Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/04/2007 R October 4, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida October 4,2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Page 1 AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2007, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE 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 PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPOI' 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 - AUGUST 16,2007, REGULAR MEETING; AUGUST 16,2007, LDC MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 11-12, COMMUNITY RE-DEV. AGENCY BOARD MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-9577, Page VI, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a PUD Rezone for the Della Rosa RPUD. The rezoning request is to rezone from A (Agriculture) zoning district to the RPUD (Residential Planned Unit Development) zoning district. The proposed RPUD is located within the Urban Mixed Use District which allows for a base residential density of 4 units an acre and the Growth Management Plan (GMP) infill provision allows for a maximum of 3 additional units an acre. The RPUD meets those requirements and is requesting a density of up to 7 units an acre, for a total maximum of 107 residential dwelling units. The subject property, consisting of 15.38 acres, is located on the east side of Livingston Road, approximately 2 miles north of Immokalee Rd, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) CONTINUED FROM 9/20/07 1 B. Petition: VA-2007-AR-II778, Gene Silguero ofGMC Home Builders, representing himself, is requesting an after-the-fact Variance from the minimum 25-foot front yard setback requirement for the Residential MuItifamily-6 (RMF-6) Zoning District as provided for in Section 4.02.0I.A. Table 2.1 of the Land Development Code. The 0.34010 acre site contains a single-family dwelling that is currently under construction and has a 23.6-foot front yard setback. The subject property is a corner lot located at 505 Madison Avenue, northwest of the intersection with Glades Street, New Market Subdivision, Lot 6, Block 19, Section 33, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) C. Petition: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9374, Gulf Coast Development Group, LC, represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RW A, Inc., requesting a PUD to PUD Rezone Amendment for project known as the Naples Reserve Golf Club RPUD. The petitioner proposes to add 602 residential units to the existing PUD, and eliminate the commercial acreage and 18 holes of the 36 hole golf course. The subject property, consisting of 688 acres, is located one mile north of US 41 and I II2 miles east of CR 95] at 10097 Greenway Road, in Section I, Township 5 I South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) CONTINUED TO 1011 8/07 D. Petition: PUDA-2006-AR-10333, Stock Development LLC, represented by Richard D.Yovanovich of GoodIette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., is requesting an amendment to the Lery, A Resort Community PUD to affect Phase 1 Tract 4 only. The amendment proposes to amend Section 2.07 entitled "Permitted Variations of Dwelling Units" to change variation standards and section 5.02 entitled "Permitted Uses and Structures" to allow mixed-use development as a permitted use on the C-2 parcel fronting U.S. 41; amending Exhibit "H", the PUD Master Plan; and providing an effective date. The subject property is located at the intersection of Triangle Boulevard and Tamiami Trail (US 41), Section 34, Township 50, Range 26, Naples, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS I I. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN t 0/4/07 CCPC AgendaIRB/sp 2 October 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the October 4th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) I tern #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And if our secretary would do the roll call, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? 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: Thank you. Page 2 October 4, 2007 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Okay, addenda to the agenda. Typically on the first meeting in October we hold our elections of officers, so if there's no objection, I'd like to add that under new business. Item 10-A for today's meeting. On regular scheduled items, Petition PUDZA-2006-AR-9374, Gulf Coast Development Group, LC, and it's the Naples Reserve Golf Club RPUD, was requested to be continued to 10/18/07. I don't know if it's date certain, but that's the notice I had received. Ray, is that -- do we continue to that day, or do you just want to leave it continued? MR. BELLOWS: My understanding, that 10/18 is the date the petitioner has requested, and the staff can make that date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, those are two suggested changes to the agenda. Are there any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to recommend approval as suggested? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Tuff. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 3 October 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. We have a very, very busy two-month schedule coming up. And I'll try to give you as much of the information as I can just as a background. On October 15th and 16th we have the AUIR meetings that have been scheduled. I've got confirmation from the Productivity Committee; they have no objection that we hold the meetings over at the Developmental Services Building. And Ray, I think you need to make sure that's reflected on all the notices that go out that we'll be holding the meeting over there. But that's on the 15th and 16th of October, which would be our next meeting. Is anybody knowing they're not going to be here for either of those dates? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My clinic schedule is going to make that very hard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, sir. Okay. Other than Mr. Midney, does anybody else know for sure they wouldn't be here? So at least -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: I won't be able to make that. If that's a Tuesday, I don't think I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff, you need your speaker when you talk. COMMISSIONER TUFF: That Tuesday I don't believe I'll be Page 4 October 4, 2007 able to make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And our next regular meeting is the 18th of October. I'm assuming we'll have a quorum for that. On Friday, the 26th and on Monday, the 29th, we have two dates blocked in for a continuation for the AUIR, if it's needed by those dates. So that covers us for the month of October. In November we have our first meeting on the 1st of November, and we have scheduled a special meeting of the Cocohatchee Bert Harris issue that was remanded to us on the 14th of November. We have our regular meeting on the 15th of November. And on the 28th of November we have our LDC Cycle 2 meeting in the evening in this particular room at 5:05. Now, Ray, on the 15th of November we have seven currently scheduled projects to our regular hearings. And then we have a bundle of Growth Management Plan adoption hearing amendments that are going to be time consuming. There's quite a few of them. I had e-mailed you and you had sent me those agendas, and what I'd like to do is have staff consider a morning somewhere in November that would work, and it need not be Thanksgiving week because you'll end up losing a lot of people during that week. But any of those other times that works for a morning meeting to finish up the GMP adoption. I think we can get it done in the morning. But I think if you leave it on the 15th with the seven already scheduled events, we may end up running a half day over there anyway. So why don't we just reschedule the GMP for a separate day so staff isn't sitting here all day. If you could take a look at that and let us know that, I'd appreciate it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I'll coordinate with David Weeks and Randy Cohen on the GMP schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that will get us through Page 5 October 4, 2007 October and November. There's quite a bit coming up for meetings in those months, everybody knows. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 16,2007 REGULAR MEETING; AUGUST 16,2007 SPECIAL LDC MEETING Okay, next item is the approval of the minutes. We had two sets mailed to us. August 16th regular meeting and August 16th LDC meeting. They happened kind of simultaneously, but we got both packages for the same day. Is there a motion to approve the first set of the August 16th regular meeting? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll make a motion to approve, but I want to make one correction first. On Page 7, Mr. Schmitt it says was talking about "Arthur X", and it actually should be Arthrex. A-R-T-H-R-E-X. It's a company name. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that correction, you made a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 6 October 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We have the August 16th LDC meeting. Is there a motion to approve that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. BCC report and recaps. Ray? Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the board at its last meeting heard the conditional use for the earth mining operation. That was approved 4-0. And there was also a requirement to bring it back in six months. Page 7 October 4, 2007 I don't know, Melissa, do you want to provide a little more detail? There was unusual stipulations to that one. I just want to make sure she -- MS. ZONE: Good morning. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. The board approved the earth mining excavation with blasting for Jones Mine, but there was a caveat to bring it back within six months to ensure that the residents could set up the independent advisory counsel, hire an engineer to research if there was or the potential for any type of damage to the structures out there, and in case there might be any noise disturbance and to bring it back in six months. And part of it was also because the earth mining operation, when it came back this time, staff had put on as a condition of approval, which all of you had reviewed and approved, was that the board could -- the Board of Zoning Appeals could rescind the conditional use if there are impacts to the neighbors, the environment, stormwater and such. And so the board felt let's move forward, because as it stood they didn't have that added protection to the residents. And by improving this, they can rescind it if there is impacts. And so they're moving forward. From what I'm told, that we're not -- staffs not involved. But the residents are working with Jones Mine to set it up to hire an independent engineer, and we'll be bringing it back to them. I believe the date is April 8th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm not mistaken, the way this was structured, the applicant had come in for a second conditional use on the new part of the mine -- MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the way the BCC structured the six-month review was even to go back and retroactively look at the first conditional use, and ifthere's any problems with either one, then they could reassess the position of those two; is that correct? MS. ZONE: No, actually, what we did was we rescinded both Page 8 October 4, 2007 conditional uses that are on there, which took the '99 conditional use and the 2000 conditional use. We rescinded it and then put this new conditional use which supersedes everything. All the conditions that were in the last two conditions of approval were incorporated into the current one. But because this 2007 approval gives more authority to rescind it. So the other two are not out there. So they're really at a risk if something happens. Because had they not rescinded it -- and that was one of staffs recommendations, that it would just be a mining operation without blasting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the net result is both conditional uses now are combined into a new one that is at jeopardy for the overall operation, not just the one that they had come in for originally, correct? MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: The board also approved the PUD extension for the Colonnades at Santa Barbara, and that was approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman's Report. I have one point of business of good news, and I want to congratulate Commissioner Kolflat, Commissioner Murray and Commissioner Vigliotti for their re-appointment for four years. This commission has made a good team, and I'm pleased to see that the BCC decided to let us stay together. So that was good news for all of us. Thank you. By the way, the longevity pay increase kicks in. Page 9 October 4, 2007 So okay, advertised public hearings. By the way, members of the public that wish to speak on any of these items that will be coming up, there's little slips in the hallway, you just need to fill them out and hand it to that fellow right over there. And that way you get your chance to speak. Item #8A PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR-9577 First petition is PUDZ-2006-AR-9577, Page VI LLC; the Della Rosa RPUD. All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I discussed this with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a discussion with Melissa Zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I discussed this briefly with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff, no one wanted to talk to you? Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke briefly with Mr. Y ovanovich. Page 10 October 4, 2007 I think also in the past, and I don't really remember whether it had to do with this petition or not, I spoke to Nicole Ryan of The Conservancy on the whole issue of stormwater and preserves. And I had e-mailed staff with some questions which I copied the petitioner's agent on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my conversations were with Mr. Y ovanovich as well. We discussed the internal aspects of the project, the TDR request, the density, items like that. And I guess that's all. Mr. Y ovanovich, it's all yours. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. Tim Hancock's on his way, so he'll be here as well to answer any questions. And I have Paul Page and Pete Page are both here as well, who are principals in the entity that is doing the development. I've put on the visualizer an aerial that depicts the location of the property, as well as, you know, property owners around us. And I'll refer to that on a couple of occasions and most notably when talking about the interconnection that transportation staff is recommending to the north of the property. As you can see from the visualizer, the property is about 15.38 acres, and it's located on Livingston Road north ofImmokalee Road, and just south of what will be east-west Livingston Road. Part of that east-west Livingston Road is built, as you can see both in the east and west direction. One leads to an elementary school and the other I believe provides access to some maintenance facilities in Mediterra, I believe. Page 11 October 4, 2007 The property is designated urban residential under the comprehensive plan for Collier County . We are requesting seven units per acre for a total of 107 units. And that's calculated as, you know, the request for the base density of four units per acre because we're designated urban and three bonus units for residential infill because the property is less than 20 acres. As you all know, under the urban residential infill provisions, one of the three units must be accomplished by the acquisition ofTDRs, so the residential infill provisions do help implement the rural fringe mixed use district provisions that establish sending lands. It's supposed to be one of the receivers of the sending lands so there would be a market for people to buy sending lands. So we will be fulfilling one of those comprehensive plan goals through this project. The project is only 107 units. Through the trip generation report reviewed by your transportation department we will not be degrading the transportation system below its adopted level of service, so we're consistent with that element of the comprehensive plan. There was a request that this project interconnect with the properties to the north. I want to put the master plan on the visualizer. As you know, I'm not very good with directions, so I hope I got that facing north. That was luck. This is going to be -- it's an infill project. It's basically a condominium project for the number of units. We have a residential tract, as you can see, and that comprises approximately seven acres, just our track. And then we have our roadway system, our preserve area and our lake system. The roadway system is intended to be the typical roadway driveway system that you find in a condominium development. So it's really designed for the service of the units within our project. We're being asked to interconnect to property to the north to allow public traffic basically to come through our project. And I don't really understand the reason for that, because those properties, as I Page 12 October 4, 2007 move away, have access to public roads already. And the three properties to the north, there are three small parcels. The one to the west and then basically at the intersection is zoned C-1, I believe. And the other two parcels that front east-west Livingston Road don't have any zoning other than agricultural right now. And then there's about a seven-acre parcel that I believe is the Catalano parcel that has access on Livingston Road. So we believe that those properties already have access. And keeping in mind the constraints that we have in that we're developing a condominium project, it really doesn't make sense to force that public traffic onto our basic private driveways. I was told that Rich, what happens if somebody comes in and assembles the Catalano parcel with the existing C-I parcel and the two other agricultural parcels and change the comprehensive plan and now there's a commercial development there? We don't really want your project to go out on Livingston Road and then to access that commercial project. That made sense to me. We don't mind a stipulation that basically says if that happens and we have adjacent commercial to us, we'll go ahead and put in a gate or whatever access we want to allow our project to have access to that commercial development. We just want to be able to control access through our project. And we can accommodate that request, and that request makes sense to us. So if we have to do an interconnection we'd like it to be limited to if that property is developed as commercial to the north of us, we need to have interconnection for our project with the commercial. So we don't have any objections to that type of an interconnection. The EAC heard this petition many, many, many months ago, and they recommended approval. I believe that was unanimous. Your staff is recommending approval, other than the condition that we fully interconnect to the north. We can agree with the staff request requesting that the Planning Commission forward the petition to the Page 13 October 4, 2007 Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. One other thing that came up in my meetings with Mr. Strain regarding our development services -- our development table. When we talked about setbacks, I believe it was, it was tied to building height, and this was one of the few petitions that we remembered to put in both zoned building height and actual building height. The distance needs to be measured from the zoned building height, so I think we need to make that clarification on the table for that development standard. And with that, that's the brief overview of the petition. We're available to answer any questions you may have regarding the petition in front of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions of the Planning Commission of Mr. Y ovanovich? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's also on the building. Rich, you note that the side yard is going to be one-half the building height; is that right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Normally that's one-half the combined building height. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is I believe usually a building separation standard. The actual -- I believe what you're referring to is a property line standard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, this is only applied if you subdivided the buildings. In other words, you probably won't have platted lots between these multi-family buildings anyway, so you really -- you should, don't you agree, have a separation requirement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I wish Tim were here. I know, I'm looking. Let me ask my client what the distance between structures are. That's your question, right, what we anticipate being the distance Page 14 October 4,2007 between structures? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, my client says the typical building of one-half the sum of the building heights using the zoned building height will be okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then would you mind, you know how I like to put in there the greater than 20 feet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I think if they talked to an architect on types of building, types of sprinkler systems, they'd be glad to have it not exactly 20 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I understand that. It's got to be, what, 20.01 feet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just not 20. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- down there you have minimum floor area. Isn't that the minimum unit floor area? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Do you want to add the word unit, is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think so, because you wouldn't be building buildings that small. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, your first statement indicates that the height of the building will be 50 feet. At the end of it, it comes up with 69 feet, which I think is a little bit ridiculous. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is to the tippy top of the roof-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- and the tippy top of the -- what we're doing is because of the preserve area that we have, we are trying to Page 15 October 4,2007 minimize our impact to the site, so we're putting parking underneath the building. So in putting the parking underneath the building we're asking for the 50-foot zoned height. And then by the time we design these things to look nice and we have our elevator shafts that come above the roof, we're asking for the tippy top -- worst case scenario of the building to be 64 feet. And I think that's been pretty typical for a height for basically a 50-foot zoned height building. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You couldn't live with 60 feet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Come on up, Pete. I'll ask the client ifthere's other questions while they're coming up and thinking about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is your client sworn in? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know. Were you sworn in? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. PAGE: The way this building is designed is to put parking underneath the building. So we lose about 10 feet of building height, basically, by doing that. And at the same time, rather than having flat roofs, we have designed gable roofs, again to make it more attractive. And it's a 50-year roof. And with heights of your elevators, there's just no way of bringing it down any further. You could, but it's going to look awful squatty. That would be the only way I could describe it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You mean that it can't be done at 60 feet? MR. PAGE: Well, you could if you want to-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We're talking about-- MR. PAGE: -- put a flat roof on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can only talk one at a time, so one of you has to wait for the other. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. Page 16 October 4, 2007 MR. PAGE: If you put a flat roof on there you can, but it just takes away from the core and the beautification of the building. You could tell the difference in maybe an 8-12 pitch down to a 4-12 pitch. It just looks very squatty. And that's all it is is roof. You got about 10 foot of roof. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is the 69 feet of actual height inclusive of the underground parking? MR. PAGE: I believe it includes it. MR. YOV ANOVlCH: It is from the ground to the tippy top of the roof. To the tippy top of the tallest point in our building. COMMISSIONER CARON: The preserve areas that you intend to use for water management, how does that get monitored? There's a clause in the PUD that says there shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained. Who monitors that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's going to be your Collier County enforcement people, whether it's going to be through the environmental department or -- I don't know who the code enforcement people from the county are. Obviously we design the system, we go through the permitting process. We have to show that preliminarily that it's not going to adversely impact the plantings in there. If there is an adverse impact after staff comes out, we're going to have to address those situations. COMMISSIONER CARON: The setbacks that are proposed in this PUD, are any of them above minimums? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Minimums for? COMMISSIONER CARON: Are any of them greater than minimums for the county? I mean, we have some basic minimums for landscaping and we have basic minimums for setbacks in this county. Do any of yours go beyond the minimum? Your preserve area, for example, is the minimum that we require, correct? Page 17 October 4, 2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The setbacks are your typical setbacks that you've probably approved. COMMISSIONER CARON: What about the landscaping? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The landscaping is the code-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Is the code. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- requirement. And again, that's what's in the PUD document. That doesn't always reflect what's actually built, but that's in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I note in there that there's a playground going to get built. I also note in there that the intent of the program is to build 107 units for predominantly people who are going to come here several months of the year. So who is the playground being built for? Is that a requirement that was put upon you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, that was a requirement that is put upon every project now that comes through. Regardless of who we intend to market to, we're required to have a playground for children that may show up, and I guess grandchildren who are visiting and things like that. So we're required to have a little playground area for children that may be in a unit at any given time. I guess it's to supplement the county's community park program. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a question I would next have would be that's then included in the county's calculations for community parks? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe so. We have to pay our community park impact fees, and I think that's just in addition to, we're going to have our area, and tot lot's not the right word, but a Page 18 October 4, 2007 playground area for children, and that's in addition to our paying our impact fees for the community park system. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, let's talk about the parking then next. We have parking that you have underground, but you also have a lot of other parking spaces. Some of the units, the way I understood it, would not have a garage, they would simply have outdoor parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a minute, before we go too far. Maybe we don't have everything on the record. I don't have any document that shows a parking layout. Did you provide one to somebody? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I have mine from reading and understanding the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, do you have something showing additional spaces? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'm just talking about what I've read and understood from here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was looking for additional -- I didn't see a site plan. I was looking for one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No site plan, that's what -- but the verbiage tells me some things about the parking. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Every unit will have one parking space beneath the building. And then the other half of space will be surface parking. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that parking is intended for what, visitors? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's intended to serve each unit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So there will be parking. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, now those -- there's not covered parking in any way? That's covered -- why don't you go Page 19 October 4,2007 ahead and explain what that is. If we're going to -- here's my point: If we're going to serve people who are here three to five months a year, deterioration is a very rapid condition in this environment. And in the absence of people and probably a very poor organization ultimately because you won't have anybody here watching over it, you're going to have a potential for what you want to have a little pretty place start to degrade. And I want to understand that it's going to look well. So please tell us about the parking. MR. PAGE: Well, your basic underground parking is somewhere in the neighborhood of 29 or 30 units per building. That gives you one parking space per each unit. And then you have 10 approximately for guests, et cetera, et cetera. And there are a few outside other than the underground parking. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Tell us about the few, because I didn't calculate them out. There's more than a few. MR. PAGE: Well, between a building you could have two, three extra spaces for outside parking. And I think while Tim is here, now Tim can really explain that a little bit deeper in detail, since he's developed the exterior plan. But we do have more than enough parking under space, so again, that will take care of your problem. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Commissioners. Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering. We're fortunate that this project is currently in for site development plan review, so we can discuss with you details that are existing on that plan and under review by the county at this time, so we're not looking out into the future and talking about maybes and wanna-be's. For each building the -- there is one space per unit plus I believe four extra spaces under each building to accommodate that building by itself. The balance of the spaces we're requesting are out on the Page 20 October 4,2007 balance of the site to meet the parking demand. The parking demand for this site is not just generated by the units themselves. We have a fairly significant parking demand that is generated by the clubhouse, by the outdoor swimming pool, and those spaces also are spread throughout the site with a handicap and a few more spaces being focused right next to the clubhouse. So of the total number of spaces, if you will, ifthere's 107 units, there's approximately 125 to 130 of those spaces that are under the building with the balance of that being on the rest of the site. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: All right. What is the width of the streets, please? MR. HANCOCK: The width of the streets is a 24-foot cross-section of pavement, including valley gutter on both sides. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Going back to the issue that Commissioner Caron raised having to do with I think it's Objective 6.2 here, the county shall protect and conserve wetlands in the natural functions of wetlands, you intend to take whatever water is going to be excess and throw it into that area there; am I correct in that, into the preserve? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. Actually, this site historically has shed water, even though there's a wetland on-site. There's two categories of property. You're either property that kind of discharges water off-site or has received water and retained it. Even though there's a wetland on-site, this one has historically sent more water off-site than accepted it. But our preserve as proposed in the PUD has a minimum of2.3 acres. The SDP I just referred to has 3.2 acres of wetland on the site, well in excess of what's required. Weare handling all of our stormwater management, both quality and quantity, within the lake discharging into the preserve and from the preserve it will take a historic flow to the south. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I don't have a clear recollection, Page 21 October 4, 2007 unfortunately, of whether or not we finally concluded whether that's an appropriate act. I know it was done by policy, but I don't have a recollection. I know that was an amendment issue that was raised. MR. HANCOCK: It is still being discussed, Councilman Murray, and the bottom line is that we're not using the preserve for stormwater quality. We're not discharging into it to achieve quality. We're handling all of the quality in the lake. As a matter of fact, the South Florida Water Management District is now holding all projects to an additional water quality standard. Where for example you may have had to do one inch over the entire site in the past, you now have to do an inch and a half. It's a 50 percent additional pretreatment quality that the district is holding all projects to, and this project as designed meets that pretreatment requirement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, that's important to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Mr. Midney, Mr. Kolflat, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. I see that this has a lot of positive things going for it: The use of the TDR credits, the six acres of off-site mitigation, the contributions to the affordable housing trust fund. But as I read this application, I was just wondering, the site is 15 acres; 12 out of the 15 acres, or 80 percent, is wetlands. I'm wondering if the highest and best use of a piece of property that is 80 percent wetlands would be to construct a housing development. Could you please justifY that for me, why is that the highest and best use of this land? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, highest and best use is usually referred to in economic terms. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, let's say the best use. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The best use? Page 22 October 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's also -- it's a subjective term. I mean, we're going through the environmental permitting process that we have to go through. And preserving the appropriate amount of wetland for this site you have to go through a minimization determination before you can get your permits. So we're going through that process, and that process has resulted in the preservation requirements that Tim has just mentioned, which is above and beyond the county's requirements, and an appropriate mitigation for impacts to wetlands. And you don't see too many projects in the urban area that don't have impact to wetlands. And all the easy parcels are gone. The tougher parcels are what's left. An alternative use, which would basically render the property valueless to the owner, would be to put this in a conservation use. And I don't think that that is what's called for under the county's comprehensive plan, rules and regulations, nor the environmental permitting rules and regulations that are in existence today. So there's a balancing that occurs, as you know, when you're doing with wetland impacts. You know, preservation is really not a viable financial alternative to the property owner. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I understand that. And I know that it's a balancing and there's a lot of factors involved. But it just seems to me to take a piece that's 80 percent wetlands, it just seems a little bit over what seems sensible to me. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And you evaluate the quality of the wetlands, what function are they really providing and the location of these wetlands. The environmental agencies agreed with the impact and the mitigation we're proposing, which will result in a net benefit to preservation of wetlands in the long run. Maybe not in this specific location, but with the overall goal of preserving wetlands through the mitigation program and what we do on-site will be a net overall benefit to that situation. Page 23 October 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, the Tuscany Reserve PUD has a maximum building height of 50 feet, and the Pelican Strand PUD has a maximum building height of 35 feet. Is that the zoned height or the actual site for those two? MR. YOV ANOVICH: My guess is back when those PUDs were done, they didn't probably break that into what was zoned height or we'll call it truth in advertising height, actual height. That's probably a relatively new concept, if you can call anything within the last six years new. But those PUDs were adopted prior to our having the discussion of what was the actual building heights. So those would have been zoned building height calculations. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: They would have been zoned, you said? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Oh, did you have anymore, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to follow up a little bit on what Mr. Midney was talking about. Because this property is in a special treatment overlay. It's an ST property. And the goal here in the county is for conservation protection and preservation. Now, your contention is that because you're going to buy TDRs, that helps out in the rural area. And because you also are required to do mitigation, that helps in some way. Where does that mitigation happen? And what exactly is that mitigation? Does that mitigation just take care of lands that have already been purchased and is it just to maintain those, or is it new Page 24 October 4, 2007 property that we're going to get, new wetlands that we're going to buy? MR. HANCOCK: Historically I'd say for the last couple of years most mitigation occurred in one of two available wetland mitigation banks. And so you were basically paying for the long-term set-aside and restoration of those areas. I will tell you that those banks in some cases for freshwater wetland credits are running out of credits. And so we're finding opportunity to do more partnerships. So the exact mitigation outlet has not been determined. But I can tell you that the traditional purchase credits in Panther Island is becoming extremely expensive because they have panther credits that go along with the credits you buy from them. So for -- and we don't need panther credits on this site, so we'd be paying for something we get no benefit for. So we're going to be looking at the opportunity -- for example, Rookery Bay has a list of projects they would like to achieve, and they are willing to work with you to help achieve those projects. So I can't tell you the outlet has been actually determined. From your standpoint I believe worst case scenario would be we purchase mitigation credits in an existing mitigation bank that is within Collier County, and that would maintain long-term preservation of that mitigation area. A second or fallback would be to work with some of the other agencies such as Rookery Bay that have a list of needs to create that mitigation. COMMISSIONER CARON: Whatever mitigation happens, it would happen in Collier County? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. We are not considering any mitigation alternatives outside of the county. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Just to clarify on that, the mitigation, if you're Page 25 October 4, 2007 talking wetland mitigation, usually through the 404 process, Army Corps of Engineers, that mitigation is determined based on the applicant, based on the submittal and based on where they buy credits. Normally that's a -- that kind of detail is normally worked out during the permitting process with the Corps. I don't think for the record you can state emphatically that it will be mitigated in Collier County, unless they've already bought credits. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will be in Collier County. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what my question is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's in Collier County. If that is the question, yes, the mitigation will occur in Collier County. COMMISSIONER CARON: I had another question on the -- and this is just -- I found it odd. On the TIS, the trip generation report that we got, it says that the parcel is currently zoned for non-agricultural use. I thought this was an ago property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's weird. MR. HANCOCK: It is. I think the mistake there is that it's not an active agricultural production. But it is zoned agriculture, you're correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just to follow up on the mitigation credits. You mentioned the Rookery projects. When you say project, that sounds like they're going to be giving money to do something rather than to purchase land. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have bought credits in the Panther Island Mitigation Bank. Our client has just told us that. So that's where -- we now know exactly where the mitigation is. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, let's get into the whole Page 26 October 4, 2007 height and density issue on this particular piece of property. Because I have, as would be expected, some major concerns. The surrounding properties, for example, Mediterra, the DRI, is a huge property, and they in point of fact have a 50-foot multi-family height limit, which again can probably grow to your height limit of 69 or 70 feet. However, you're talking about a DRI -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it's not a DRI. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- as opposed to -- Mediterra is not a DRI? Oh, I thought it was because it crossed county lines. Okay. At any rate, it's a huge project that spans both sides of Livingston. I'm not sure how many acres; Melissa may be able to tell us how many acres the Mediterra PUD is. But their units per acre are .66 in that development. And I guarantee that if you drive down Livingston today, you can't see a building in that development. If you go over to Tuscany Reserve, you've got 461 acres with a density of 1.73 per acre. And again, they get that 50 feet, which can probably grow to 70, but they're not going to be looming over Livingston as the 70-foot tall buildings in this project. Because in terms of actual developable land, you're left with about seven acres here. So you're going to do a wall on Livingston of70-foot tall buildings, and it just doesn't seem to me to be compatible with what's around it. The Pelican Strand is two units an acre, a little over two units, and they're limited to 35. I believe Delasol with 100 and some odd acres, they're limited to 35 feet in height. And again, they probably have what, maybe three units to the acre? I'm not sure what Carlton Lakes is, but I bet the same is true there. Again, a very large PUD with as high or lower heights than what you're asking for on this very small -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let's address all those issues and I'll have Tim get into some of the compatibility analysis. I want to Page 27 October 4, 2007 provide some additional information that Melissa just told me. In Tuscany Reserve, that 50 feet is measured to the ceiling, okay, so -- and in answer to Mr. Kolflat's question is clearly not even zoned building height. It can be higher than that. I mean, because we would have to measure the midpoint of the roof, in Tuesday Reserve they're measuring to the ceiling. So -- and in fact, those buildings are even taller than the 50 feet we're requesting on how you would measure that from a zoned building height. The density. I think the density analysis is a little bit skewed for the reason that these parcels are all greater than 20 acres in size. They're not in-fill parcels, so they would only be eligible to ask for a maximum density of four units per acre anyhow. So you get into that Issue. And then you get into the issue of when were those projects going through the pipeline. And when they were going through the pipeline, the county's ORI threshold was 799 units to stay below the DRI analysis. So that further skews why you see these lower density projects. Now the ORI analysis is up to 1,999 units. So you probably would see if those projects were vacant land in today's world coming in with much higher densities than what went through back then. So I think that that density analysis, you know, is -- there's a reason for why there's a difference. The comprehensive plan recognized that you were going to have these smaller parcels less than 20 acres, and in order to make them economically viable for development, the base of four units per acre probably wouldn't be sufficient to make it an economically viable project. And on top of that, they added the requirement that now -- it used to be, and I refer to them as you used to get three free units as the bonus. Now you get two free, if you will, and one that you've got to go buy through the TDR program. So they've put on another regulatory hurdle for economic Page 28 October 4,2007 viability of the project. The property wouldn't lend itself to a standard single-family development, so we're with -- we're into the multi-family analysis. Tim will take you through the master plan and the setbacks to where I think we can address this concern of a wall of buildings 70 feet in height being right on top of Livingston Road. I don't think we're right on top of Livingston Road. And our neighbors will be taken care of too by the setbacks and the layout on the site plan. We're an infill site. Seven units per acre is allowed under the comprehensive plan. We're trying to put the parking underneath the building so it looks more attractive instead of it being out and having all the cars out in the open, which I don't think lends itself to an attractive upscale project. So that's driving the height as well. So that's where we are. Tim will take you through the compatibility portions, I think, which was the second half of your discussion and questions. MR. HANCOCK: Again for the record, Tim Hancock. I think it's important when we start talking about compatibility and looking at density that we recognize -- and density can be used two ways. To say that three units an acre is compatible to seven units an acre, well, I think we all have to look at how is that three units an acre built and what are the relationships between it and the seven units an acre. Depending on a combination of distance, setbacks, buffering and project design, you can either make a case for compatibility or you can make a case for incompatibility. I think the density number by itself is the beginning of the measuring stick and not the end-all be-all. As much as when it benefits us we like to use it and when it doesn't we like to avoid it. But the reality is that this project, when you look at the area to be developed here -- you see on the visualizer the subject property is Page 29 October 4, 2007 bordered in red. When we start talking about the density of the Mediterra project, I think we need to at least factor in that it is a minimum of 1,000 feet to the north with two intervening ownership parcels, one roadway, Veterans Parkway, a landscape buffer with about a three to four-foot earthen berm, a six-foot wall on top of it and mature oaks in place today. What is the actual impact, the physical impact of this project to Mediterra? The homes nearest us, over 1,000 feet away, are all internally oriented, which means that there is on the other side of that berm and buffer a roadway, the front ofa home and the rear of the homes -- and I always say we live in the rear of our homes in Florida -- the rear of the homes face north. When those residents drive down their street they're going to see a wall and a landscape buffer. The sight line, even if our buildings are at the maximum height in the PUD, will not be visible from the street inside Mediterra. The only time those folks are even going to see or be impacted by this project is on Livingston Road. I'll get to that in just a minute. The Strand to our east is 1,700 feet away. There are multiple intervening parcels, along with an FPL easement. And if you notice on the right side of this aerial, you'll see the homes in the Strand. The side of their homes face our project. Whether they're in their driveway our out by their pool or enjoying the lake behind their home, they're not looking at our project. So visually on a daily basis are we a physical impact to the Strand? No, I don't believe so. And I believe 2,000 feet or almost 2,000 feet of distance is significant and must be considered. The other thing to consider is the layout of this project. And it goes back a little bit to talking about wetlands. One of the first things we do is we look at what are the physical characteristics on the property? In this case what we saw is a predominant wetland that basically looped from the bottom left of the property to the upper Page 30 October 4, 2007 right. Well, that told us right away that first of all any developable area on this property is going to be close to Livingston Road and close to the north edge of our property, or else we're going to have to substantially impact the wetlands, more so than what we're proposing. In other words, when you look at uplands, that's all we were left. That's what we started with. We attempted to encroach as little as possible into the wetlands for obvious reasons. But that's the upland. So in addition to every other facet for development, the first thing we start with is you can only build where the uplands are initially and impact the wetlands to the least degree possible. As we look to the east, what is the impact? And again, please understand this whole area is just starting to open up. If you look south of Veterans Parkway and north of the existing development, which is just south of this aerial, it's really a blank slate with the exception of the Sandalwood project. So as you look to the east, Imperial 2,700 feet away. I don't believe we had anybody from Imperial even at our neighborhood information meeting. So again, physically is this project going to affect Imperial? No, I don't believe so. But I think to try and maybe ease some concerns about having buildings in close proximity to Livingston Road that we all will drive by every day, I think we need to look at the fact that we're talking about two buildings. As you look at the site plan, the current SDP shows five buildings. Two buildings will front Livingston Road, three buildings will be oriented, if you will, long ways east to west. So it's an L-shape. You've got two buildings fronting Livingston and three across the top. The buildings on Livingston between the front of that building and Livingston roadway -- Livingston is a fairly wide right-of-way. Very wide, in fact. As you get to our property there's a 20-foot landscape buffer. In addition to the minimum required landscape Page 31 October 4,2007 buffer, like almost everybody else on Livingston Road, you're going to see a wall feature with landscaping on both sides. When you get inside the project you've got an internal roadway. The buildings are designed with entry features and eyebrows that basically go up to the building. So the physical distance from the front of our building to the edge of the property line is approximately 100 feet. Plus you have a very wide right-of-way. So there's somewhere in the area of 150 to 200 feet between the travel way and the front of the buildings on this project. And I think if we want to talk about compatibility, can we find similar circumstances in Collier County where this situation occurs and occurs with class? And I think we can. Within Pelican Bay, well established, well built, high property values. Within a stretch of 1,500 feet routinely in Pelican Bay you have 100-foot condominiums, a street, mid-rise, three, four-story condominiums, a lake and single-family homes, all within 1,500 feet. When we looked at Pelican Marsh, and this is probably the most similar example Commissioner Caron, to your concern about buildings fronting the roadway, what's it going to feel like, what's it going to look like. Within Pelican Marsh, if you're driving up Goodlette-Frank Road, just before you get to the wastewater treatment plant, to your right are buildings that are four stories over parking, right there next to the roadway. They are 300 feet or less from single-family homes that back up to them in Victoria Park. There was an internal compatibility achieved within Pelican Marsh with these mid-story buildings, mid-story to a two-story to single-family. But more importantly, as you drive up and down Goodlette-Frank, the building heights there, which are very similar to what we're talking about are not physically imposing. The character of Livingston Road is not a rural country road. As Page 32 October 4, 2007 you go south on Livingston Road you will see several projects that are three stories right up close to the roadway. You'll see Bermuda Isle, you'll see -- within the Royal Palm PUD you'll see two-story condominiums that back up very, very close to the roadway at a density of seven units to the acre. They're net density because they didn't have to include their preserves really closer to six units an acre to be fair. But you'll see two-story buildings that literally their back door is 15 feet off of a wall right next to the roadway. So while this has yes, a little more height than what you see on Livingston, you see typically three-story multi-family to the south, and you get further south down to Vanderbilt Beach Road -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, we're going into a lengthy presentation that I thought we missed when you were late. So if you could kind of get to your point quickly? Because we could hear comparables throughout this county for the next 10 years. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we can all get what Mr. Hancock thinks, and that's that he doesn't think that the 70 feet is an issue or a problem. I understand that. Thank you very much, Mr. Hancock. MR. HANCOCK: More importantly, and I apologize ifit was too long. More importantly, more than just what I think, it's what exists in the community today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I'd like-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Tim, it's a question you brought up. This will be four stories over parking? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't the 50 feet going to be a problem? Because let's say you did nine-foot heights, which is low. That's 45 feet. Page 33 October 4, 2007 MR. HANCOCK: The 50-foot zoned building height is measured from the first finished floor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 50-foot would be from the midpoint of the gable roof he was describing, wouldn't it? MR. HANCOCK: Correct. But the bottom of that 50 feet where it starts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there a floodplain problem out there? I mean, what's the flood elevation on it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be FEMA, wouldn't it? For zoned height, you'd start at FEMA and go to the midpoint of the gable roof. You wouldn't start your finished floor if you made it arbitrarily high. I think that's what Mr. Schiffer is trying to get at. MR. HANCOCK: You're correct. But the short answer is no, sir, we don't have a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You have a flat roof. MR. HANCOCK: No, we have a gable. But the midpoint is within that 50-foot mark. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is going to be five feet above the -- I don't think so. But anyway, that's my question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, I'd only comment that the long litany of what exists there now is not necessarily justification that this project is at its highest and best use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I didn't want to let you down, so I have some before we get to staff. I'm sure the County Attorney will tell me this probably can't be done, and I'm sure you're saying you couldn't legally do it, but I'm going to ask you the question. Are you going to -- do you mind a paragraph in your PUD that limits the sales of these units to seasonal Page 34 October 4, 2007 residents for a specific period of time that is dictated as a seasonal period of time, like two months or three months? That the only sales you can have are those kind of people. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think we can agree to that kind of a stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, then I can't agree to your deviation request, because it's based on that kind of stipulation. Mr. Murray brought up a good point about the playgrounds. I guess I should ask staff, Mr. Bellows, Mr. Schmitt, do we have a provision in the LDC that requires a specific contribution of space to playgrounds, or is this an arbitrary taking in addition to the impact fees that are being taken, since we don't even count this in the overall AUIR process as contributory areas for playgrounds in parks? MR. SCHMITT: The -- my recollection of past projects that have come before the Planning Commission, you all have required some kind of playground to accommodate the needs of the residents within the development. But as far as counting towards impact fees or any credits for impact fees, no, this -- there are no impact fee credits given for the playground on property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, my recollection of the last time I saw this, I asked that that be stricken from the PUD because it's an additional taking unjustified. If there's no LDC language to require it, how can a staff member arbitrarily decide they're going to throw that in as an extraction? It's no different than any other kind of extraction we could impose by every particular department that wanted to have it ifit wasn't a requirement of the Land Development Code. MR. SCHMITT: Let me turn to Melissa, because she has information on this during the review process. Melissa? MS. ZONE: Thank you. This was a requirement during -- well, it's not a requirement, it was asked by Parks and Rec. division if the applicant would be willing to place this park in there. Page 35 October 4,2007 Staff reviewed it. And in the LDC requesting PUDs, or having a planned unit development to come in that we would request where is the benefit or the amenity to the county. This could fall under that criteria. And that is part of the LDC. It's generic, because they could provide additional landscaping, they could provide the interconnection. But that's how it was looked at. So there is a generic LDC requirement that says amenities to the county that this would fall under. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you believe that because of that generic requirement that any category of service that's got an established level of service in the county and that is also in the AUIR can be additional imposed as an extraction on every individual project in this county? MS. ZONE: Well, staff reviews and leaves the division who's reviewing that area as the experts for the request. And the applicant did not object to the request, and so for that reason I allowed that to stay in. MR. BELLOWS: Also, for the record, Ray Bellows. Any time we receive a recommendation from one of our reviewing agencies and it's not a requirement either in the GMP or the LDC, we offer that recommendation to the applicant. Now, if the applicant feels that they cannot accommodate that request, it is not forced upon them. The -- we note it in the staff report that the applicant disagrees with that request, and it's brought forward to the Planning Commission board for their recommendation and consideration, but we do note that the applicant is or is not supportive of the request. And we do note that it is or is not an LDC or GMP requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if the department hadn't asked the question in the first place, you wouldn't have to report that they were turned down. So -- and the department knows that very well. Let's Page 36 October 4, 2007 intimidate the landowner to give us this as an extraction, even though we still get impact fees more than what we can justifY for the expenditures we need to begin with, and we will not include the additional property in our AUIR standard totals for the whole county. So they're getting shellacked multiple times over. I see no -- I don't think it's fair and I think it's wrong. So I certainly am not going to be in favor of that paragraph being in this PUD unless the criteria is provided as an impact fee credit and it's included in the AUIR. And that will go from here and any future time I see this in the PUD, I personally will bring it up each and every time. Now, in reaction to what you said, Mr. Bellows, about reacting to staffs departments in regards to their questions, if that was true why didn't you react to the following sentence, and it's under the emergency services analysis: While there is currently no impact mitigation required, it should be noted that approval of this PUD increases the evacuation and shelter requirements of Collier County. Now, that one isn't necessarily as strongly in the AUIR an impact fee for them. So what emergency hurricane preparations have we done and requested in response to that paragraph? MR. SCHMITT: I'll talk about that. I met with the emergency management folks again yesterday. And that could be said for any new development or any new addition of housing in Collier County. It does add to the evacuation and sheltering requirements, but there is nothing in regards to any type of fee, it's not an AUIR process. There is nothing in the LDC that requires any type of mitigation for that, it's just a statement of fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's even more to the point. We have fees, we have AUIR, we have criteria for parks, yet we still throw that in as another additional taking. Yet when we have one that we don't have fees for, it's not in the AUIR, and it actually is a need, we don't address it in the PUD. That's just the opposite of the way I think the system should be working, Joe. Page 37 October 4,2007 MR. SCHMITT: A need in what regard? There is no standard established for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For a hurricane. MR. SCHMITT: -- a hurricane. There's no requirement for the applicant to pay any type of fee to facilitate or accommodate residents who have -- need shelter in the local school. There's no requirement to that. This is one of the issues that I dealt with yesterday with emergency management. This is somewhat of a generic statement. But it can be said for any -- like I said, any new development. But there's nothing that requires or requires us to place upon the applicant a need to make payment to any type of program for additional shelter space. So I guess what I'm hearing you say is just don't put that in the report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm just trying to use that as an example of what -- we have a need, ajustifiable need, one that's not addressed by impact fees, one that's not addressed in the AUIR, one that's virtually not addressed. And then we have another item like parks that has a huge amount of impact fees, they have elaborate parks all over this county, they don't include any additional space they get in the AUIR, yet that one is an additional extraction. But the one we need that can't get fees and can't get addressed is not provided for. And I think ifthere's any justification for an extraction, it's one that isn't provided for over one that is. And that's what my point is, Mr. Schmitt. And you've proven my point and I appreciate that. So thank you for your assistance in that regard. I think the best thing we could do is look at the LDC and try to clean these issues up, because right now this isn't fair the way it's being proposed. That's my statement on that issue, and I'll move on to the next one. Page 38 October 4,2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are we still on me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You started this. But you know what? It needs to get aired and it needs to get corrected, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I agree. And I will tell you, it's very confusing to us when we get asked for something if we say no, does that now trigger are we going to get a staff recommendation of denial because we didn't agree to all the conditions. So at times, you know, we agree to do things because it just makes economic sense to agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that staff needs tools to be able to address the correct things. And maybe those tools are emphasis on issues that are not subjected already to fees and extractions like Parks and Recreation. The last thing Parks and Recreation needs right now in my opinion is more tools. So I would hope that maybe through some discussion like this, the LDC could modifY to provide staff with better tools to look at the items that are more important to us than parks and maybe items like hurricane evacuation. Mr. Y ovanovich, on your site plan you show a road going east and west, and on the original plan you showed on this overview, the Brandon project next to you has a road going north to south that links to the east-west Livingston Road. While you talked about concern of an interconnection to the north and possibly having it there, if commercial were to go in, you didn't talk about an interconnection to the Brandon project which when it comes before us that item could be focused on and possibly an interconnection there could be provided. Would you mind addressing your concerns over that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: In meeting with transportation staff, they didn't think there was going to be a need for our project to interconnect to Brandon or for the Brandon project to really come Page 39 October 4,2007 through ours. So transportation staff believed that the only area that they thought there would be a need for interconnection would be along the northern property boundary of our property. Because we really wouldn't be providing Brandon any benefit to come through our project since they already have connection to Livingston and to the east-west Livingston Road. So that -- staff didn't believe there was a need for us to interconnect to Brandon, and vice versa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was thinking more of an exit for your people, so that if they wanted to make a left onto Livingston Road, they have an opportunity to do that rather than go out, make a right, go somewhere up, make a U-turn or vice versa. So if you had an exit only on your project, that was where my issue was. It would benefit your people more than it would benefit Brandon. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, it's one of those things that if it's an option for us, if we think it makes sense, yes. If it becomes a requirement, I get a little nervous. So I don't know exactly, Mr. Strain, what you're referring to. Are you trying to say it needs to be a requirement or an option for us to do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to ask Nick what he would like to see, since he probably is more of an expert in transportation than any of us talking about it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe I'm unduly qualifYing him, but he's well worth it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll let you know if you've unduly qualified him after he answers. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Depending on the verdict. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff -- I mean of the applicant at this point? Hearing none, we'll move on to the staff Page 40 October 4, 2007 report and entertain questions of staff. MS. ZONE: Good morning. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. I wanted to put into the record that this is a rezone application from rural agricultural and special treatment overlay zoning district to the residential planned unit development to be known as Della Rosa. The applicant is requesting seven dwelling units an acre. It's not entitled to them, but the standard development regulations allow for four residential units an acre. But with this area being in the urban residential district it is intended, through the Growth Management Plan, to -- or they're allowed to buy transfer of development rights credits to increase the dwelling units up to three units an acre. The -- there was some questions that I wanted to go through. Commissioner Caron brought up about the environmental impacts. The applicants will have to, during the site development plan process when they come in, will have to provide information on what the impacts on the wetlands will be, as well as during our PUD monitoring report, which is a yearly report, the PUD monitoring will track that. If they find an issue to the wetlands being impacted in any adverse way, then we can send Code out there to apply a violation to that requirement. And that's how we track those -- it would go through environmental to also review. So before the development gets built and then through every year after that the PUD monitoring process tracks that issue. Staff looked at compatibility to this area. And how it looked at it, and I won't go as long as Mr. Hancock did, but a lot of the land -- or a lot of the PUDs that surround this area are quite large. But they're golf course communities. And because of that most of the land or most of the acreage is in the golf course itself. And so if you take just the residential units, they're closely -- they're close together, the homes, the multi-family. And if you just look at what the residential district is Page 41 October 4, 2007 for each of those PUDs, most of them come up to about six units an acre or higher. So that's how I looked at the compatibility is how the homes are placed. Of course there is the golf course that helps to give the open space, and that's why I didn't do a full impact in that area, because you do have that offset. I also want to talk about the requirement for the roadway that's north of this project. If you look here, there's a space between these two parcels to the north of this project. That is an access easement that goes all the way down and ends at this property line. And this being an access easement, we would like this to connect so that we could continue that, and that be another roadway access. So that is the area that staff was looking at for that interconnection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would staff in that interconnection be looking at more of an exit only or, say, an entrance and exit only provided by the people living within Della Rosa, or do you see that as a use for the public? MS. ZONE: Well, I would rather have transportation address that, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before they do, let's make sure you finish with your -- I didn't mean to interrupt you. MS. ZONE: No, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to talk about the point when you said it. MS. ZONE: No, I just wanted to read in that this is a rezone from rural agricultural, special treatment overlay district to become a planned unit development, and that they meet all of the requirements in the Growth Management Plan. And there is one incident, and I regret to have to say it's my typo. But in the deviation request for the parking, I put the number one on there. It's in the staff report, Page 7 of9, and I say that under the LDC Page 42 October 4, 2007 multi-family dwelling units shall have one parking space per two-bedroom unit or larger. But you also have to have one parking space for visitors, so I inadvertently omitted that. So it would technically be two spaces, and so I wanted to correct myself on the record. And that will be it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And questions for staff? We'll start with Ms. Caron. MS. ZONE: Please. COMMISSIONER CARON: I actually just wanted to comment on your comments about surrounding area density, saying that because these PUDs are so large and once you take out the golf courses and you take the actual acreage, they're going to come up to five or maybe even six units an acre. I don't think that this petitioner really wants you to go there. Because if you take out his area, he's got 6.9 acres, and he wants 107 units, that's 16 units to the acre, so that's not compatible with the surrounding area. MS. ZONE: Right. Well, I'm not trying to defend the applicants at all, I'm just looking at how staff was looking at the clustering of homes on the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, Melissa? MS. ZONE: I'm sorry, Mr. Midney, yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I thought that the TDR credits were only within the urban fringe from sending to receiving. This is an urban land. Can you explain to me that program? MS. ZONE: There are different areas. This being an urban area, there's already the infrastructure in place. The county has services in place. So the Growth Management Plan encourages higher density in these areas, but because our density is capped at four dwelling units an acre, to get that higher density they would either have to come in through affordable housing or to purchase the transfer of development Page 43 October 4,2007 rights credits. And so the applicant chose to go through the TDR process. MR. SCHMITT: Can I have Ray clarify that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. -- go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, the urban area can qualifY for -- infill provisions of the Growth Management Plan allow for three additional dwelling units per acre, which one of those has to be the TDR program. MR. SCHMITT: This has been a longstanding program long before the rural fringe TDR program. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Would that apply also to Immokalee? If somebody wanted to add density, would they also be able to purchase TDRs in Immokalee the same way they're doing in this area? MS. ZONE: It's not an infill area. And I don't want to give the incorrect answer there. I know they could fall under the affordable housing to increase the density. But I don't believe if (sic) they are absolutely qualified for the infill in that area. Because the infill density bonus looks at the urbanized area, and Immokalee does not fall under that. That's not -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I just want to verifY that, and I'll get back to you after the meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's an issue that's outside this discussion -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so I prefer that staff got with Mr. Midney on this on a separate matter. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I would really appreciate finding out about that in terms of does Immokalee have infill areas and how would that work and how would TDR fit into that. MR. BELLOWS: I'll get to you later today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer, did you have any Page 44 October 4, 2007 questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. First thing on parking is have you seen the SDP that they've submitted? MS. ZONE: I have not seen the SDP. I myself would like to see the SOP, because I would like to make sure that it mirrors this PUD document. It is in-house now. There are some concerns that staff has like they're proposing an eight-foot high fence, but that is not what they were asking in the PUD, so we wouldn't be approving that. And they do not get approval of that until this goes through the process and a new PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason I was asking is that in the parking you said that these are all going to be two bedrooms. Are you sure of that? MS. ZONE: From what was indicated to me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you're comfortable with the 1.5, rather than the way the LDC would do it? MS. ZONE: You know, when the buyer comes in, they know up front if they're having a two-car or a one-car. If the buyer does not want a one-car unit, they're certainly not going to buy there. One of the things that I looked at this being a multi-family, that you might have a single person who would like to do a starter place, this would be a great opportunity for them to purchase here, a one-car, and then you have that for visitors. So, you know, you look at do you need two-car garages for everyone? No. Is it nice? Certainly. But-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my concern isn't the garages. It's just we have to make sure that there's enough parking here. You're reducing the parking. And what if couples buy these properties? It's a two-bedroom unit, they would certainly probably have two cars. MS. ZONE: I'm sure that they are smart enough to know when Page 45 October 4, 2007 they're buying that they would know the difference between the two. And we can't sit there and baby-sit everyone who purchases. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not doing that, and I'm not sure what's disclosed to them, actually. But the -- I just want to make sure that this deviation, why are we giving it? Why can't we keep in within the code? The code is based on -- all things considered, it's based on protecting the future users of it. So is there any reason why you think this deviation is necessary? MS. ZONE: I found the request was reasonable. But if the Planning Commission would like to have -- keep it at the standard, I have no problem making sure it gets put into the PUO document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because we don't have a breakdown of bedroom counts, stuff like that -- MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- so, you know, to just drop it to a unit, the units could be small, the units could be large -- MS. ZONE: Certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- we're blind to that. In terms of the height of the building, since you haven't seen the SOP I guess you wouldn't have any idea what they're proposing for heights, so -- MS. ZONE: Well, they're zoned height. And Commissioner Strain made a good point, that it's also based on the FEMA elevation. And so you have the zoned height, which would be 50 feet, but depending on the foundation where they have to build with the gable, that's where you have the extra feet in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's going to be measured to grade, or there is FEMA. If there's no FEMA then it's going to be the height above the roadway system. MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to make that -- because what Mr. Hancock responded to wasn't exactly -- and hopefully they're not building that way. But the numbers they're Page 46 October 4, 2007 looking for, if they are building a four-story unit, essentially that's a five-story unit because of the parking. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, there is no room for the roof in these numbers. So maybe these numbers are even too low. MS. ZONE: Right. And again, staffwill defer to the Planning Commission's recommendations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Going further on that parking thing, which really leads us to the other question of who all are these properties being designed for, and ultimately aren't we fixing for the future, the long-term future who may buy there, simply because there's inadequate parking. And I have a concern certainly about that. Do you happen -- I think we don't have any requirement in our code that structures that buildings -- the residences must be built first for those who are -- who will be full-time residents. But are you familiar with any other counties or other entities where there are requirements? MS. ZONE: Oh, yes, absolutely. There's quite a few communities throughout the country that require sometimes you might have development that unless there's a buyer you can't construct the building. But that's a natural -- Land Development Code, recreation goes through the process. So that is something -- I mean, I don't want to get into LDC amendments right now. That is there, but that is not our requirement, so it is not viewed as that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I just wanted to be sure, because while it's absent from us it certainly -- this -- to my mind this brought up the point pretty clearly that we're building for the future long-term, limiting it to people who will come for three months or five months of the year and deny opportunities for people who want to live here full-time. Page 47 October 4, 2007 MS. ZONE: Correct. And, you know, I mentioned it in the staff report because it was in the applicant -- or the agents mentioned it in their application, who their clientele or who they're looking to sell to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, don't go away. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker. Sarah Spector. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not going to call them yet. I just want to make sure we get a count. Cherie', we normally give you a break about around now. We can finish this one up and then go for a break or we can -- is that okay with you? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, I have one question. Recommendations. Number one, the project must obtain an ERP permit from the South Florida Water Management District prior to issuance of any site plan approvals. MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't that a requirement? MS. ZONE: It is. And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do we have it redundantly put here? MS. ZONE: Out of respect to the Environmental Advisory Council who asked for this to be put in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw that. Does any staff member attend their meetings? MS. ZONE: I go to all of mine, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you aware that an ARP is a required element? MS. ZONE: Yes. Page 48 October 4,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you advise the EAC that that is required and they're completely -- MS. ZONE: They're aware of it, Commissioner Strain. And it's not just -- environmental staff also reminds them. But they just like to have it. So it's a request, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we put down that we need a South Florida permit, a DEP permit, MDPS (sic) permit, and COE permit? I mean, why don't we just list them all then? MS. ZONE: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wish someone would get a point made to them that we don't need the redundancy in these documents. It's not necessary. MS. ZONE: Right. I see Susan Mason here, and she's nodding and smiling, so I'm hoping she passes that on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly don't disagree, it's a vital element. But everybody in this business knows they can't go forward without one of those, so why in the world do we need to keep saying it? MR. SCHMITT: And it's in our LDC. MS. ZONE: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: It's clearly articulated in the requirement in the LDC. It can be stricken from this recommendation. We just bring it forward based on what we were presented at the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest that, just for simplification. MS. ZONE: Certainly. Be happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's -- anything else of Melissa? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnone, is Nick prepared? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, with transportation. Page 49 October 4, 2007 If I could put something on the viewer for a moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've seen you roll your eyes when you had to come up here, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Those of you who know me know I'm passionate; I cause a lot of problems with the interconnection idea. I met with Commissioner Murray on several projects and stressed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to slow a little bit and use the mic a little closer. I can hardly hear you, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you look at the diagram that's on your viewer right now, you can see there are multiple projects that are coming in for approval in the next few months, as well as existing projects. As a community we have to decide whether we want interconnection or not, and what that causes. If you indulge me a minute, one of the books we just purchased for staff was a book about smart growth in the urban area. And it talked about having vehicles travel in between neighborhoods, because people get to know each other and certain subtle uses that go on. The Tivoli Square that's at your northeast, northwest corner of the project but the southeast comer of the intersection is going to provide a medical office building, and there is an access easement that exists there right now. As Commissioner Strain pointed out, there's a project coming to the east that has a roadway there. In a perfect world, you want all of these interconnected. You want the subtle things that you're not going to pick up daily as you drive. People know each other in neighborhoods, driving back and forth between use to interact. And as staff, we push that through Policy 9.3. It's also in your LOC. And it's a fight back and forth that you don't get to see when we're reviewing these projects about where these interconnections go. So if I had my choice, they would all be interconnected in all those locations. And when we met with the applicant we said the one Page 50 October 4, 2007 we saw that was vital was the one to the north because you had a parcel there that connected to an office center and you most likely might eliminate a driveway if they don't have access to Livingston Road. So we requested that interconnection. But in answer to your question, Commissioner Strain, yeah, I would like them all to be interconnected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The connection through Brandon where it intersects Livingston Road north-south, is that going to have a lighted intersection there, do you expect, or a left turn/right turn both there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: There, what you see in the diagram, there's going to be obviously the signalized intersection at Veterans and Livingston. To the south where the green is, I'm just going to walk over to the viewer and point at it, we've requested an interconnection from that development to the south to an existing interconnection access easement that exists as a lighted intersection as well too. So those would be the two signalized access points on that road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean that anybody on the Brandon project would have access to a lighted intersection? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifthere was a connection east-west through Della Rosa, a controlled connection, meaning it's for their residents basically to go east-west so they could access either one of those lighted intersections, the one up on the Veterans and Memorial or the one to the south, in lieu of the one going north, because the one going north at this stage may be problematic in relationship to the development of Catalano, but if the people in Della Rosa wanted to go north in that little commercial area, they could make a right out to Livingston, they could come back out of Commercial, make a right back in at Brandon and get back in their property through the back side. So I think it would still function as safely as if one was connected Page 51 October 4, 2007 through that Catalano property. But would an east-west connection benefit -- provide a benefit that you see? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to get to. So in lieu of the north-south, an east-west would work as well? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all. Anybody have any questions of transportation? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Nick, the reason we're doing this, remember, we had the community character plan, and one of the major elements was that we have all these gated communities there for (sic) the public can't flow through it. What you're describing there is kind of convenience for just this Della Rosa. Why aren't we opening this up for the public, too? In other words, why are we -- this is a gated community with special access. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I don't think the public would benefit if they're traveling on Livingston Road to enter this development and then cut through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the Brandon people might want to go through Della Rosa. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's true. And if it was gated -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they might -- I mean, so, I mean, the reason the interconnectivity was a big problem was it was the community character plan trying to break down continuous gated communities being built. Purely on arterial roads the way we're doing it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If this was a bypass road I would request it all to be public and then the county would assume the Page 52 October 4, 2007 responsibility for maintenance in the future. If they were to interconnect but provide them gated for the internal use between the two PUDs, it would still function for the purposes of getting people off the main road but would not hurt the public traveling on Livingston Road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But as just described with gates and everything, essentially what we're doing is we're giving the Della Rosa people, you know, special access. I think if we're going to do it, we should open it up for all the projects to be able to go through each other, not gates and not, you know, one-way exits. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would imagine that, too. If I can show you on the tele (sic), maybe that might help out. If the driver was to be here and the gate was to be farther back but there was no gate between the two projects and there was a gate here, these could travel independently back and forth in between themselves. Is that what you're asking? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And one question on the lower gate, which is below their preserve, how would they get to that? Are they going to put a road through the preserves to get to it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've met with the applicant. They're reworking their preserve to slide it around right now to allow for the connection to the existing access easement that's right there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So everybody could then come down that trail, hit the Livingston light and go south. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Even the people from, if it's done right, the Catalano, the Parish and all these other ones could have access to that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I follow your policies and procedures and you set the tone. All those connections are valuable to us. I think you weigh that against what the impact is to the actual applicant. So I Page 53 October 4,2007 would like to have all the connections if I could, but I realize that the gentleman here developing the property has to weigh that out to what we can physically do and still make a profit with his project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Again, it goes back to the gated community question, correct? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of transportation? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one. Nick, the project that's below Brandon, is that Royal Palm Academy? It is. Thanks. I thought I knew -- MR. SCHMITT: A portion of it. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- this area well, and I just wanted to make sure. MR. SCHMITT: Eastern portion of that project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of transportation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm going to change the rule I just made in the sense that I can tell by the discussion that's going to be needed to get to a voting point on this we're going to be here for still quite some time, so before we hear from the public -- and Melissa, do you have something you wanted to finish on? MS. ZONE: Just something short. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ZONE: If you don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', as soon as she finishes we'll take a 15-minute break. MS. ZONE: Thank you, Commissioner Strain. I just wanted to follow up on two little issues, if this will be good for you. Susan Mason just informed me that she has e-mailed staff and they are putting it on the agenda for the Environmental Advisory Council to discuss putting redundant stipulations in. So that -- it will Page 54 October 4,2007 be addressed at the hearing. And then also, I spoke with Robert Wiley. This area is outside of the FEMA base flood having the determination, so it does not require having to be increased. So I thought since they were talking about building height, you would like to know that. And I got confirmation on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert and Susan, thank you very much for the responses while we're in session. It does help. So we'll take a break until 10: 15 and resume with the public comments. Thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If everybody will take their seats, we'll resume the meeting. We left off, Melissa had just finished supplying a couple of comments, and we were going to go into public comments. And Ray, can you call up the public speakers. And those people who are wishing to speak today, please limit yourself to five minutes and come up to one of the podiums here and state your name for the record. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we have two speakers. The first speaker is Sarah Spector, to be followed by Patrick White. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said five minutes and Patrick White's going to speak? MS. SPECTOR: Good morning. Sarah Spector, with Henderson Franklin, on behalf of Vladmir Mathieu. And if I can point his property out to you on the visualizer. Actually right here. But actually, it's shown as one parcel, it's actually two separate 2.5-acre parcels. We're only here on behalf of the western parcel there. We submitted a letter to -- let me back up for one second. As you can see from this picture, we are landlocked. We have no public access and no way to get to or from the property. Page 55 October 4,2007 We submitted a letter to Melissa Zone regarding this matter. We had previously spoken with Nick regarding what options we had with respect to this. And we are in discussions with the Brandon RPUD applicants. However, as was discussed today, I understand that interconnections are a possibility and that the two projects might interconnect, and we just wanted to get on the record as stating that we don't have access and that if interconnections become a possibility between the two projects that we would like to be considered for access as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your client owns the one to the south titled Mathieu, right? MS. SPECTOR: Correct. Just the 2.5 acres to the west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason that I'm pointing it out is if you notice the green area that is adjacent to your property, it's half of a cypress bog that continues down into your property. MS. SPECTOR: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I hope that you realize the potential that produces for you as well. MS. SPECTOR: I do understand. And we have looked at that and been in touch with the county on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Real hard to get an access through that, but -- MS. SPECTOR: I understand that. But ifby any means it goes through Brandon and back through Della Rosa or anything in that nature, just that we can be considered for any type of access agreement or whatnot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. SPECTOR: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, I had always thought that it was I guess illegal, I don't know if that's the right word or not, but land couldn't be landlocked. Do you know how a situation like this Page 56 October 4, 2007 can be addressed? MR. KLATZKOW: The general-- and it's general, so I don't know what the specifics on this one are, but the general rule is this: If you have at one point in time a unified piece of land and you start subdividing that piece of land, there's an implied access easement provided for all those additional lands. I don't know if that's what happened here or not, but that's the general rule. Now, if you simply have a parcel that was never near a road that wasn't subdivided previously from a larger tract, well, you're stuck. But that's what you paid for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think maybe not so much with this project, because it's all preserve adjacent to that Mathieu piece, but certainly by the time the Brandon project gets here, this might be a very relevant discussion to have ironed out by then, so as a heads up. MR. KLA TZKOW: We're always looking forward to discussing with property owners various alternatives. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Good morning, Patrick. MR. WHITE: Good morning, Commissioners. Patrick White, Porter, Write, Morris and Arthur, representing the property owner adjacent to the Della Rosa, Brandon RPUD, which we believe you'll be seeing in your first meeting in January, '08. We know that because quite recently we've had some rather belated discussions with various departments in our review cycle, and were scheduled for the EAC yesterday, but agreed to a continuance in order to attempt to address those staff requests. Suffice it to say that at this point in time the anticipated modifications to our plan continue to have access out to Livingston with a right in/right out going due westerly along the top edge of what you presently see in green. Weare going to modifY it to add in an interconnection and to not depict some percentage of the preserve area. All based on our desire to have those well sought after staff Page 57 October 4,2007 recommendations of approval. We understand that we will be coming back before you, and we understand that you're considering an adjacent project today with respect to why interconnectivity may make some sense. We also look forward to the discussion about the distinctions between what is accessed for landlocked property and what is interconnectivity that is intended to achieve some additional public benefits. The concerns we have are about providing economic benefit to landlocked landowners who bought, knowing the status of their land or at least should have, and similarly, about providing public benefits in terms of the public road system, while at the same time actually functioning as private roadways. So we understand that those are the issues in debate, but I wanted to point out to you that at this point in time our proposal for an interconnect, if you will, to the south of our project to the interconnection where the light is through Verona Point is one that is optional. It is something that is not presently capable of occurring without some additional acquisitions or purchases of rights-of-way or easements. It may be close in some regards to being functional, but it is absolutely fair to say that it is not something that as of today or if we were to come in for an SDP immediately after zoning we would be able to obtain and provide that kind of, quote, interconnection. And therefore, I think it's key to understand that we may be a project that for some period of time would have our access for Brandon southerly to Livingston through a right in/right out. We understand there are transportation concerns about that. Those are things we look forward to having a discussion with. And I don't want to try and cross-pollinate the two projects, but I think it was important for you to understand the status of where ours is, relative to this project, as you consider interconnectivity between the two projects. Page 58 October 4, 2007 There's questions about whether they be gated, there's concerns about whether costs for maintenance would be shared and how those would be divided. There's a plethora of issues that the policies and rules of the county, looking to do some public good, are not yet clearly stated and are not yet in my opinion sufficiently identified in a way that the applicant knows what's expected in how to address it. We feel that when we get to our project we'll be able to rely on those rules to explain why interconnection isn't necessary or appropriate. Thank you. Ifthere's any questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've just got a comment, Patrick. The speaker before you addressed the parcel that is contiguous to your parcel as well. MR. WHITE: There's actually, I believe, an intervening one to the south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but on the east and on the south -- oh, they own the west? Okay. MR. WHITE: Right. There's an intervening parcel. I would look to forestall until our discussion to tell you more about that, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am. I'm simply trying to let you know that rather than wait till January to have the whole thing bantered about here in the public meeting, if you were to work with the County Attorney's office to determine that parcel's rights, maybe it would simplifY the meeting in January. That's all I wanted to say. MR. WHITE: Absolutely. And I appreciate that encouragement. We are doing not only that but working with other adjacent property owners to Ms. Spector's clients in an effort to help facilitate what may make more sense in a transportation planning context. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Patrick, I love hearing you talk, but sometimes I'm not clear on where you're going with it because Page 59 October 4, 2007 you've got a lot of detail built in. MR. WHITE: That's that five minutes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at the visualizer that shows the yellow lines, suggesting that that's a road from essentially south to north. MR. WHITE: That's our spine road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that a public road or a private road as you know it? MR. WHITE: It is a private road. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And I got -- I think I got from you that it may be that this is another development that's going to seek a wall around it and a private entrance? MR. WHITE: I do not know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You do not know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The details of that one, Mr. Murray, I think we might want -- some of those details will come out when the PUD is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know. I wanted to understand more. And I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, what you're saying to me, and I'm not trying to divert us from another meeting, but I want to understand something. And all I'm trying to attempt to understand is that I'm a little confused with the Mathieu -- there's a west parcel, the young lady said, and then there's an east parcel, and there was a question of interconnection. MR. WHITE: I think what she was saying is that her client only owns the westerly half of that. It is not, I believe, accurately labeled. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So Mathieu as such is misplaced. I appreciate that we're going to hear this, and I appreciate your admonition, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. White. I'm just trying to understand more clearly, because as it relates to what we may suggest regarding interconnection, that's what I was looking for clarification. Page 60 October 4, 2007 MR. WHITE: Just for the record, Ms. Spector has indicated that indeed it is the westerly half her client owns only. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, are there any other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: There was going to be for a second, but there isn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hancock wanted to make a couple of clarifications, and Mr. Y ovanovich, I don't know if you want to rebut. If you do, let's try to keep it brief. Or should i be saying that to Mr. Hancock? MR. HANCOCK: Said and understood. Building height for this project, because there's one level of parking under the building, is measured per the Land Development Code from the finished floor elevation to the midpoint of the gable roof. The actual building height, which this body has been very diligent in pursuing, is measured from the crown of the nearest road, or grade, and those are about the same here, to the very top element of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, something doesn't seem right about that. Because you could establish your measuring point to begin with then 30 feet in the air if you wanted to have a 30-foot first floor. So it's got to be some more regulation than what you're saying. And I thought it was the crown of the road -- of the nearest point of the crown of the road in lacking the FEMA, and then the actual was from ground elevation to the top so the actual became real. So I'm a little confused in your statements. MR. HANCOCK: In this case the actual is real. The actual is the, in our case, the lowest crown of the road to the very top of the highest element. The zoned building height is written that way to Page 61 October 4, 2007 encourage one and only one level of parking underneath the building, based on the idea that it is less impervious and more green space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got two people here with computers, Ray and Joe. Could one of you read us the two definitions for building height, zoned building height actual? MR. BELLOWS: Okay, the LDC under building height actual is the vertical distance from the average center line elevation of the adjacent roadway to the highest structure or appurtenance without the exclusion of Section 4.02.01. 4.02.01 are exemptions from building height that we don't count, elevator shafts and things like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So actuals from the front of the road to the highest point of the building. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about zoned? MR. BELLOWS: Now the zoned height is the vertical distance from the first finished floor to the highest point of the roof surface of the flat or Bermuda roof to the deck line of a mansard roof and to the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip and gambrel roof. Where the minimum floor elevations have been established by law or permit requirements, the building heights shall be measured from such required minimum elevations. And then it says see Section 4.02.01. Those are also exclusions from height limits. And off-street parking within a building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the measurement of this particular building, its beginning point would be as established by local law, which would be the crown of the road? Or would it -- I mean, I'm looking for an answer. Because ifhe's got 55 feet above some arbitrary point, then we definitely need to put some kind of non-arbitrary point in there. MR. BELLOWS: I think there's another section that measures building height when the building has under-story parking. I'm Page 62 October 4, 2007 looking for that right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's what brought us to the whole discussion several years ago now is if you didn't have the actual height definition in the code, we could theoretically establish, as you phrase it, as an arbitrary beginning point. And then that arbitrary beginning point would be where we measure the 50 feet. What the code now said is, because in the code it does say if you put parking underneath you can put one level of parking under the building, and that's excluded from the definition of height. It's taken -- it can be. So you wouldn't count the nine-foot parking structure and the 50 feet zoned height. But you catch that on the actual building height. And that's why we have both in there now. We've saying the zoned building height is 50 feet. And however the code says you measure that 50 feet it will be. And we can never exceed the actual building height of 60 -- I closed my code but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sixty-five. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sixty-five feet, ballpark, I think it was. So that's where we caught it and that's where we had that -- that's how we got that into the code in the first place. Well, that's not me, okay? For the record. MR. SCHMITT: This is the -- and I apologize, because -- Rich, for interrupting, but this was the diagram. It happens to be the Vanderbilt Inn. But it was the zoned versus actual height. And you can see where BFE is. But it also is the -- if it's BFE or at the height above the first habitable floor, but from the first habitable floor to the point on the roof where you measure is the zoned height and then you have your appurtenances and other -- and that's the actual height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm concerned about the way actuals are shown on this one, but Mr. Schiffer, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And as the essentially the Page 63 October 4, 2007 author of the actual building height, the reason we have that term in there was to stop people from using the word tippy top. And what that meant was is that from the average crown of the road, like it said, to the highest thing, this thing is wrong, because it would go up to the top of that roof. Also, this is in a flood zone, which is confusing our conversation here also, Joe. Rich, I think the definition of height would be from the finished floor -- and there's nothing to say that a garage isn't part of the finished floor and to the height. In this case if it's a gable roof, to the center of that roof. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't want to get into the design of the building right now. We understand that we've got to meet the definition of building height in the Land Development Code. And we've asked for zoned building height to be 50 feet. Whatever that means under the code, that's where we want to be. And the actual building height will be the number we have in our PUD ordinance. So I won't use the phrase tippy-top anymore. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can't use that anymore, even though you like it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's easy for me to understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you have to do is you have to take -- and I think you could use the access road in front of the building. The concern was, especially the commissioner in our district, that nobody had a term for what it was like standing in the street and how tall is this building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we put that number in the code and that is it -- I mean, the PUD. And that will be the number. That's the controlling number of what you really see from a layman's perspective. I wanted to, if I can, if it's appropriate at this point, or are we still on that topic? Page 64 October 4,2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I wouldn't mind staff verifYing where they're going to measure -- what's zero on the zoned building height on this project. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, there is a provision under the exemptions to building height measurement that I believe has a -- references when the parking is under the building. We're trying to find that. If you like, we can have it ready by the end of the meeting, or just make that approval subject to that definition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, here's what I think you're going to find. You're going to find that there is an exemption from the counting of stories. In other words, they're not -- they're going to tell you that you don't have to count that parking as a story in the building. It's not going to give you anything to do with the measurement of height, I don't think. But I think it's important to know. Well, it isn't. You're going to live by whatever it is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you want to finish up? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I wanted to -- we were listening closely to the discussion of the parking deviation, and it seems that that's creating more confusion than it's really worth. So let's just take that off the table. Because I don't want to have a restriction that says I can only have seasonal occupancy. So we'll take the parking deviation off for -- of the discussion. The interconnection issue, I mean, unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world anymore and to try to retrofit Naples to, you know, a perfect world if we had a clean slate doesn't really make any sense. Frankly, we don't think that if our people were to go -- we don't think our people are going to go out the back of Della Rosa, connect to the spine road and Brandon to try to go either to Livingston Road or Veterans Memorial to get to a light. We think what they'll do is Page 65 October 4, 2007 probably go out -- if they need to go south, they'll probably go out Livingston Road, go to the intersection where there's a light, that east-west, Veterans Memorial, and just do a U-turn to head south. Likewise, to go north they're just going to go north and they'll be fine. So I just think that if we open all this up and you allow all that traffic to come through this small little condominium project, I think that's going to create a lot of problems for those who live in our condominium project that doesn't really solve a traffic issue. Again, you know, us going north, if that's ever developed as a commercial, that makes perfect sense to us and we'll do that internally, if we need to. But going east and connecting us to everything east is I think a burden on this project that's probably not warranted from a transportation standpoint. And regarding the speaker who owns the landlocked parcel, I think the picture kind of speaks for -- we can't solve that problem. There may be other ways to solve that problem, but I don't think it works within the reality of the natural elements to our land and their land as well. With that, we hope you can recommend to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation of approval without the deviation that is now off the table that are requested development standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I need clarification then. And thank you for adding that note. But will you now have -- with your calculations, will you now have adequate space to provide the parking, based on the standard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will have to, candidly, revise our site development plan to come up with those spaces. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that's an understood condition. Page 66 October 4,2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or reduce units, one of the two. We're going to have to meet code for parking is what we're agreeing to. And maybe we can get some of those spots back, if! can eliminate a neighborhood jungle gym. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments at this point before we close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Richard. With that, Ray, there are no public speakers, correct, any further? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll close the public hearing. But before we entertain a motion, I think it would be more productive to talk about some of the issues involving this. I know there may be some discussion about denial and there may be some discussion about recommendation with stipulations. And I had made some notes. I thought to expedite it all we could talk about the stipulations, possibly. So ifthere is an approval recommendation and subject to stipulations, it might solve problems for people who look at a possible denial. So the first one that I had a note on is that the applicant had agreed to an interconnection with a commercial area if one is established north of the project. Now, we had talked about an interconnection east-west. The applicant has expressed concerns over that in regards to the people within Della Rosa, the activity on the roadway, I'm sure. The maintenance of the roadway would have to be the condo association. They would need additional access ways to make sure that only certain folks got in or out, I would assume. What's the thought on the board on that issue? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my concern with that is that -- and again, back to the community character plan, the issue is Page 67 October 4, 2007 gated communities, not tying these two little gated communities together and make another bigger gated community. So I wouldn't support that, because I think the intent of interconnection is to let the public have multiple ways to travel through the community, not provide special access for gated communities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm of the same thinking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We talked about a footnote: Amend the development standards table. Brad had some comments, I had one about the zoned building height. Any concerns there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the other one would have been we have to assure that mitigation will occur in Collier County. The applicant has put on testimony that it was the Panther Mitigation Bank. So I think that suffices. We also would strike the deviation. Applicant has agreed that that's not going to be part of their program. I would suggest, as I brought out in the meeting, that we strike 2.4, requirements for parks, as the applicant's paying impact fees and that's plenty justification. Then I also would like to consider that we add the language that the applicant -- or the staff will get together with the emergency management services before this goes to the BCC to determine if there's any required mitigation for the sheltering -- additional sheltering needs that were expressed by the emergency services department in regards to this project's density. And I think that's something we ought to be looking at as a more permanent issue in the future. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have one question. The parking requirements and the height requirements are all going to be Page 68 October 4, 2007 as per the lessee? We're giving no special treatment here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the parking requirements are going to be as the LDC. The deviation was already withdrawn. The height requirements would be as the LDC, but between here and the BCC meeting staff would clarifY where the measuring point was from just so it's clear on the record. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I got out of the conversation, at least. And then the last comment that I believe we talked about was striking of recommendation number one under staff recommendations, not because we disagree with it but just because it's redundant. It's a gIven anyway. Now, does anybody else have any comments? Ms. Caron and Mr. Schiffer. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You did mention the ones I had, but then you're very specific. So just to make sure, it's the addition of building separation in the development plan and the addition of the word unit for minimum floor area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the separation is greater than 20 feet or one-half the building height, whichever. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Are you done with just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, those are the discussion items that I had come up with during the process. And I wanted to get them on the table before a motion was made so that the motion could then put a motion forth that may be tailored more to a way that everybody is going to vote, if that helps. So that's where I was going. Now, I guess ifthere's no other comments then, if you want, we Page 69 October 4,2007 can call for the motion. Do you have a motion you'd like to make? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. And I'm going to make a motion to deny, because I don't believe that this site is appropriate for either the density or the intensity of this project. And based on several different factors: First of all, the actual developable acres that they're going to try to put these 107 units on plus a clubhouse and a pool and now additional parking. The proposed height of the building I think is not compatible with the surrounding area or comparable either. The comparisons cannot be made with Mediterra and Tuscany Reserve, all of whom have plenty of area to set back any height in any of those proposals. I think that again they wouldn't require the use of their preserves for water management if this site were appropriate for the kind of intensity they want to put -- density they want to put on this project. I think that again we suffer in this county from minimums. They want to give us the minimum preserve area, the minimum setbacks, the minimum landscaping, and they want the maximum in allowable density . If you want to approve this, then make them have the minimum in density as well. But -- so I make a motion to not forward this petition for approval to the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If! could make a comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the motion. Is there a discussion? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I believe that the infill -- the purpose of the infill was to avoid sprawl and its intent is full-time urbanization. And the fact that these folks wanted to come forward to separate that out and have it for persons who would come here as a Page 70 October 4, 2007 playground, no pun intended, it didn't fulfill. And I would appreciate that the parking is changed, but I have to agree, the totality of this says to me we could do better. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other comments? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, just going along with that, the fact that it is so predominantly a wetland and that it's not urbanized now, even though it is in the urban area, I tend to agree with Ms. Caron. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm actually going to vote in favor of it, almost for the reasons Bob Murray gave. This is -- and he's against it. This is on Livingston Road. This is exactly where density should be. We do have to start protecting this county for sprawl. Everything we're doing is really spreading it all over the county. This is where density should be. It's a beautiful site, the preserve, the lake these units are going to look into it. For that fact, I'm voting for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're voting for the motion or against it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry, voting against the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You had me confused there. Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll also be voting against it. Yes, it's an infill project. This is exactly where the density should be. It's taking advantage of the TDR program, something we wanted done. And I think it's a pretty creative job they've done with that site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Just ditto what he said. Page 71 October 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Short and sweet. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I could go a lot more, if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when I first saw this project, my gut reaction was the density's too high. I still feel the density is too high. I would like to see the applicant suggest a lower density. I was hoping that would come out at this meeting. I don't think we need 107 units on such a small site. But I think that the site because of its restrictions could justifY more than the four units, especially if the heights were a little more tailored to the neighborhood and the drive up Livingston Road. As Ms. Caron had indicated, you drive on Livingston Road right now you see a pretty landscaped area. And I'm not sure smart growth dictates you live in a canyon, as we drive down our roads. That to me is just as abhorrent as urban sprawl. So I feel we could have used a little bit more density here, but not as much as the applicant's asking for, so I will support the motion. Now, with that all those in favor of the motion for recommending denial, signifY by saying aye and raising their hand. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four, five against. All those in favor -- all those against the motion, signifY by raising your hand. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four. No, that's reverse. Guys, the motion is for recommendation of denial. Let's just do it one Page 72 October 4, 2007 more time. I want to make sure we're right. All those who wish to see this denied, raise your hand. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Wish to see it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See the motion approved for denial. COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four, five. Okay, all those against the motion of denial. COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-4, recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is it appropriate for an alternative motion if we were to go to six units per acre, which would bring the project to 90? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, we voted on it. Is it appropriate to open the floor back up for further discussion and another motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, it is. MR. KLA TZKOW: If it pleases the Planning Commission, yes. But only if it pleases the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to do that by concurrent vote, then, or is that -- MR. KLA TZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have no problem with further discussion. I think anything that creates better communication is the way to go, because this property is going to be developed eventually Page 73 October 4, 2007 in the future any. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think we should vote on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we go, let's see what's on the table. Richard, you want to approach again exactly what you're proposing? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, my -- well, we were asking for seven units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Now it's nine -- I'm sorry, six. I'm sorry. I wish I could talk you up. That did happen one time where someone tried to give me more density and I went, whoa, stop. No, six units per acre versus the seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any change in your height needs? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know, to be honest with you. But I'd like to have some of that flexibility, because I've still got to buy a TDR, okay, to do that. So I'd like to have some flexibility, because it may give me some better ability to have little bit bigger units, more attractive units to address the fact that I've still got to buy -- one of the two bonus units I've still got to buy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: What I'd like to see here is that the height not be any greater than really probably the most comparable project is what the neighborhood actually considers an abomination, which is the 45 feet that you've got at Royal Palm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that zoned height? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I think it's three stories over parking, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your zoned height is 45 -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it's 45. Melissa can Page 74 October 4,2007 probably tell us for sure. MS. ZONE: That's measured to the ceiling. So depending on what the foundation was, it could technically be larger. I haven't measured the actual height itself. But what the footnote is for them is 45 feet, but that it was measured to the ceiling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so actually their height is about the 50 we've got here -- MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because it's measured to the gable. MS. ZONE: And they also have -- their commercial is at 65 feet, their towers and that as well, so -- for Tuscany. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, that measuring to the ceiling, this would be -- that building would be much taller than even this building can be, because that 50 foot is to the center line of the roof. I think they're going to be disappointed when they really start to read the definition, and they'll probably only be three stories above parking built out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if I may, you know, a lot of times you're seeing projects that are maybes. We have sold 33 of these units and we're ready to go, which I think is probably something that's important in today's economic times. And I'd hate to see the project go down over the building height when we're very -- we're similar to what's already in the area that's already approved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And another point, Rich, if you put the site plan up, is because they have the road to the units in front of the units, and since they're in for SDP, I'm sure the site plan's pretty close to what they're going to build. The units are going to be set back from Livingston Road by their own roadway system, too. So I don't Page 75 October 4, 2007 think we're going to get the canyon down Livingston Road that some might be fearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I would just like to make a comment, though. The last comment that you made about the sales of these units. That was at the risk of both the property owner and the people who bought those. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't have zoning in place, so MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't say so, but, I mean, a lot of times you have the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, but -- you know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- you have a lot of specu -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, Richard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sorry. Everything's at our risk, we know that. But what I'm pointing out is we had -- if you're concerned -- one of the concerns people had was would people really want to buy these units and live here, with our parking deviation. So with a parking deviation of one and a half units -- one and a half spaces per unit, we were still able to sell 33 of the 107. So yes, there was a ready market for the project we're doing. It's not speculative. We're not just floating it out there and hoping it will work. I'm just suggesting we're further along than that. We understand that's at our own risk. But Ijust wanted to assure the Planning Commission that this is a real project, it's ready to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I just had a question, Rich. If it was the six units per acre, what would be the mitigation requirements and the TDR requirements compared to seven? MR. YOV ANOVICH: As I read your code, and I hope I'm reading it wrong, but I read it as I've still got to buy one TOR to get Page 76 October 4,2007 the one bonus. Now, maybe it's prorated, I don't know. Maybe instead of getting the three, we're getting two so we don't have to buy a whole one. Maybe we have to buy two-thirds. I don't know the answer to that. But we're still going to have to buy TDRs. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the mitigation? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Off-site mitigation? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I mean, it's the same footprint, we're going to do the same -- it's just less units to spread our cost over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so my question is actually to Mr. Schmitt, and that is according to the infill definition, they've just given up one unit. However, H gives -- projects qualifYing under this provision may increase the density administratively by a maximum of one dwelling unit per acre by transferring an additional density from the sending lands. So are we back in the same position, they'll just go to you and say I'll buy that second TDR anyway and you approve my extra unit an acre and we'll be at seven again? MR. SCHMITT: No. Whatever is specified in the PUD, that is -- that in essence is an amendment to the LDC specifically for this site, and that's what the density will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you for putting that on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have another comment, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a possible question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I still don't like that 69 feet height. Can you go down with that at all? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that's a little interesting dynamic. Page 77 October 4, 2007 Because I think Brad has repeatedly said 10 times during this meeting that from an architectural viewpoint they won't be able to do as nice of a building if they go any shorter, and he's suggesting even larger, which I don't necessarily agree with. So I don't know if you're aware of that, Mr. Adelstein, or not. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me kind of pose a question back with my answer. Is the real issue the fronting of Livingston Road? If! bring that down one floor, okay, I don't -- and I don't know what that number's going to be, but if I bring it down one floor there's obviously going to be a reduction in height. So instead of what we have now is four residential floors over one of parking it would be three residential floors over one of parking for the two buildings on Livingston. Can I have my density back if I do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know you're pulling us out of the hat. You might just get lucky here, Richard. I wouldn't push the envelope too much. Mr. Klatzkow, do you have a comment? MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, I don't want a dispute down the road as to whether it's one TOR credit or two-thirds TDR credit, whatever, so I would recommend in your motion you make it perfectly clear what it is that you want. If you want him to purchase the one, that's what it will be, or two-thirds, that's fine, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good point, sir, thank you. Mr. Murray, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just wanted to suggest that Mr. Y ovanovich, as superman on behalf of his clients, I think you may have gotten to where we need to be. And I want to thank you for your standing up and doing that. I think with the things that have just been offered, those things, I feel I could support that change. Page 78 October 4,2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: And in response to Mr. Klatzkow, I would hate for you to tell us we have to buy one TDR anyway if the law says I only have to buy two-thirds. So can we just be whatever the county's interpretation of that provision of the compo plan is? I mean, why do we have to amend the compo plan, possibly, or address that? Because I don't want you to say it's two-thirds and then the code says I've got to do one. Vice versa, I don't want you to make me buy one if I only have to buy two-thirds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought that all TDR credits had to be rounded up to the whole number anyway. MR. YOV ANOVICH: For filling a site or -- for using them, yes, but not for how many I have to buy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can buy-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, they can do fractions-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. For instance, if we were to do whatever -- I don't have the math -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But before we go too far in this, you mentioned the changing of the GMP. I think if we were to suggest that you would need less TDRs below that required by the GMP, we might have a need to change the GMP. But if we decide and you agree that you'll provide one TDR as a whole like we've asked, I don't know why we would need to change the GMP for that. That's in excess, not below the minimum. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. And what I'm asking you, because we have come in and we've worked with the Planning Commission to reduce the overall project density by 15. That's an economic hit to us, because we still have the same utility size cost, the site development cost, the mitigation cost. If I can buy maybe three less TDRs to accomplish the same overall project density, maybe I only need 12 instead of 15, I'm asking for that flexibility, if that is the Page 79 October 4, 2007 legal interpretation ofthe comprehensive plan. Sure you can make me do more, just like they tried to make me do a park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're splitting hairs over something that's going to get you in trouble. There are certain members in this commission that see one of the only advantages of this project is part of the TDR process getting incentivized. If you want to take that away, that's your risk. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm hearing what you said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I think that it would be one TDR ratio we'd be looking at and no other. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Discussion, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, discussion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, once Rich brought up the concept of lowering the height of the buildings on Livingston Road, I'm kind of curious, you know, when we're talking about dropping the density, we're talking about 15 units. And I'm serious, I really think that sprawl is caused by this kind of a gesture. Those 15 units have got to be built someplace else. So, you know, I really think that the important thing you did on this motion may be just the dropping of the three-story heights above parking on Livingston Road, and let them bring in the more -- the units. If anything, they're going to be smaller units, if they're having trouble designing it. And if anything, that would bring the price range into more people's accessibility . MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have another idea, at the risk of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Addressing his concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: He's absolutely right. What's going to happen is if we don't build these 15 units, someone else will build it. I think I have a way to -- I know you're smiling, but I really think -- where's my map? And I think it helps one of the public speakers, Page 80 October 4, 2007 actually, who was worried about interconnection. We have an option to buy the Mathieu -- or however you say that -- parcel. That's five acres. If they were to come in with their base density of four units per acres, that's 20 units. What if I agree -- and it won't be part of the PUD -- to just buy that piece, I'll put it in preserve, give me my original density that I asked for, then it's a wash from an overall Livingston Road density issue and I'd give you more preserve than you would get under what I originally had proposed. It's above and beyond what anybody was asked for. It's the same density you would get by right anyway if you gave me the 90 and I came in with the four on that five acres, that's 20. Make it a stipulation that I buy that piece, let me go back to what I had and I give you more preserve. I buy, I get three units, I buy -- I still have to buy 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's so many things with this. First of all, you're -- obviously it's cheaper for you to buy that Mathieu piece than it is to lose 17 units in profit, so I can understand -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: So what's wrong with it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not. I'm just saying I understand the economics of it. I'm more concerned now if that's not part of the PUD how we can count it into the PUD as part of the computation -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You wouldn't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how we guarantee that you're going to follow through with -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You make it a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a preservation on the property. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You make it a stipulation that I buy that piece and that I put it in a conservation easement. My seven units per acre is still consistent with the existing comprehensive plan that's allowed. So it's a stipulation that I do off-site mitigation for preservation, and it works -- I hope it works for everybody. I think Page 81 October 4, 2007 that's a -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Great idea. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And you're right, we save some money, but we also address an issue which is density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Two things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron and Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Two things. One is just to get briefly back to the issue of if you don't build these 15 units they'll be built somewhere else. Let's all be honest here, those 15 units are going to get built somewhere else anyway, whether you are denied them here or not. That is the nature of the beast in this county. Now, to this latest proposal, I would say that if you put it in preservation, not just a conservation easement -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- but ifit becomes preservation, those five acres, the total acreage becomes preservation, that's a good thing. We'll still have the three floors on Livingston -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Come on. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. Come on. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can't frankly fit it. I'm better off -- financially, I may as well just let -- either buy the Mathieu piece and come in and development 20 units on a separate project or just let the contract go -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Behind the fire station. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What's that? COMMISSIONER CARON: Behind the fire station. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just being realistic and honest with you. I can -- I thought it was a win/win here. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not saying it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rich, just for clarification, Page 82 October 4, 2007 when the speaker for the project got up here, they mentioned that it was the western part of that site, but that is the total site the way you showed it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have the whole site under option contract. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The whole five acres. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then wouldn't you then, if you essentially added that acreage to this project, your density would be really low. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't want to add it to this project, because then I'm over 20 acres, and I know Mr. Strain did the math. COMMISSIONER CARON: That was the-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm going to save him. COMMISSIONER CARON: That was my next thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But with the 15 acres -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're right, it would be -- the area of density would come down to just over five. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And since this site is 15 acres, we really are only talking about 15 units. Anyway, would you accept -- I mean, I really think the best thing is the three stories above parking on Livingston and let them have the acreage. Donna and I will always disagree on what causes sprawl. But, I mean, that's what I think would be a good -- because anybody who's concerned about the aesthetics on Livingston, that's out. If they have to make smaller units, that solves a lot of other problems we have in the county and that's the cost of units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Again, I applaud you for your creativity. We're talking about your 15 houses that are not going to be built here or somewhere else. I'm scared they're going to be built out in the Estates. That's my concern. If they're built out in the Estates, Page 83 October 4,2007 now we have people, traffic back and forth and we're creating what we don't want to create. So I'd rather see them here. Just that's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti, you have thousands of already platted -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- building. The Estates will happen no matter what happens on this piece of property. It has nothing -- one has nothing to do with the other. The Estates are a platted subdivision already. It's going to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's figure out where we're at with this particular piece then. And ifthere's a motion now that's changing to be for approval, we have two options in which to look at it: One, limit the original PUD to six units per acre, with the other conditions involving a full TDR and the three stories on Livingston Road. The option to that apparently is to allow the applicant to purchase the Mathieu property, dedicate it to preservation as a condition of this project, and the project retain its previously discussed development rights in regards to heights and density on the original portion of the PUD. Is that a fair analysis? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And if! could -- and you meant three over one of parking I believe on Livingston Road on the first alternative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the first alternative, right. Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: And when you -- we would like some clarification too on the language that you're proposing for interconnection to the north. I think Nick would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had a motion for denial, so there was no sense in articulating the stipulations. Ifthere's a motion for approval on one of the scenarios I just announced, then we will Page 84 October 4, 2007 probably go into stipulations again, we'll reread them and make sure they're clear. So with that, if there's no further discussion, we'll entertain a motion. Does anybody want to make a motion on one of the scenarios or any of the three scenarios? COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, let me try to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: -- remake this motion for approval based on the petitioner buying the Mathieu five acres and putting it entirely in preserve, which will help this whole wetland situation, because my guess is most of that property is also wetland as well. That they purchase the one TDR. There's no parking deviation. It's three floors over parking on Livingston. And the interconnect is to the north, should those parcels become commercial. Otherwise it's just a stub-out for whatever. In addition, then we also have comments that Commissioner Strain and Commissioner Schiffer made according to development standards -- to the development standards. And did I miss -- the playground -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is out. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- is out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were a few others. I can read them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Whatever I missed, yeah, please add it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see where your motion goes first. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a recommendation for approval with some stipulations read in, seconded by Mr. Murray. Now, for further discussion. Clarification to your stipulation on the commercial. I think the way the interconnect would work is if Page 85 October 4, 2007 there is commercial utilized adjacent to the property, meaning if the Catalano property doesn't go commercial, there's not really a way to get through that property that's practical to the ones to the north. So if there's a commercial contiguous to this property, then the interconnection would have to come into play. I think that's how it was originally worded. And Nick, when we get to further discussion, ifthere's a problem with that, you need to let me know. Any mitigation will occur here in Collier County. The Mathieu property that's being purchased cannot be used for the mitigation. There's no -- no to the deviation, the parking. And that the recommendation number one, as supplied by staff, would be struck, only because it's redundant. And that between here and the BCC meeting, staffwill work with the EMS Department, Emergency Services Department, to determine if there's any issues needed in response to their concerns over sheltering requirements. Now, those are the notes that I had. If the motion maker accepts those? COMMISSIONER CARON: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept those? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. But I have a question for clarification for my purposes and all of us. Ms. Zone indicated that there was an easement that ran where we can see a space, but she also indicated it ran through the Catalano property. If that easement was intended to provide access, I recognize limiting Catalano's development opportunities because of that easement, if we were to insist there be one. But ifthere's one already, are we diminishing any opportunities? That was a question I guess maybe somebody else can answer for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Catalano goes residential, they're not going to want an easement right through the middle of their property, which means it's going to have to be renegotiated around it. Page 86 October 4, 2007 Ifwe provide the Della Rosa project with more acceptability to that easement, they're going to be in a position to negotiate with Catalano, which I don't see the need to put Catalano in that position. I think that if there's not commercial contiguous to Della Rosa, then we don't need the interconnection. And if interconnections are such a big issue with the county, I certainly want to know why they've shut off Harrison Boulevard here at county complex to get out on Palm Drive. I mean, how you can pick on developments for interconnection when I can't even get out of here for an interconnection is insane, especially to a four-lane road that's sitting out there. But regardless, we won't get into that, because then Nick's got a bigger problem. Go ahead, Mr. Y ovanovich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought there were two proposals I made, and we kind of blended them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we have two. One's been put forth and modified by our stipulation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. But I had made the proposal in either/or it was the 90 units, three-story buildings over parking, or right -- because frankly I cannot fit the 107 units on the site with -- and also give you the free land that's going to now go into a preserve. We just can't physically fit it. Because if you gave me more height on the other buildings, I don't have sufficient parking under the buildings to make those units sellable. So we can't support the motion as it's written. I would hope we can either do the 90, as we talked about, or we go to the 107 and you give me the one floor back on Livingston Road and we'll throw that other parcel in as preserve area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, when you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just for a compro -- Rick, up Page 87 October 4,2007 against the Livingston Road, can you put that site plan you have up? When we say the Livingston Road site, essentially only one of those buildings is going to edge up to Livingston Road, and that would be the one below the cul-de-sac; isn't that right? You probably have that aimed into the preserve for vista, right? MR. HANCOCK: Actually, Mr. Schiffer -- for the record, Tim Hancock. There are two buildings that would front on Livingston Road. One is at the very southern end here where it fronts Livingston and the back faces the preserves and the lake. A second building is in this location fronting Livingston and looking down the lake. There's then a clubhouse in this area and then three buildings that are east-west orientation with the rear going to the south. There are two buildings that front on Livingston. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That actually front on your local road, which is adjoining Livingston. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And because -- that's important, because they're far away from Livingston. What is below that cul-de-sac to the fire department property? What is in that area? Is that building rotated and in part of that area? MR. HANCOCK: In the SOP this cul-de-sac goes a little further south. And at the end is a space for a playground, which we may be getting back. So that would become probably additional parking to meet the LDC parking requirement. And the building down here at the end actually is angled a little bit this way. It doesn't front parallel to our internal road, it actually has a little angle to it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I would assume. So it's only the corner of that building that is the one that could intrude upon Livingston. Page 88 October 4, 2007 MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we compromise, Donna, and make just that building three stories? MR. HANCOCK: The problem, as Rich mentioned, is that every story we loose on either of these buildings, five units disappear, because we can't move them elsewhere on the site. The three buildings up here are maximized in accordance with the height restrictions in the PUD. And if we try to add units to them, we have to at least provide one covered parking space underneath for the units to be marketable. And we don't have the room under the building to do it. And that's the problem we face, unfortunately. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And here's the trade-off. The trade-off is -- and I still calculate 15, because the area times six comes up to 92. So for 15 units the getting that preserve to me would be a big deal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think where we're at, and I think we need the motion maker to consider this, is that if the motion goes forward with three-story buildings on Livingston Road, it looks most likely that we'll be losing the possibility of this happening and losing the preserve in the Mathieu piece. Now, weigh that out against that one more story that's out set back in by the private road, as well as the distance from Livingston, is that worth the effort? I'll just leave that up to the motion maker to tell us so we can either leave the motion as it stands or amend it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Quite frankly, I'm far more interested in the preserve area and protecting as much wetland as I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you would then modifY your motion to allow the project to go forward without the limitation of the stories along Livingston Road that was previously in the motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes? Page 89 October 4, 2007 Okay, would the second accept that, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now the motion is in the position of one of the two options that the applicant can live with. Any other discussion? Please, let's hope we don't have any. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, you saved the day for your client, 9-0, you won, so -- MR. KLATZKOW: Right. And there will be two recommendations forwarded to the board now. And Mr. Y ovanovich, you're going to have to figure out which one you want. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's done. He only has one choice. MR. KLA TZKOW: That's right. But the original application was voted 5-4 down. He changed it. Now it's going 9-0 for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. KLA TZKOW: -- so there's two recommendations. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would like the 9-0 in favor of me. MR. KLA TZKOW: That's the one you're bringing to the board. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Page 90 October 4,2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't that be a summary judgment anyway? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, we finished that one. We're going to go through -- we have two more to go. Hopefully we'll get through them both before lunch. Well, maybe we won't. Item #8B PETITION: V A-2007-AR-11778 Next petition is V A-2007-AR-11778, Gene Silguero ofGMC Home Builders, an after-the-fact variance at 505 Madison Avenue in Immokalee. All those wishing to participate in testimony for this hearing, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. Any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had none. Okay, with that, the applicant is prepared to present. MR. SILGUERO: Good morning, Commissioners. Gene Silguero with GMC Home Builders. We have a situation here, if! may approach, with the small variance on the Glades side. This is Madison on this side, this is Glades. This is an affordable home that I'm building on the corner lot. The lot is 100 feet wide by 150. I'm supposed to have a 25-foot easement. But when the hub and tack was done to pinpoint my corners by my surveyor, they missed it by approximately 15 or 16 inches. Fell short of the 25-foot easement. So we're hoping to get a variance on that 15 inches that we fell short. Basically what happened was that when I'm building a house, we Page 91 October 4, 2007 do do the surveys, and then before we -- I start the batter boards to do the slab, I get a hub and tack which pinpoints the corners of my lot. And at the point I did that. Never had I had a problem with that before, so I thought everything was fine. So at that point once my stakes were up for my corners being pinpointed I proceeded to do the slab. And by the time I got the information back from the surveyor, I was up to -- I had my tie beams formed up. So basically what happened was that the surveyors got out there to the field. They did have all the information from me, they had the setbacks that they needed for the job site. But what I gathered from them after talking to them was that when the guys got out to the field, they forgot the -- they didn't get the paperwork. But they saw that it was a small home, it was a wide lot, 100 feet wide, so they decided well, they were just going to center the house and they would be all right with easements. They didn't consider that that was also a frontage on that side, on the Glades side. So unfortunately we were -- then I considered cutting the building at that point, but by doing that I was going to loose 15 inches. That would make the two bedrooms on that side of this small home seven feet wide, and that wasn't feasible. There was no way to go around it at that point. So at that point I proceeded to speak to the folks over at the permitting office. I spoke to zoning, the engineers. I also spoke to Mr. Casalanguida over at right-of-way. And I also spoke to -- at the end spoke to Commissioner Jim Coletta. And the -- I guess that the idea that I got from -- the basic answer that I got from everyone was that because it's 15 inches they didn't see a problem with it, that I should be okay. I did consider -- I would have rather just went back and cut it and be over with it. But because of the home being so small by me doing that, once again, it was going to make the bedrooms on that side seven Page 92 October 4,2007 feet wide. And I just -- so I decided to consult with everybody. I must have spoke to 20, 30 different people. And everybody gave me the same -- basically the same answer was that we should be okay. Of course nobody gave me a guarantee that it would be okay. But because of the small issue, that we should be okay. So that's why I decided to proceed with the construction and try to get a variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I hope your surveyor had msurance. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, and you can see it here, that your setback is less than the house on the lot behind you. And if you did bring those rooms, cut them off, you would bring them out of compliance with the building code. You've got to have at least an eight-foot dimension in a bedroom. So you did the smart thing not cutting the building down. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you in contract for sale or have you actually consummated the sale with the people? MR. SILGUERO: I actually have a buyer for it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've not consummated the sale, though? MR. SILGUERO: Not at this point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I echo Mr. Chairman's remarks about the surveyor. MR. SILGUERO: Yeah. And I would hate to, because with this market now I don't know if I could get a buyer for it anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing and Page 93 October 4, 2007 entertain a motion. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I move that we forward this with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second from Mr. Schiffer. Any discussion? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, if! could, just a very brief statement. We don't have a housing glut in Immokalee. You know, housing values are not declining here. We see single-family homes being made into cubicles for rental housing because there's just not enough places for people to live. Places that went for 500 a month a year and a half ago are at $1,000 a month now. We really need housing, which was just one of the comments that was in the staff report, and I would just like to underline that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in the favor of the motion for approval, recommend by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 94 October 4, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you, sir. MR. SILGUERO: Thank you, gentleman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will undoubtedly be here past noon today, but hopefully not too long past noon. Cherie', we'll look at taking a break around a quarter to 12:00, so we'll see where it goes. Item #8D PETITION: PUDA-2006-AR-I0333 The next petition is PUDA-2006-AR-10333, Stock Development, LLC, and it's a Lely Resort Community PUD that affects Phase 1, Tract 4 only. All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. We got a couple of letters from residents. I spoke to a resident of Lely Resort. And that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Got a letter. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. I had some questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. Most of our discussion was on the spreading of the density and the where and how Page 95 October 4, 2007 the commercial C-3 change from C-2 was reviewed, since that wasn't clear in the document. With that we will turn to the applicant for presentation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's north. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Depends on how you look at that. Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. With me today are several people -- hopefully you won't have to hear from any of them -- is Susan Golden from WilsonMiller, Jeff Perry from WilsonMiller, Chris Mitchell from Waldrop Engineering and Keith Gilder from Stock Development. They're all here to answer any particular questions we may have on this PUD amendment. What we're doing, we're trying to do three things through this PUD amendment. And as you can see, it's in a strike-through and underlined format of the PUD amendment. The first thing we're trying to do is we're trying to include a conversion formula to allow us to convert approved multi-family units to single-family units. The PUD had a very specific allocation as to the numbers of single-family and multi-family units. It allowed for a 20 percent deviation either way, but didn't allow for any further deviations one way or the other. There is a market for more multi -- I'm sorry, more single-family units than can be currently built within the Lely Resort PUD, based upon the approved number plus that 20 percent variation factor. So we're asking you to include a conversion factor. For each additional single-family unit that we build we have to give up 1.67 multi-family units, and that's to make sure that it's the same traffic impact of going to -- single-family to single-family actually generates more traffic than multi-family. The next thing we're trying to do, and it's on the master plan, the visualizer, is originally -- and I always forget the name of that road, Page 96 October 4, 2007 Lely? Grand Lely Drive was supposed to go up this way and come over a little bit further to the west and connect to Rattlesnake Hammock. A few years ago transportation staff asked us would we push to the east Grand Lely Drive. And what that did is it bisected a commercial piece and created this basically four-acre no man's land that we ended up giving to the county, with the understanding we would come back and amend the master plan to make this a C-3 piece. It was already a C-3 piece, we just made it a whole C-3 piece instead of a bisected C-3 piece. So that's one of the changes we're making on the PUD master plan. And the final thing we're doing on this is -- we call it Tract 4, but this C-2 piece that's currently designated C-2 on the PUD master plan, and will remain C-2, we're making two changes to the text of the PUD document. And the changes we're making is: One, we would like to be able to do a multi -- I'm sorry, a mixed use project on that site. Currently the uses are professional offices plus restaurant type uses within the C-2 designation in the Lely Resort PUD. It doesn't allow for a mixed use project, so we couldn't put any residential units there. We're asking to be able to bring 175 units -- up to 175 units to that tract. That 175 units will come out of the PUD allocation that currently is in place, which is 10,150 of which 1,000 of those units when they did Treviso Bay were given up by this developer in relation to that. So we have 9,150 residential units approved within the Lely PUD. The 175 units that we would bring to that site would come out of that 9,150. So we're not asking for any new density in the project. Now, we're also asking for the ability to put C-3 uses on that site. And what the C-3 uses allows is it allows for some retail. We couldn't do -- and what we talked about in the neighborhood information Page 97 October 4, 2007 meeting was we could not do a Chico's type of use on that site because we're not allowed to do retail. In order for this mixed use retail project to come about, we needed more than just professional offices and restaurants and residences to make the thing work. Now, again, we're not asking to change any of the allocations in the PUD document or the square footage allocations. And apparently that wasn't clear, so we prepared a table for the C -- for what's approved in the C designations, what's been built to date and what's left. So I can assure you that when we say we want to do C-3 uses on the C-2 site, we're not going to ask for additional C-3 retail square footage. And what you can see is in the C-l uses on the PUD master plan, there's allocated 380,000 square feet of which in the Freedom Square and the outparcel' s 241,000 square feet is built to date. So in the C-l designation there's still 139,000 square feet left. We're not dealing with any of that today, but I wanted to show you what exists today in the PUD, because it's very confusing on the ground as to what's allowed in each of the different categories in the PUD. Under the C-2, which is the parcels that are on the master plan is designated as C-2, it's currently approved for 160,000 square feet, of which there is nothing approved to date of that 160,000 square feet. So there's still 160,000 square feet of C-2 uses eligible to be constructed within the PUD. And then finally in the C-3 there was 280,000 square feet approved. Again, none of it has been built to date. So there's still 280,000 square feet of C-3 uses to be allowed. So we're not -- again, we're not asking to get any more residential units and we're not asking for any additional C-3 retail square footage, we're just asking to allocate it to a different portion of the PUD. We sent an e-mail to Dan Trescott at the RPC to confirm that we Page 98 October 4,2007 didn't need to do anything regarding the DR!. His response was since you already have all these uses already within the PUD document and the DR!, there was no need to change anything, from their analysis. I hope we've showed you that we're not asking for any more intensity within the project. It's just the shifting of a little bit of intensity, or the uses to that Tract 4 to try to do a project that I think-- we got a lot of positive feedback when we talked about trying to bring these small retail shops to Lely Resort and to try to bring some good quality restaurants to Lely Resorts on that particular piece of property. The neighborhood information meeting, in my opinion, the meeting went very well. That's what we're asking for in a nutshell. If you have any specific questions of me or anybody else on our team, we'll be happy to answer your questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions from the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: When we talked, Mr. Yovanovich, we talked about the types of retail you want for this property. And you mentioned Starbuck's for Mr. Strain, and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I think that was for -- I think Brad's wife wanted Starbuck's on a project. COMMISSIONER CARON: She does. And potentially a Fresh Market. Is there any problem -- since one of the uses that is allowed under the C-3 is fast food, do you have any problem taking fast food out? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe so. It's never been discussed to do a fast food in that area when you already have -- I think you have a McDonald's there already. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A McDonald's and a Burger King. Page 99 October 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you have to wait to be recognized, please. MR. YOV ANOVICH: He was helping me. Thank you. We already have two there, so we didn't -- that was never anything we contemplated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at some of the permitted uses, and I'm amazed that they're in there. I'm looking at things like funeral homes, homes for the aged, hospitals. I'm looking at Page 6 of 11 of the PUD amendment. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You with me? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will be with you in one second. You guys went faster than I thought. My briefcase is outside. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not a problem. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, I'm with you, C-3. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm looking at Page 6 of 11, and we're talking about 5.02, permitted uses. And I'm looking at-- you really want funeral home opportunity there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: What I was doing -- probably not. But I was not changing the already allowed uses within the document. All we were simply doing was adding that we would have the mixed use project and the C-3 type uses. We didn't go through and look at what's already allowed and strike through anything that was already there. We just didn't do that analysis. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I guess the question for folks who live there would be how clear are we in terms of what we're going to be building? I've heard the term boutique type operation. So I can't even imagine why, because it does say here, no building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, altered or used or land or water used in whole or in part for other than the following. And I just saw this recitation as being outside of what it is that I thought you Page ] 00 October 4, 2007 folks were asking for. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is -- what is currently -- what you have to remember is the C-2 -- let me go to the master plan. You'll notice on the -- well, I don't know how to scan it out. You can but the public can't, because you all have a copy of the master plan in your packet. There's more than one C-2 parcel in Lely Resort, okay. There's the C-2 parcel we're talking about we're asking to have the ability to do this mixed use project. You also have a C-2 here, a C-2 here, and I think that's it. So we're not changing the uses on those other C-2 parcels, we're just adding to this particular Tract 4 parcel the ability to do residential, up to 175 units of residential, and the 100,000 square feet. And we need to clarify that on the document, because that's what we said on the public record, 100,000 square feet of retail uses on that particular pIece. The reason we didn't change any of the other stuff is because we're not changing the uses on the other C-2 and C-3 uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what confuses me is that you must have a whole other grouping of uses that are not recited here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: For instance? I think I'm missing the point or the question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at --let me see where I -- I see churches, professional offices. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you've got to look in the PUD. They have a separate section for C-2 and C-3. What they want is all the uses in all the C-2 and C-3 into this. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And I appreciate that. I just thought it was odd the way this was focused. If you're intending to build a boutique and that's where you're going, that's fine. I would just hope that the record reflects here for the future that we don't have a change and if a boutique suddenly is Page 10] October 4, 2007 out we go to some other array. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Bob-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But they can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point, though. And the next obvious question should be how are we limiting them to make sure they don't put in big boxes? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're anticipating my question. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's the second thing that we talked about, I believe. At the neighborhood information meeting we said we would have no more than 175 units, the project would be no more than 100,000 square feet, and we would have no big boxes on that Tract 4 pIece. So we need to make sure that paragraph number 12 in that section says all three of those things. Currently it only -- actually, it says 175. We have to add those other two conditions to the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You and I talked about this on Monday. Did you come back with some language to address this issue? MR. YONKOSKY: Honestly, I didn't, but I think that we need to say that it shall be no more than 100,000 square feet of C-2/C-3 issues. And there'll be no big box stores. And I believe the county has a definition of big box so we all -- I hope we have a definition of big box. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't believe -- I don't remember a big box. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's where my next question will be, how do we -- what's the maximum square footage per any individual tenant you would have in the C-2 or C-3 category? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, now, we want to be -- I don't know, to be honest with you. And I'm not promising that there's going to be a boutique food store, but I don't really know what a Wild Oats or a Fresh Market has as far as square footage goes. Because that was Page ] 02 October 4, 2007 never an issue with the residents. And I would hate to say 20,000 square feet and then they need 25. I think the concern was, and not to give any free advertising or cast dispersions on any particular building, they didn't want a Toys R Us and they didn't want a Sport's Authority. Those were what I think was being referred to in the big boxes. And they didn't want a -- they're not going to get a K-Mart because there's already one there. They didn't want a Wal-Mart, they didn't want a Target. Those were what we thought was meant by the term big box. So I don't want to say 20,000 square feet, because that may preclude something that people really do want is this specialty food store. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In may continue, the fact is is that we already have a fairly large Publix, and I was a little bit surprised to see fairly closely adjacent an intended other grocery store. That just surprised me. I just -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not saying that's going to happen. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I'm trying to get it pinned down so that we don't have a failed community because of efforts that one person's idea of their reality verse what is already extant. That's all. I'm concerned for that. I need to be helped in that regard. I need for you to give us as much as you can in terms of limitation and qualification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get some input from staff in the limitations that are in the code. Are there any, Ray, in regard -- MR. BELLOWS: There are none in the LDC, but we did, as I recall, a year or two ago, approve a PUD with no big box language that we developed, and it was no single business entity or user could exceed 50,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's what I do remember, yes. MR. BELLOWS: There were two of them. One was on Wiggins Page ] 03 October 4,2007 Pass Road. I can't remember the name of the PUD offhand, but that had that language in it. And there was another one off Pine Ridge, similar language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll certainly discuss the size of that. But Mr. Vigliotti, then Ms. Caron. Did you want to -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I do want to comment. I did hear about 50,000 square feet in another county in Florida also uses the 50,000 foot as the big box limit line. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't want to talk you out of that number, but I don't think we need something that big, so maybe proposed 20,000 square feet other than a grocer. So we could have that -- that limitation wouldn't apply to that, if that's okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I'm happy. No one was coming up with a number and I remembered 50,000 somewhere else, though. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because we frankly -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's right on the money. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have a question here. Because you want the dual uses of both C-2 and C-3, for example, if you use -- of the C-2 that you're supposed to be, you only use 30,000 square feet of this mixed use building as office, then that essentially means that we've shoved the other 130 square feet onto property that doesn't measure but seven acres; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Assuming we max it out. And I don't think we can physically get there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And obviously the same works with the C-3. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually -- well, it would actually reduce the C-3 on the other parcels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? Page ] 04 October 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and I guess Rich, what is this thing about a European village? Do we have to do that? I mean, we have better styles, native Florida -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that was a concept. And people -- you know, we wanted to say here's what we're trying to bring. And people -- everybody's got their opinion. Should it be Florida, should it be -- some don't want Mediterranean. I mean, that's going to come out when we get further along, but it was a concept that we shared. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's make it local. The other thing is, and this is actually to my other members, is this where we should start discussing, you know, outdoor entertainment issues? There is a lake there. They could put a bar on the edge of that lake and ruin the lives of those people across the lake. So -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I could do that today. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think let's start doing that. We've learned what happens if we don't. So first of all, if you look at your scale there, 2,500 feet essentially would mean -- from a residential would mean you couldn't do it at all. Outdoor entertainment. I mean, if we use that as a number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I've got to make a correction to a statement you made. You said we learned our lessen on that. Were you referring to the Stevie Tomato's incident? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what it is is we've let these PUDs go through and we haven't considered the impact of outdoor entertainment on the neighbors, so I think we should start addressing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, we did. On Stevie Tomato's we stipulated that there be no drinking establishments and no two-story buildings along the south side of that commercial parcel. It went to Page] 05 October 4,2007 the Board of County Commissioners and they stipulated the same thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, I'm not focused on that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just saying, that stipulation was there, we did address it. Somehow it got missed in review and we ended up with a two-story building and a drinking establishment where one wasn't supposed to be. So that may be a further issue that's coming along -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but I wanted to make sure you understood we did address it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I didn't understand that. I mean, I was actually focused on our conversation when we spent (sic) the outdoor LDC amendment. Obviously that's a bigger disaster. But the point is that Rich, can we put some language in -- I think we would want people obviously to be able to eat outdoors and stuff and maybe they would be on the lake, but it's going to be pretty close. It could be less than 1,000 feet from a residence. And sound does travel across the water. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, first of all, the list of uses, it says restaurants. Bars are not allowed, okay, so I don't think you would have to worry about -- and I don't want to get into what's a bar and not a bar. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But a restaurant could -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: But a restaurant is a restaurant, okay? So a restaurant is not a bar, that I know is different. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it could have the function of a bar. I mean, by the license for a restaurant, you could have what is essentially a bar in a restaurant. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, a restaurant to me is a Page ] 06 October 4,2007 subset of a bar, at least by the liquor licenses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I guess I want -- obviously we want this to be a place that people in Lely who are probably going to be our biggest draw are going to want to come to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There is a nice outdoor area there. I'd hate to say that there will never be outdoor entertainment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you just limit that to 10:00 at night? MR. YOV ANOVICH: 10:00 at night? That sounds reasonable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then, you know, obviously not before 9:00 in the morning or something. I sleep later than most. You could make it 8:00 for everybody else. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think there's going to be too many people there for outdoor entertainment at 8:00 in the morning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Breakfast rock and roll crowds are probably small. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Understand, this is not intended to be a concert hall but, you know, having some nice outdoor entertainment might not be a bad thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So just cut it off at 10:00 and that might eliminate a problem. And then -- okay, that's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question of the applicant or the County Attorney. Right now there's no reference to outdoor entertainment I don't believe in their zoning districts. Now we're adding one that gives them outdoor entertainment till 10:00 at night. Is that a good thing to do? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's not a legal question, that's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I don't see why we would want to add a use that's not there. If they're going to do outdoor entertainment, like any other place they've got to come in for a permit Page 107 October 4,2007 for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is it's not an allowable use to begin with. I mean, outdoor, they could obviously have a restaurant with outdoor seating without any concern from us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You heard the effort we went through and we're going to be going through again and we've got another scheduled hearing on a similar matter on the 18th of October. I would rather this applicant had to abide by the rules that are in place at the time they go into building permit than give them something now that might circumvent those rules. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If they can't have the outdoor entertainment then obviously 10:00 doesn't matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's where I'm going. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we're subject to the LDC and county ordinances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think so. I think that's stronger than giving to you something you don't currently have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, we just saved your neighborhood. I have some questions. Richard, you provided us a matrix on the commercial. I didn't see a matrix on the residential, the mix of multi-family and the mix of single-family. Do you know where the project stands in regards to those two items? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, I do. Just bear with me. Built to date multi-family units, 1,471. Built to date single- family residences, 1,405. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So right now in Lely there's only 3,800 units. Page] 08 October 4,2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: 2,876-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-eight, I'm sorry. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- built to date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How built out -- you've got the monitoring report in front of you, I take it, or something like that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have. My client prepared a tabulation for me as to the exact numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How built out is Lely percentage-wise of the overall development for residential; do you know? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you divide-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, I know what the numbers say. You're not going to use 10,000 -- 9,150 units. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Maybe not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking about a conversion of residential and you've got a conversion number in there to go from multi-family to single-family. The multi-family is apparently, by converting portions of it to single-family -- what about triggering the percentage of the multi-family where it says you cannot vary by more than 20 percent? MR. YOV ANOVICH: To go higher? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't say higher. It says vary. So if you're 20 percent lower than the 8,300, aren't you going to trigger the same problems if you're 20 percent higher, since the language in the PUD doesn't say higher, it just says vary? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think that they interpret the DRI to say we have to build the maximum or 80 percent of the maximum approved in the DR!. I don't think they would interpret it to say you're out of compliance with your DRI because you didn't build -- I think we had 8,000 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that provision may be read that if you're going to vary less than that by 20 percent or greater, you need to come back in and talk about giving up all that ghost density that's Page ] 09 October 4, 2007 sitting on our books and being vested like Pelican Bay was for 20 years and got us nowhere. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think it says that, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I -- it may, though. Someone didn't put the word exceed for a reason. And I'm just curious if anybody understands it. Maybe Nick will when we come up and talk about ghost density in a few minutes. The residential that's going to go in there, do you think it's going to be single-family? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we said it was going to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Multi-family? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- multi-family, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are your standards, your development standards for the residential component? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They will have to meet the existing standards in the C-2 as far as building height goes, building setback goes. There's I don't believe a minimum unit size that would apply to residential, but as far as maximum building height and the setbacks that would be required from the parcel boundaries will all be the development standards that exist on the C-2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we are saying it's C-2 that this will apply to, not C-3 in regards to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will meet the development standards in the C-2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You don't mind if we clarify that in the stipulation -- what, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I need to understand that absolutely clearly. In other words, we're talking about current code; is that right? Not the old PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: By the PUD. Page ] 10 October 4, 2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: By the PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So all setbacks and everything else by the original -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: All the building heights, all the setbacks. We're not asking for any changes to the development standards that are already in play on that particular piece of property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Shame. Because they could use some more room between buildings. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's 30 feet or half the sum of the building height, whichever is greater. So that's pretty standard. Okay, anybody else have any questions of the applicant before we talk with the staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Richard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff prepared to make a presentation? MR. BROWN: Good morning -- or is it afternoon? I'm of course Willie Brown, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning/Land Development Review. The petitioner's description of the project is consistent with the application submitted. The project complies with the appropriate regulations of the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan of Collier County. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed strike-through and underlined ordinance. An analysis upon which conclusions were drawn can be found in the findings. Two corrections that were most recently pointed out to me. In the staff report I referred to single and multi-family dwellings being proposed. I'm told only multi-family dwellings are being proposed for this project. And also, I referred to on Page 9 an overall density of3.5 dwelling units per acre on this tract. The 3.5 dwelling units per acre Page ] 1 ] October 4, 2007 actually refers to the entire PUD. Lastly, four letters of opposition were received. I'll hand those out to you in just a second. I should have passed them out before. In summary, those letters state, wanting to preserve the character of the main entrance and value of the residential properties. There's concern of increased noise, traffic congestion at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Triangle Boulevard, and pollution. Preserving the lake is another concern. Concern of losing the peaceful view of the existing lake and trees. The pond is presently used, I'm told, for fishing and boating. There's concern of underutilization of existing commercial space at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and U.S. 41. The concern is regarding the random vacant parcels of land around the K-Mart and Publix stores. There's lastly concern of increased density. Residents were told that the Lely -- in the letters I will in just a minute hand out to you -- would not be densely populated and there were certain reserves and open space areas which would never be built upon, and boundaries that would be maintained. Staffis recommending approval of this project. I'm more than happy to entertain any questions of you. I will at this time pass out those four letters of opposition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, in -- this area is in an activity center; is that correct? MR. BROWN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: What's the basic density for multi-family in an activity center? What's the max? MR. BROWN: Maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre I believe is allowed. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. In a mixed use development, what's the max? Page] 12 October 4, 2007 MR. BROWN: Per the GMP requirements, a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre would be allowed. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sixteen dwelling units an acre, okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, too. You were trying to pass something out -- MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and I started questions before you got that done. Sorry. The information that was just passed out to us is four letters, and I'm going to -- two of those are already in our package. The one from Mr. and Mrs. Powell and the one from Mr. and Mrs. Rebbec are in our package. Two new letters were provided: One from Diane Chenette and the other from Sylva Garcia and Greg Hood. Did the commission wish to make a motion to accept the two that are not in our packet into evidence? COMMISSIONER TUFF: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Tuff, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 113 October 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If the commission wants to take a minute to look those two over, we'll continue after that. Okay. We left off on questions of Mr. Brown for staff. Does anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted to know-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- what means do we have of making sure that any units that have been converted are recorded adequately? MR. BROWN: I'll have to defer to my manager, Ray Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Could you repeat the question again? I didn't understand it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What it means is do we have to record converted units when they go to a one, six, seven, going over to residential single-family from multi? Where do we record it? We have a number of units un-built in the community, and these units I presume are going to be taken from locations from throughout. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And we had some issues up at Pelican that had to do with some ghost units and I'd like to have it on the record what we're going to do to make sure we don't end up making it twice. MR. BELLOWS: I understand. I just wanted to make sure I understand the question. The county has a process for annual monitoring of PUDs where we work with the developer and building department when building permits come in, and we track the number of units, building permits issued, and we record them. And we compare it to the PUD. And if there's a requirement to reduce the single-family if a certain number of multi-family are built, then that's part of the monitoring process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And that information is recorded by staff for staffs documentation? Page] 14 October 4, 2007 MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not recorded in the public documents anyplace else; is that right? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, it doesn't amend the PUD. It's a tracking COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Tracking process. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I think it's important that the record reflect that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Willie, I have a few. On Page 7 of the staff report, your first sentence says, the proposed amendment is processed as the limited PUD amendment. I haven't heard that before. What is the criteria for a limited PUD amendment and who makes the decision whether it's limited or not. MR. BROWN: This is actually language that was generated by the Comprehensive Planning Department. Michael Bosi prepared this portion of the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe the County Attorney can answer my question. Do you know, Jeff, how we determine if a PUD amendment is limited versus a non-limited PUD? MR. BROWN: Just to give you what I believe the reason is, I believe when he says it's limited, I believe he's referring to the strike-through and underlined proposed ordinance, that we're not revising -- or repealing the old ordinance and substituting it with a new ordinance. I believe he's just referring to the strike-through and underlined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess my question then would be the same. What gives us the ability to decide that a certain level of scrutiny is required and others are not? Where do we -- how is that Page 115 October 4, 2007 decision made? And what criteria do we have? Do we have any? MR. BROWN: It's a PUD amendment, and again I have to refer to Ray Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Sorry, I was talking and I didn't hear you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. When this came in, how was it decided that this was to be limited to just the language that's being struck through and it didn't open the PUD to further identification or discussion? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I put together some criteria for our planners to use when they're in the pre-application meeting. We brought back this strike-through and underlined process in dealing with PUDs for older PUDs such as Lely that are mostly developed, where ownership interest would make it impossible to amend the PUD. So at the time of pre-ap. it's decided what type of format is to be used. And we have some criteria and I can provide you that criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not disagreeing with your decision, I'm more concerned -- I'm just curious on how we got there. I'm not saying it's wrong, Ray, I just -- I certainly would like a copy of it for my -- MR. BELLOWS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- future reference, in could. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we all could benefit from an e-mail copy of that. All right, thank you. That would take care of that. In the -- Mr. Bosi refers to the urban mixed use activity center sub-district, and he talks about it being allowable for mixed use in character. I understand that, but that has nothing to do with this, since this is a PUD and it's got its own zoning. So whether it's in a mixed use district or not it's kind of irrelevant. Is that a fair statement? MR. BROWN: I agree. Page 116 October 4,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You agree, okay. We talked about the limitations. I think the -- when you did your analysis for compatibility, did you take into consideration the use of C-3 instead of being restricted to C-2, as it was on the original PUD? I know there's a lot of language in your spreading of the residential density of this parcel and how it would be compatible. Did you find any incompatibilities in dealing with the C-3 uses? Did you look at those? MR. BROWN: No, I looked at other C-3 zoned districts alone. East Tamiami Trail, U.S. 41 within a half mile to a mile radius of this project. It may not necessarily be shown on the zoning map, but there are -- on the other side of U.S. 41 further west, again, this subject parcel is contiguous to a very heavily traveled U. S. 41. It appeared to be appropriate and that's the way it's stated in my analysis. Based upon those things -- it backs up to a stormwater management lake. It's across Triangle Boulevard, where you have more intense commercial uses such as the Publix, K-Mart and McDonald's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Yes, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Perhaps Nick can answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was -- yeah, Nick was going to be next. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All right, if you're already going there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was -- before we got to the public, I certainly wanted to hear from Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to start, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'll ask the first question. Ingress and egress from this property I assume is all from that Page ] 17 October 4,2007 loop road that looks -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have a diagram. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- goes around behind the C-l property . MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, Triangle Road. That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: How does the increase in density and intensity on this property affect 41 and 951 where we have big problems? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The intersection of 41 and 951 in particular, when you look at the change from C-3 that was brought from the parcels to the north to this one here, as an overall model not very much. Because that's what we did, when we discussed the review of this initially, say six months ago or a year when it was proposed to us, and you're moving C-3 from one portion of the property, the entire PUD to the bottom portion but you're eliminating some. From an overall model prospective, not a lot. Because you're taking the entire development, 9,100 residential units, and "X" amount of thousands of square feet and you're moving a small portion of that to the bottom side. So when you say how much, you'd have to run the model again to determine that, but it would be insignificant. COMMISSIONER CARON: But you're not really moving a small amount, you're moving 100,000 square feet of commercial plus 175 units, which on this, if you were looking at it as just its own little mixed use, and since mixed use is not involved in this PUD I think we can look at it as mixed use, you're putting 19.5 units an acre on that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're talking 9,000 units that they can develop right now. So moving 175 in a 9,000 unit project is less than one or two percent. COMMISSIONER CARON: But again, you're talking about sending them all to the biggest problem area you've got in that surrounding area of that -- Page] 18 October 4, 2007 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I know. I don't -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- DR!. I think this one is a DR!. MR. CASALANGUIDA: When we looked at this, and you look at 9,000 units in the hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial and you move a small portion from one piece to another and you rerun than model, that change is insignificant, less than one, two, three percent of the entire project. Not to mention the fact, and I know the applicant doesn't want to talk about this, but they're not going to be able to build 9,000 units. They'll be lucky if they can build six or 7,000 units. So the ADA, the project, the original development order considered the impacts of 10,000 units, so we looked at this as 12 at one point in time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I made a mistake. I told Cherie' that at a quarter of 12:00 we'd take a break for her and we did not. And unfortunately I'm late, and Cherie', we're going to stop everything now and we'll take a break and we'll be back here at 12:19 and we'll resume at that point. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will resume their seats, we'll continue with the meeting. And we left off with Nick responding to questions. Ms. Caron, your question was last. Did you have any others? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, you may start yours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, Nick's already answered mine, with the exception of one. Nick, a while back when Pelican Bay came in for the movement of the Waterside Shop or increasing of there, we talked a lot about ghost density and the problems it was causing for you in regards to vesting of properties. This project seems to have a lot of ghost density, too. And I'm just wondering, have you -- what have you run into? Are you getting everything you need from this property in order to understand its Page 119 October 4, 2007 vesting procedures on those intersections and roads around there? Is there anything missing that we can help you put on record today? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The applicant has promised me an overall TIS of the entire project, which I'm told is imminent (sic) to my desk. That will allow me to review the operational impacts to the entire DR! versus reviewing each individual application for plat. And we told the applicant we will not move any development orders until we receive that master TIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Anything else from anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, thank you. I know you're going to stay around because we have another item later on to talk about. Okay, other questions from staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have three public speakers. The first one is Frank Mallard (phonetic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if you mind coming up to the microphone, you'll have five minutes. Please limit your speech to five minutes, if you could. You want to call the next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Renald Russo (phonetic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Troy Wilson? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. WILSON: My name is Troy Wilson. I am a resident of Lely for about a year, and I had not planned on making any comments, even though I wanted to come and see how the process worked, particularly for planning, for expansion and taking care of some of the problems that we know that we experience in Collier County . Page] 20 October 4,2007 I'm one of those people who happen to be here just part-time, thinking about coming here full-time. I'm a retired banker, developer, investor, and extremely interested in what does take place in Collier County . I've been very pleased to -- first of all, I'd like to commend this commission. I have been involved in government entities and volunteer jobs, high-paying jobs, most of my life. And I am extremely pleased with the time, the diligence and the effort that you all put through. And I feel a whole lot better about Collier County than I have before, and I want to commend you and thank you for taking the time that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, we appreciate that. MR. WILSON: I'd like to speak out in favor ofthe project. I'm extremely concerned, as I mentioned, about how the development goes. I'm very concerned about affordable housing in this community and have invested and loaned money for affordable housing. So how this fits together and certainly with the project in allowing Lely to develop with the maximum flexibility is a great concern. Having lived there and been in and out of here probably about eight of the last 12 months full-time, I can tell you that a lot of time is spent traveling to other locations, when we have the land to develop within our subdivision to allow us to stay within our subdivision. Travel is certainly a negative I think to go to places. And a great deal of the time the people in Lely spend driving to Marco Island for amenities. And even though you may have shopping in certain locations that somewhat acceptable, it's not near as flexible as what the full county allows. So I'm in favor of the project, I'm in favor of the commission here approving the project and scooting it on along, and I just wanted to come out and say I'm in favor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. There might be one question. Mr. Murray? Page 12] October 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not a question. Well, perhaps it is. I'm going to ask you, if you're interested in your community, there's a civic association. If you have a business card, I'd be glad to pass it along to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, are there any other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will close the public meeting and we can entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one thing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The last hearing you had, I think you did it really good where you kind of listed out potential conditions ahead of time. I think that's a good idea. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd be glad to do that right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and that would clear -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Please do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I made four notes. First one was remove the criteria for fast food. Applicant didn't have an objection to that. Second one was to limit the size of the C-2 and C-3 uses to 100,000 square feet. The applicant had stated that in a public meeting and didn't have an objection to that. The third one was limit the maximum size to anyone tenant, not to exceed 20,000 square feet except for food stores. There was no objection to that. The fourth one was that they will meet the development standards in the C-2 for all uses. That clarifies whether residential, commercial, whatever, it all comes under the C-2 uses. Mr. Schiffer? Page 122 October 4,2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the issue is the fast food. We have a new restaurant that calls itself Asian Fast Food, and I wouldn't want them to be denied. So isn't the intent freestanding fast food? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to -- well, I mean, Ms. Caron made the suggestion, but, I mean, it's what everybody wants -- our consensus. Mr. Y ovanovich, do you have any concerns? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me ask a question. Because is a Starbuck's considered fast food? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't take Starbuck's away now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I use that as an example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't play bribery here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm just asking, because I don't -- I don't think anybody in their -- let me start again. I don't think anybody would say that is fast food. Although it has a drive-through. So I don't want someone to say you agreed to no fast food. And I know I'm not allowed to name names in the PUD document, but can we name names for purposes of the legislative history? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Donna, isn't the intent though freestanding fast food restaurant that you're concerned about, or are you concerned about a Subway in a mall, or are you concerned about -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: A Quizno's? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A Quizno's in the mall? I forget the name of the place but there is -- and they call themselves Asian Fast Food. So by this definition we would exclude them, and I don't think the neighbors would want that. So isn't the intent of not having another freestanding fast food the concern here, or is it the concern of putting a McDonald's in a mall building? Page 123 October 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there already is a McDonald's there, so I doubt ifthere's going to be another one of those. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I -- I'll tell you what I understood it to mean when we said it. I understood it to mean your typical hamburger chains, Taco Bell type use, maybe a fast food chicken place that we're all familiar with. Those are the things that I understood to be excluded by that definition. I didn't understand it to mean a Quizno's or a Subway or a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But how could you draw the line? I think the intent -- is the intent the geometry of the building? If it is, then freestanding cleans it up. If the intent is to actually keep the ability to make a fast hamburger out of here, then maybe I'm missing the point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or do we need to bother with it at all and let the market take care of it. Mr. Murray, you live there, what's your-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm going to say, as far as fast food is concerned, they already have two. If they're going to build a boutique type of thing, fast food is -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It ain't gonna happen. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- going to be inside something. I'm not concerned with it, and I do live there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why don't we then drop that stipulation of removing the fast food. Is that okay with everyone? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I kind of would like to bring in the freestanding -- these fast food companies are very wealthy. They could easily buy a large chunk of this land, you know, and you may say the market wouldn't allow that, but to them they may, ifthere's enough traffic. I just think the freestanding building should be excluded. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go one at a time. Page 124 October 4, 2007 Ms. Caron really had asked -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay, I was going to dialogue because that was important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think she's going the same track. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it -- my initial comment was not just for freestanding, but for fast food in general, which would include Quizno's, only if they're owned by Mr. Vigliotti. But any other will be just fine by me. No, I mean, the point here is if you sell to your residents in your neighborhood that you are going to have an upscale boutique operation and you fill it with Subway or Quizno's or any other fast food, I believe that is not in the spirit of what the neighborhood expects. And that is what I'm trying to avoid. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I agree with what you're saying. COMMISSIONER CARON: We've been through this before, we've developed language before. I think we can go back and look at some of those and use that same language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's a person who lives in my community who said we'll never have a Venetian Village here, and so I think we all agree that that's likely that wouldn't happen. However, if we are only going to do upscale, what we end up doing is driving up all the prices on everything and leaving those who would like the choice to have something else in an area that's approximate to them, we leave them out cold. And I think that a Quizno's may not be what is perceived as upscale, but it's food, and if somebody wants to have one and it's inside a unit with a store up above and a residence up above that, I think that would be fine. And I live in that community. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray, this is your district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what's the consensus, we drop the Page 125 October 4, 2007 references to fast food in the stipulation; is that, Mr. Murray, what , you re -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's where I'm going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, I know you have others, but it's in Mr. Murray's neighborhood, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm fine with dropping it. I just didn't like it in there, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Well, let's just leave it out then. So that leaves three stipulations. Anybody have any others that were supposed to be considered? If not, I'll call for the motion. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion to approve CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- with your stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion maker, with the stipulations, the three that we had itemized, were maximum of 100,000 square feet ofC-2 and C-3; limit the maximum size to any one tenant not to exceed 20,000 square feet except for food stores; and they will meet the development standards in the C-2 for all uses. Motion maker has accepted it, as the second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any discussion? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I would just like to bring up the entire issue of density here once again, and I only bring it up because we are creating an entire new use in this PUD, one that didn't exist before. Mixed use did not exist in this PUD, Mr. Strain. And if a mixed use development were to go anywhere else in this county, it would only be allowed 16 units to the acre. They are proposing in this mixed use 19 and a half units an acre. It would be Page 126 October 4, 2007 my hope that we would limit them to 16. Again, it is not my neighborhood. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In answer to that, I would support that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, comment to that. I mean, this PUD, that parcel could just has easily been a residential parcel with as many units as they could fit on it, regardless of the density. So the density application that we're referring to in an activity center, and that's what I tried to point out earlier in the staff report under the compo use analysis, is it's irrelevant, not relevant, to this parcel because this is a PUD, it's not an activity center. And for that reason, I don't see any limitation on the density that's moved around this particular PUD. So that's why I like the motion the way it stands right now. COMMISSIONER CARON: But it is a PUD -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But it is a PUD, and this is a new use for this PUD. This is not something that's been there before. Again, it's -- I'm not making the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, to be more comfortable, I mean, you're focusing on the net density? The gross density of this site, which is the whole PUD, is really small. I think they'll be limited. I don't think -- you know, they'll really have a tough time geometrically striking that number anyway with the limitations on height and stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we call for a motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. Page 127 October 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you, Richard. You pulled off another one. There's no old business, but there is new business. Item # 10 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first item on new business is the elections of this year's from now until October whatever of next year for the officers of this Planning Commission. We will need a nomination from someone. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I nominate we keep the officers just as they are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And I'll second it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I didn't hear it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We're going to keep the board as it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly like that idea, but I don't want to -- Mr. Adelstein, it's your opportunity to be chairman. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely not. There is no way I could handle that job. MR. SCHMITT: Excuse me for laughing. Page] 28 October 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: In fact, I don't think there's anybody in this room that could handle the job he does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Adelstein, with your own consensus then, I thank everyone and I will call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Nay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said nay? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you all very much. I appreciate another year. And we've had a very good couple of years or many years, and I look forward to more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I bring a new business item up? I didn't mention it earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It came to me. And Ray, when they're doing the reports, could you have the emergency management note whether this site is in or not in the FEMA Flood Zone for coastal surges? Just a yes or no. MR. SCHMITT: I just need to correct, that is not an emergency management function. That's done in the engineering department and in the building department. Page 129 October 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But could they just note whether it's in or out of the -- MR. BELLOWS: For this process? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. No, not for -- for the process. In other words, in there Mark read earlier what they stated about. Also, I wish they'd add to that whether it's in or not in the coastal surge. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, they do add that. They will add what zone it is in. Or if it's in a coastal surge zone, they normally will put that statement in, if it's in fact relevant to the petition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, they put evacuation zone. I'm talking about the surge line. MR. SCHMITT: Understand, yes. I got that. We'll do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Nick had wanted to address a point with us before his voice completely went out today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have to apologize. I don't think I'm doing a good job explaining the interconnection and what we need to do, so I want to take a few minutes to just talk to you about it as we come back with other Planning Commission meetings. Every time you see a project, we don't consider and push and encourage interconnection. You are reducing the carrying capacity of the adjacent road that's around there, whether it's gated or public. You could have three communities that are gated, share one driveway, share a signal; that helps that roadway around there. Whether it's public, and we've got plenty of examples throughout the community in Tree Farm Road, Pristine Drive, where people have worked together to make public roads where they share those roads at signalized intersections. The prior application, Della Rosa PUD, we had numerous meetings with the applicant. We heard them tell us well, it would hurt Page 130 October 4, 2007 their development, they wouldn't make as much money. That application now, because it has to travel onto Livingston Road only, has to go up and make U-turns at the intersection to go south. The development to the north that's right now vacant and could be commercial and residential could seek their own driveway on Livingston Road if they can't use that 30-foot access strip. So I take some of the blame that I didn't have the time to review it as much as I would like to have, and I think part of the blame is I'm not explaining it properly. But when you review these applications, it is so important they are tied in together to take trips off the road and take conflicts off the roadway. So in the future maybe we could take a few moments and I'll give you some examples graphically why that makes such a difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nick, I appreciate the time you took, because I think our better understanding will help you as well as the community. So I would -- there's two things we have outstanding with your department. One is the list of LDC amendments that you were going to implement that you gave us a long time ago that we put off talking about because Don Scott and all the transitions were happening. I think we need to address that at some point when we can have some spare time, which probably won't happen for a couple of months. But maybe a little more detailed presentation on the interconnection issue and how it actually helps each road system by some computation method might help us understand it better. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. We'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron, and then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to -- I mean, let's go back to Della Rosa there for a minute. If we had done the interconnection to the east -- basically people are lazy. Aren't they going to take the shorter right out and go up and make the U-turn? Page 131 October 4,2007 You think they're going to follow that back road all the way up around and then come down? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not that far, I mean, if you think about it, when you come out there. In the future when that signal is full time, it's only part time right now because of the school, then it becomes a full-time signal. We may prohibit U-turns there. You'd be waiting at a signal and you'd be one more left turn in that signal to go through there, as opposed to you would -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You can do that, yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. You could go south or north to Veterans Memorial, approach that signal and make a left turn out. So it's a lot bigger of a deal than I made it out to be today, when you review this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Nick, in the community character plan, which is something that was done probably 10 years ago, the big point there was is that we have so many gated communities. We don't have, you know, road abilities. Are we doing anything to cure that or to prevent that, or -- you know, we see all these parcels, they all have joining sites. We don't see, you know, future right-of-ways; we don't see anything other than gated communities coming through here. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll give you two examples. We had the Tree Farm Road project that came around with Summit Lakes and Buttonwood PUD, Warm Springs PUD, Bristol Pines PUD. We said no to them. They're now building a public roadway network that's actually cheaper for them than it would be for them to connect all the driveways, in the end. So we doing that. Just to the west of that you have Wolf Creek PUD, Carolina Village, Mission Hills. They built a roadway network that they're all sharing and using. That's the way it should be done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And those are public roads. Page 132 October 4,2007 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Those are public and private roads. But they have public access easements. Gated communities is an oxymoron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point the community character plan was making was not at the convince of the residents, it was so the people who are not residents traveling through that area have alternate routes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: But it does both. And that's the part I want to work with you to educate you on. Because if you look at some of these developments as they come forward, Della Rosa and Brandon are perfect examples. If they were to connect and share these roadway networks, you'd pull conflicting movements out of the roadway network. Not only -- a function of roadway capacity is the amount of driveways. When you drive down a roadway such as 1-75, there's no driveways. You're going 55 miles an hour and you carry a lot of volume. Livingston, which is your premier arterial that's newly constructed, every time you permit a driveway or a conflict, you start to reduce the service capacity of that roadway. Because now you have people -- you're driving down that road and you see multiple right turn lanes and people entering on as well, too. Then people come out and make a right and they have to cross over to a U-turn intersection to come back south. So your service capacity for that roadway diminishes. So if you want to protect these roadways and you want to make a difference, interconnect these projects. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the problem I have with that is then you define that both of those projects would be gated. So it didn't help the public any. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, it does. Because now you can be an interconnection that's a public road or an interconnection that's a Page 133 October 4,2007 private road. That private gated could have had Della Rosa, the gate that's shared from the community to the east, Brandon. Internally they would have shared those gates as a private community but they would have different options for access and egress on the public roadway. So they still would have maintained their gated community, they would have taken trips and conflicts off the road, and made Livingston function better. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But a gate between Brandon and Della Rosa, what they would have meant is it gave the residents of Brandon a better opp -- or Della Rosa a better opportunity to go through Brandon. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You wouldn't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It didn't help the public and it didn't help Brandon. Brandon had the same road system. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, you wouldn't have had a gate between Brandon and Della Rosa. You would have eliminated that gate. They would have shared gates to the outside public roadway. In fact, if you really looked at that, you could have said -- if Brandon was coming in at the same time you could have said, you know what, we don't want a permanent driveway on Livingston. Share Della Rosa's or Brandon's driveway network and it's one less driveway. So I mean, you know, I think -- I'll take the blame with some of this stuff that staff reviewed. You're not catching them all because you're getting one applicant coming in one month, another applicant coming in the next month and you're trying to get them to coincide. But when we get here to the Planning Commission, really ask me and ask yourself, if we join these two can we take a driveway off of Livingston or any public road, can we take conflicts off the arterial, and will it reduce trips. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And can we bring people to a lighted intersection. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly. The smart growth book that Page 134 October 4, 2007 we purchased for staff talked about -- it's funny, they went into details, and I'll elaborate a little bit. People get to know each other inside a community. So one neighbor gets to know another neighbor. They go -- the kids go to the same school. In those two communities, if two kids went to the same school and someone was sharing a ride, they'd have to go out to Livingston, down and around to pick up somebody that could be 200 feet away in the same neighborhood. It's crazy. In that Tivoli shopping center, you connect to there, anybody that worked in that development that Della Rosa is building right now could either walk to work or drive off of Livingston to get there. It's a significant amount of trips if you apply it unilaterally across the community. And in your urban area it's more important. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they would have benefited because it would have eliminated a need for a cul-de-sac. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they would have actually had more land to develop a -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's a benefit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- density on. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So I encourage you to ask the questions. And we're going to try and do a better job as staff to bring these forward to you earlier. But when we're up here it's hard, because the applicant has already met with us and is trying to negotiate the best profit for his development. And I think you have to look at the overall big picture of this thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, one thing, though. Before you come back to us with some more detail on this interconnection, it would be highly helpful if you would get together with the County Attorney's office first. Because every time we suggest interconnections there's issues that come up like how do we share the cost of the maintenance of the roads like through Brandon versus Page 135 October 4,2007 Della Rosa, who pays for the gate arm and the clickers that got to go up and down and maintain, who pays for the guard that's going to have to sit at two -- all three of the gates, or if one's gated, with a guard and one is not. Those kinds of issues are legitimate issues and concerns of -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- every individual condominium and property owner. So I think as part of your package, that's got to be addressed. You just can't ignore it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: With the DCA's I do, that's the least of my concerns. I can figure that out with Mr. Klatzkow, guaranteed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be helpful when you come back to us, to include that as a portion of your discussion. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? I think that's the end of the agenda. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. If I can indulge. I just want to go back to that issue in regards to the requirements of staff asking for certain items to be included and asking the petitioner, being the one we talked about, Della Rosa and the tot lot kiddy park. Is it your desire for us in our staff reports to point out clearly that this was a request of a specific staff, but there's nothing in the LDC that mandates a compliance with that request? It's nothing more than just a request. And you know the other areas, I could talk about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would certainly like to know the things that are requests versus requirements. Because when you produce a PUD document to us, most of the time I would assume that you're telling us these are requirements. And then when I look at something as impractical as this one but Page 136 October 4,2007 yet I heard Melissa, correctly so, defend it, how do you tell us anything is a requirement based on the defense she put forth? And so where are we going to go with this? What I'm concerned about too is the methodology and the way it's approached. The applicant is approached before it comes to us about these exactions from different departments that go above and beyond the code requirements. Now, that's fine if we can justify it for like we can in hurricanes and some things where they're not funded through any other sources. But I'm real disturbed that an applicant is intimidated to a point where they're afraid to say anything because it would jeopardize the approval process. That isn't a fair way of a democracy. I don't know how to avoid it, Joe, but I think maybe if you all were to present other departments' issues to us first, not ahead of time with the applicant, and then let them be aired out at the public meeting between the applicant and this body, that might be a fairer way of approaching it than trying to intimidate the applicant to get through the system. Because, for example, Della Rosa would be stopped on sign-offs from the parks department until they sat down and agreed with the parks department. That isn't fair. So maybe those kinds of requests from other departments ought to come through the public process and not to the applicant so the applicant isn't intimidated. That's kind of where I'm thinking. If you can figure out a way that fits in better, fine. And if you want to come back and suggest it where we all talk some more. But that's where I'm concerned about. I think we need to get away from this intimidation process and get more into a cooperative process. MR. SCHMITT: But that happens routinely also when we're dealing with transportation and transportation impacts. There are times where we ask things of the applicant and ask them to agree. Page 13 7 October 4, 2007 Probably more so in trying to work out transportation issues. And I know you might say well, that's apples and oranges, but it's still various staffs asking for -- what do you want to call it basically -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Concessions. MR. SCHMITT: The concessions or contributions that are being asked by various review elements. My staff, frankly, what I'm responsible for is bringing it all together. But there are different staffs asking for certain things that yes, I understand, they need to come -- they probably need to be identified to you. You want to make a determination as to the legitimacy of those requests. That's what I hear you saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if the requests come with an impact fee credit -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and it's going to be accounted in the AUIR so the public's not paying for it twice, well, you know what, we've got a good benefit there. But that's not what I see happening here. And that's where my concern lies. MR. SCHMITT: Oftentimes a developer will give up right-of-way. And they'll give up right-of-way but there's no impact fee credit associated with it as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the right-of-way is a necessity to get the project built. You don't have to get cars -- you've got to get cars into a project safely and out of a project safely. A tot lot for seasonal visitors isn't necessarily something that's going to make a live or die situation for a project. There's a big difference between the two. MR. SCHMITT: Okay, got it. We'll try and clarify that in future reports. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to adjourn? Page 13 8 October 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you all. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:48 p.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 Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 139