really wanted to do something. This has already been discussed. They could turn it into four and probably a third -- four two and a third-acre lots. They could build a house on each one with a guest house if they chose to do so, and they could sell that. And that would conform to what is already there. Other than that, I don't think I really have much more to say at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. And Ray, before you call another speaker, we're going to take our break now so we make sure we have time. So we'll be back here at 10:15 to resume. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, if you'll please resume your seats, we can continue with the meeting. And Ray, we were working with our public speakers. Can you call the next speaker, please. Page 51 August 16, 2007 MR. BELLOWS: Bill Clark. MR. CLARK: Yeah, my name is Bill Clark, and I live on St. Claire Shores Road, 1440 St. Claire Shores Road, and I've been there 30 years. And we love our area, because that's what it is, it's an acre and a quarter, two and a half acres, five-acre tracts. And there's some really, really nice houses on there. There are some that are rundown, too, that aren't taken care of, but there's some very nice homes on there that people spend a lot of money on, nice landscaping and all that kind of stuff. I don't know of anybody really in there in that area right there that really wants this. We all like it the way it is. I know it's kind of unique, because we've got -- everything's built up around us. But that's the way we bought in there and that's the way we want to keep it. It is a very small road. It would be very hard to make it bigger. And as the problem is right now getting out onto Radio Road is a problem just for the people that are there. They tried on San Marcos there in the same development I'd say back four, five years ago, a church tried to come in there on a five-acre piece, and they tried to get it rezoned for the church. And this board here turned it down. And then also the Collier County Commissioners turned that down because of the impact that it would make, the church traffic and so on, so forth back in there. There's a lot of children stop up around in the South Winds trailer park on San Marcos there, and I think this would really have a bad impact on the traffic and so on, so forth in there. We have like the only one way in, and one way out now pretty much. The street down at the end of the road on San Claire's is dirt road. It's not even paved. And I think it would -- the traffic would really be bad there. And it would have to be an awful lot of improvements and so on, so forth. Page 52 August 16, 2007 The point I wanted to make, Mr. Hancock had said that Clark's Nursery has 12 and a half acres of commercial nursery. Well, that's not actually the fact. The fact is that we have five acres of nursery, not 12 and a half. And we've been there when it was agriculture; that whole area used to be agriculture there. And when it was changed over to Estates, we were grandfathered in. And we were grandfathered in there not to expand. So we do own more property in there, but we're not working off anything but the five acres. So I just wanted to, you know, clarify that. That's pretty much the point I wanted to make. And I thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Helen Clark. MS. CLARK: I didn't sign up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Clark said she-- MS. CLARK: I just agree with him what he said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, the only way you can speak is from the microphone, because it has to be recorded. I'm sorry. MS. CLARK: My name is Helen Clark and I'm Mr. Clark's wife, at 1440 St. Claire Shores Road. And the only thing my husband didn't say is getting out on Radio Road is a problem now. And with 76 more cars, two cars per family, whatever, it would be even worse. And you can't put a light there. They tried to put one in front of Foxfire a few years ago. That didn't work out. And I'm sure it wouldn't work out on St. Claire Shores Road either. Otherwise, I just agree with him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Linda Matthews. MS. MATTHEWS: My name is Linda Matthews, and I live at 2 Tina lane, and I'm representing Endless Summer RV Park. Page 53 August 16, 2007 And I agree with all the speakers today. We are concerned about the property of Endless Summer. We have called the county on the back road in the drainage back there. They said they didn't have anything to do with that. We have a serious flooding problem in the rainy season. We get like two and a half foot of water on our property. We have put in-- BJ Excavating put in a drainage system, but when the canal gets full, it's got no place to go. And we're also concerned on them tying into our lift station. Our lift station is approximately in the center of our park, and if -- we were wondering why they would want to come into -- way into our park and tie into our lift station. And like I said, I agree with all the other speakers, it's not a good idea. And that's about all I have to say today. My company is out of Michigan, and I am representing my boss, Mr. Perlman, and trying to find out what's going to happen to our property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, ma'am. Ray, do we have any other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Hancock, would you like a short closing statement? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And I understand short being the operative word there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: The easement between Blue Skies and Endless Summer and the subject property was granted to Collier County by the Modesitts at the county's request. The maintenance of that easement either belongs to the county or because Blue Skies uses it for trash pickup, there's been questions between the county and Blue Skies as to who's responsible for maintaining it. The point being, it's recognized on our survey, it's not within the Page 54 August 16, 2007 development envelope, and if the county's failing to maintain it or they have a requirement of Blue Skies to maintain it, we don't have a dog in that fight. But that easement was granted to the county by the property owners. There are no other parcels in our situation on St. Claire Shores Road. And that's I think something that's very important here. We talk about the fear of the unknown. If you allow this, then certainly you have to allow something else that's similar. There's only one other property that borders a mobile home park on one side and Estates on the other, and it's across the street, Mr. Turner's, as far as being on St. Claire Shores Road. I don't know about Mr. Turner's light. I do understand he had burglaries at his home while he was working on it and he put a security system in. I know that much. Beyond that, again, I encourage them to call code enforcement at the county and address it. If this project is constructed, it will be limited to street lights at 25 foot height which have glare requirements per the LDC. So again, I don't think that would be exacerbated. This is a 10-acre pocket development. You come around a corner, come between two mobile home parks. And to come against new construction of multi-family and single-family on one or two cul-de-sac roads, to infer that that has a devaluation of properties on the balance of the street, I don't see any supporting evidence to that effect. But I do want to ask, as this board considers this petition, the folks down the road that have their two and a half or five acres are not next to a mobile home park. It's easy to look at the Shindehetts and the Modesitts and say hey, tough luck, sorry about that, you know, just leave it as is. But the reality is that Endless Summer RV Park has a transient element to it. Those are owned by a corporation. We don't know what's going to go on over there either. But the density is 14.7 units an acre, and it's troublesome if you try and look at someone Page 55 August 16, 2007 building a high-end single-family large lot home next to that particular development. It's problematic. It's a devaluation. I honestly -- because the aerials were not complete, I can't tell you whether that was there prior to '68 when the Modesitts bought the property or after. I've looked and I can't find aerials to confirm it one way or the other. They're very close in when they were established. But this is a unique parcel, and I believe our request recognizes that and does not necessarily set a precedent that a piece that is in the Estates zoning with homes on both sides of it, single family, could use this as a springboard to do much the same thing. And with that, sir, I'll answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is this project going to do anything towards affordable housing in this county? MR. HANCOCK: Like clockwork, Mr. Midney, what -- I've spoken with the applicant. They are willing to commit at the time of development toward the affordable housing trust fund of $1,000 per unit. We'd like to see that any payment of that be tied to either an approved plat or an approved site development plan approval and be a credit towards any type of affordable housing mitigation or impact fees that may be in place at the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tim, thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, Ray, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion from any member of the Planning Commission? Well, there has to be. Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes, I move for denial, based on number seven of the staffs finding of compatibility for Petition Page 56 August 16, 2007 RZ-2006-AR-9572. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second to the motion of recommendation of a denial? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second made by Ms. Caron. Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I will certainly provide some input. I will support the motion for denial based on the following: First of all, I object to staffs legal considerations and findings. Number two, under the rezone findings, Article 2 -- Section two, the existing land use pattern; I find it incompatible with the existing land use pattern. Number five, whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary: I have not heard any testimony that would indicate it does. In fact, I've heard testimony that the hardship may be self-imposed by the manner in which the property is taken care of. Number six, whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood: I think it will, based on traffic and the precedent that it's setting for the rest of the neighborhood. Number seven, whether the proposed change would create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety: I think the increased density and the precedent that will set on the neighborhood is incompatible and therefore will have negative traffic impacts. Number 13, whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning: I have Page 57 August 16, 2007 not heard any testimony that says it can't be. It may be a hardship if they believe that they can't sell the property for a value that they feel it's worth, but I think the property could easily be sold. A buffer could be adequately placed along the southern property line and that would make the property more valuable. Number 14, whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county: I think it certainly is out of scale with the Estates neighborhood. I think pockets of Estates, just like the Pine Ridge subdivision we have in North Naples, are something that we need intermixed with high density places in this county. Good planning shouldn't have high density from wall-to-wall across the urban area of the county. So I think we should have Estates zoning intermixed. Number 16, the physical characteristics of the property and the degree of the site alterations which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under proposed zoning classification: I think the intensity of this use will increase the impervious area and thus will increase the drainage potential for the -- drainage problems for the area. I think with the LDC compatible definitions and the compatibility review definition that it's inconsistent, that's inconsistent with 1.04.05 of the LDC, that inconsistent with our code oflaw, Section 2-105.1, Section 106-32, Section 106-34. And lastly, that it's inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element Policy 5.4. And those are my short list of reasons why I am not in favor of -- why I am in favor of the motion and not in favor of the project. Anybody else have any discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to thank the Chairman for having stayed with the short list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, other discussion? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, just one other thing I'd like Page 58 August 16, 2007 to add. One of the points made in favor of the development was that not approving this would cause there to be increased urban sprawl elsewhere. And I can't accept that argument, because the sprawl may occur anyway. There's nothing -- whether this is done or not done, which will increase or decrease sprawl that, you know, people may be attempted to plan in other places. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, actually it's interesting that Mr. Midney brought that up. I was going to make that comment as well. I'm a little tired of hearing that projects should happen to avoid sprawl in this county. We've already seen that sprawl is happening. So unless we are now going to require anybody who wants to make changes like this to buy a comparable amount of land and donate it to the county so that we avoid sprawl somewhere else, then it just is beyond credible to say that adding density here will stop sprawl somewhere else. It just defies any logic as to what we've seen happen. That's a planning -- it's planning gobbledygook is all that amounts to. I think this project is just -- it will definitely influence the conditions in that neighborhood. It is incremental. Once this property converts, it will happen down the line. And that's not a good thing. This is a wonderful little pocket of Estates zoning, and we should treasure it and keep it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll call for a vote. All those in favor of the motion that recommends denial, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 59 August 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven. Okay, all those against the motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One. Motion carries 7-1 for recommendation of denial. Thank you. Item #9 OLD BUSINESS Next item on the agenda is the old business. I don't have anything on here. Item #10A NEW BUSINESS - CONTINUED Our new business has been continued until some time in the future. Public comment, it looks like everyone's leaving. Discussion of the agenda, nothing. I wish to remind the panel, please, we have to be back here at 1:00. If you haven't checked your e-mail from Tuesday night or Wednesday, please look at it, because there are a series of revisions. If we have enough time now that you could look at those so we could be finished after the 1 :00 with most of those issues today. With that, I'll take a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. Page 60 August 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made. We are adjourned. Thank you. ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:32 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 61