Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/06/2007 R December 6, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 6, 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 (Excused) Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Director Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Page 1 AGENDA Revised II COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2007, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES A. Due to the increasing lack of BCC Chamber availability per next years calendar, Comprehensive Planning Staff is currently requesting the CCPC choose one of the following two dates provided for special hearing of the 5-Year RLSA Review to be held on either December 1,2008 or December 15,2008. We are required to schedule this hearing as soon as possible in order to assure Bee Chambers availability for one of those two dates. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 15, 2007, AUIR MEETING; OCTOBER 16,2007, AUIR MEETING; OCTOBER 18, 2007, REGULAR MEETING; OCTOBER 18,2007, LDC MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - Not Available at this time 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-3601, New Hope Ministries, Inc., represented by Tim Hancock, AICP, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) with a provisional use for a church authorized by Resolution #91-3, and the Neapolitan Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) approved as Ordinance #90-6, to Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) district for a project to be known as the New Hope Ministries CFPUD. This project consists of 39.89ct acres and will consist of expanding the existing church facility. The property is located on the north side of Davis Boulevard and east of Santa Barbara Boulevard at 7675 Davis Boulevard, in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) 1 B. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-84 I 6, Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., request a rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for project known as Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD. The subject property, consisting of I 7.15ct acres, is located on the east side of Livingston Road, approximately 4,5 miles north of Immokalee Road and 5 miles south of the Lee County Line, Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) C. Petition: BD-2007-AR-I2154, Saundra Clancy-Koendarfer, represented by Ben Nelson Jr., of Nelson Marine Construction, Inc., requesting a 17-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot limit as provided in section 5.03.06 of the LDC to allow a 37-foot dock facility to accommodate one vessel. The property is located at 243 6th Street W, Lot 10, Block E, Little Hickory Shores, Unit 2, Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ashley Caserta) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 12/6/07CCPC AgendaIRB/mk/sp 2 December 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the December 6th 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.) Item #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat is absent. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm 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: And Mr. Vigliotti is absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat and Mr. Vigliotti both notified me, they have personal things they had to take care of today, so they won't be here. They are excused absences. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA We'll move on to the addenda to the agenda. And I want to Page 2 December 6, 2007 remind everyone that next Wednesday night at 5:05 we have an LDC continuing meeting from our last time on the LDC Cycle 2. Is everybody here planning to be there next Wednesday night? Anybody knowing they're not going to be? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, you're not going to be? I know that the others, Mr. Vigliotti and Mr. Kolflat, I think, indicated they previously would be here, so we'll have a quorum. The following morning on the 13th at 8:30 this panel was requested to review a settlement agreement on the Bert Harris claim for Cocohatchee. So that meeting will start at 8:30. It will not go past 1 :00 for sure, but more than likely noon, because this meeting room is taken up at 1 :00 by other groups. So for scheduling purposes I want to let you all know. Anybody here not going to be at the meeting next Thursday at 8:30? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, we'll have a quorum that day. Now, on the 14th we have an option. The 12th, on the LDC meeting -- I would hope we could finish the LDC issues up on the 12th. Ifwe can't, this room is available -- the only other day it's available is the 14th for the month of December, and I believe it was like at 1 :00 in the afternoon. I'm hoping we wouldn't need it, but we may need it as a clean-up day. Ifwe can't do it on the 14th of December, we'd have to finish the LDC cycle sometime in January, which keeps pushing it behind schedule. It should have been done earlier this year, to be honest with you. I'd like to ask, if we have to go to the 14th, does anybody here know they cannot make it on the 14th? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will not be able. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You cannot be here? So there's a Page 3 December 6, 2007 potential we could have it. And the other option is, depending on what our 20th agenda is like and how much of the LDC cycle we'd have to continue, we might consider doing it late on the 20th. Although I'm not sure, because of the time frames and the schedule on the 20th at this point. At this point I'll ask staff to reserve the 14th meeting room, pending confirmation of a quorum on the 12th. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: At what date and time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1:00 in the afternoon. Yeah, it would be an afternoon meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, glad I heard that. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, planning commission absences. We just went over that. I asked -- staff asked to discuss with us a potential meeting date in December of 2008. They're planning ahead. So we stuck it under this particular item, because it seemed the most convenient to be done. Is planning staff here? Yes. MR. STANDRIDGE: Good morning, Commissioners, Noah Standridge for the record. I'm a Senior Planner in Comprehensive Planning and currently shepherding the rural land stewardship five area reVIew. We anticipate that process to be finishing up in October or November of next year and we would like and ask to come before you on one of two dates, December 1 st or December 15th, to give a presentation on the outcome of that process, and also to review the information and recommendations of that committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you asking these dates because Page 4 December 6, 2007 those are the only days in December this room is open? MR. STANDRIDGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason -- both of those are a Monday. And they're both a Monday prior to a Thursday regular meeting of ours. Generally the weekends prior to our Thursday meetings we try to prep for those Thursday meetings. I know you're going to be presenting us with a review of the RLSA or the Eastern Lands Study Committee. I can personally tell you I have multiple pages of corrections I believe that the program may need. And I think just getting through those is going to be a lengthy process, plus the study to understand those issues before the Monday meeting will take time. I don't know how much data your group plans to give us. I would assume they're going to be looking at the program in depth, because there are a lot of issues there. MR. STANDRIDGE: Well, we are not planning on reevaluating the entire program. This is a, may I say, tweaking of the program, looking at areas that can be strengthened. But currently as it exists the committee is looking to see if it has been successful in its implementation to meet the four goals outlined in the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you also looking to see if it's overly successful? MR. STANDRIDGE: Overly successful? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. STANDRIDGE: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Being that it's on a Monday, is there any other -- are your committee's findings not going to be available till what month, November, December? MR. STANDRIDGE: I plan on finalizing two reports, one that will be the technical review, the status to date of the program, with numbers and acreages of how much landowner participation has Page 5 December 6, 2007 occurred. That report will be finalized in March and April and will be coming before you in April during your regular hearing meetings to present that information. Following that, there will be a second report which will come before you December 1st. That will be finalized October or November of 2008. And that information can be made available to you well before your regular -- the hearing dates that we're requesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, based on that, if the committee agrees, I think the December 1 st date might be better for us, because if we could get the information early, we'd have from November 20th, which is our third Thursday meeting in November, all the way to that first Monday of December to at least have the paperwork and fit it in. That's more time frame for us. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's shoot for December 1st then. MR. STANDRIDGE: Thank you very much, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: December 1st? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: December 1 st. Well, we'll probably start at 8:30 in the morning. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 15,2007, AUIR MEETING; OCTOBER 16, 2007, AUIR MEETING; OCTOBER 18, 2007, REGULAR MEETING; OCTOBER 18, 2007, LDC MEETING Okay, approval of minutes. We have four sets of minutes that came with this package. The first one is October 15th and it's the AUIR meeting. Is there a recommendation for approval? Commissioner Adelstein, you're usually willing to do that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) Page 6 December 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein made the motion. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. The next one is October 16th, again the AUIR meeting. Motion to approve made by? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Page 7 December 6, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. October 18th is our regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein again. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron again. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. The last one is October 18th. Motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, followed by? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. I guess it goes to show you how well the minutes are taken by our court recorder that we don't have corrections to them, because she Page 8 December 6, 2007 does a good job. So thank you, Cherie'. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS BCC report, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners met on November 27th and they heard the conditional use for the model -- American Dream Builders model home. The Board of County Commissioners approved that 5-0. They also approved the PUD rezone for Gaspar Station. That was approved 5-0. And on the summary extension they approved the PUD extension for Sierra Meadows and the parking exemption for the Naples Big Cypress Marketplace. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, when these approvals happen, would it be possible to add to your report whether or not they accepted our recommendations and things like that? Only because if there are recommendations that we make that they don't like, it would be good to know perception-wise where they're seeing those as they review them. MR. BELLOWS: Sure, I think that's not going to be a problem. On the American Dream Builders model home, I do have a note here that the Board of County Commissioners did direct staff to bring back a GMP and LDC amendment to address the model homes in the Golden Gate Estates pursuant to your recommendation about model homes along 951. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I hope that they understood that that particular model home didn't have any neighborhood complaints. There was a lot of particulars with that effort that were more in line with community standards than some of the others that Page 9 December 6, 2007 have tried to come before us and get approval. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, and it's just going to be -- staff will bring back recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would staff have the stakeholders involved in that process, meaning I hope you would at least -- there's one or two civic groups in the Estates that participated heavily in the model homes, the Oakes advisory group being one and the Golden Gate Civic Association being the other. It certainly would be good to have their input on that GMP amendment since they're the ones that helped develop the original Growth Management Plan language. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I'm sure that will be the case. I'm not going to speak for comprehensive planning, but for the Land Development Code we definitely will get those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The GMP is the issue. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Well, I will relay that information to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. Chairman's report. I think I've said enough. Item #8A PETITION: PUDZ-2003-AR-3601, NEW HOPE MINISTRIES Advertised public hearings. We'll go straight into our hearings at this point. There was a change in the schedule, you all should have a revised two schedule. The boat dock was moved to the last position and the first two positions were moved -- last two were moved forward to accommodate some issues that we had to have for scheduling of others, staff. The Petition PUDZ-2003-AR-3601, New Hope Ministries, represented by Tim Hancock, will be the first item up today. Page 10 December 6, 2007 And 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: Are there disclosures on the part of the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had communication with Mr. Hancock regarding some additional data needed for the transportation documentation that was supplied to us. I also talked with Nick about it, and he will be discussing my concerns here today. So with that, let's move forward. Mr. Hancock. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, remaining members of the planning commission this morning. Also with us today is -- I'm sorry, for the record, Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering. With us today with New Hope Ministries is Pastor Grant Thigpen, also Mr. Pete Smith. Part of our project team here this morning, Mr. Gavin Gillette, who is here to address any concerns with water management design. Mr. Andrew Roth, also with Davidson Engineering, to discuss any elements of the traffic impact statement, and Mr. Jeremy Sterk, also with Davidson Engineering, to answer any questions you may have on the environmental aspects of this petition. By way of overview, the proposed project combines two parcels totaling 39.89 acres, which consist of the existing church site as you can see on the visualizer, which is the gray rectangle on the right of the two. That site is nearly 21 acres and immediately -- lies immediately east of the Neapolitan Park PUD, which is the gray rectangle on the left of the two. And that project is 18.99 acres. The proposed rezone seeks to simply expand the existing church facility and uses to include the Neapolitan Park PUD parcel. That parcel's currently zoned for mixed use and allows for up to 150,000 square feet of office, up to 38,125 square feet of additional Page 11 December 6, 2007 commercial, and 81 multi-family units. While I think it's well understood that even a large church will produce fewer daily peak hour trips on the local roads than a 19-acre commercial and residential mixed use project, as Mr. Strain pointed out in a conversation we had, that analysis was not specifically included in your packet and available for your review. To that end, what I'd like to provide you for your consideration on that aspect is that our traffic impact statement treated the project as if the current land were unzoned. In other words, we're starting from scratch, and here's what our added trips would be based on the expansion of the facility. And so everything you see in your TIS is based on that premise. However, when you compare what's in the TIS against the table before you, what we did is we took the existing uses in the Neapolitan Park PUD and we placed them into a table using the most constrained movement, as your transportation staff requires, which is typically your p.m. peak hour movement. To that end, by way of comparison, the 19 acres of the Neapolitan Park PUD at build-out would produce 412 p.m. peak hour trips. We also in this number did account for what would normally be a pass-by reduction, as well as an internal capture. So we -- that number's already been lowered by using those two tools. So it's not a worst case scenario, it's something your transportation staff -- very similar to what they would see if you were to submit a TIS for the project under its current land uses. This 412 p.m. peak hour trips compares very favorably to a weekday p.m. peak hour trip generation contained in your TIS of 93 trips for the church. Again, an apples to apples comparison of 93 p.m. peak hour weekday trips to 412 p.m. peak hour trips under the current zoned land uses. We all recognize that churches don't put most of their traffic out there between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The church Page 12 December 6, 2007 will have a significant amount of traffic for a short period, particularly on Sundays, but measures such as traffic control being provided by the church through the Florida Highway Patrol has been in place and will continue to be in place into the future to address Sunday morning flows. The proj ect as proposed will generate fewer trips during those weekday peak hours on the adjacent roadways and achieve dispersion through providing access to and through the adjacent Dolphin Plaza project, which is currently under SDP review by Collier County. Because the county aerials were flown in January, and the Dolphin Plaza project, which is on top of this aerial, the cleared area there, with the exception of the gas station on the corner, was cleared subsequent to that, the church went for an afternoon flight and took these pictures. What you see here at the bottom of the picture is the existing New Hope campus. That large rectangular squared area is the existing campus. To the upper portion of the photograph moving to the west is the Neapolitan Park PUD, which is the wooded section, which is -- again, it goes from front to back, left to right. The existing wooded section behind the church is a part of their current campus. As you go again to the north, what you have is the Dolphin Plaza. The Dolphin Plaza has an existing developed gas station at the corner there of Santa Barbara and Davis. What the church has proposed and what is currently under SDP review by Collier County is an interconnection from the northwest, or as you look at it the upper right wooded section there, an interconnection between our project and the Dolphin Plaza project. That same connection is evident on the site development plans that have been submitted to Collier County for Dolphin Plaza. We've also provided staff with a copy of a letter from Dolphin Plaza agreeing to continue to work with the church to ensure that Page 13 December 6, 2007 interconnection occurs. More importantly, your staff has got us both at SDP and we're not going to exit that particular process without making that interconnection happen, neither one of us. So the project, from a traffic dispersal pattern, will not just put its traffic onto Davis Boulevard as it does today, but will have use of Santa Barbara through the Dolphin Plaza project. So the project will be accessing two major arterial roadways. We believe the staff report correctly addresses issues of compatibility and consistency with applicable sections of the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan, with one exception, which I expect will be the focus of much of our discussion today, and that centers around water management and preserves. Mr. Chairman, I've briefly hit on some traffic issues, which you've raised in a conversation with me. Is it your pleasure to address the transportation issues now and then focus on what I believe is the one remaining issue, or go ahead and complete the presentation and address all at the end? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you ought to -- Tim, there's a lot more than traffic as far as clarification goes. And normally, if you'll complete your presentation, we'll just start with the questioning and work our way through. Maybe what the best thing we could do is save transportation to last so Nick can then come up and address all that collectively. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. We'll proceed. The staff recommendation of approval includes a stipulation that stormwater management not be allowed in preserves for this project. The basis for this, as stated in your staff report, is that the environmental staff is of the opinion that the project is not consistent with Policy 6.1.1, paren (5)(b), which states the receipt of treated storm water discharge or such use, including conveyance, treatment and discharge structures, does not result in adverse impacts to the Page 14 December 6, 2007 naturally occurring native vegetation to include the loss of the minimum required vegetation and the harm to any listed species according to the policies associated with Obj ective 7.1 as determined by criteria set forth in Land Development Code regulations. Discharge to preserve having wetlands requires treatment that will meet water quality standards as set forth in Chapter 63-302 F AC, and will conform to the water quality criteria requirements set forth by the South Florida Water Management District. In short, it's kind of a do-no-harm statement. If you're going to put stormwater management in the preserves, staff wants to be comfortable that such use of those preserves will not adversely affect the native vegetation. The difficulty comes in when you look at that statement, there's a line that says as determined by criteria set forth in the Land Development regulations. I think this body is all too aware that the last attempt to actually create a change in the Land Development regulations that addresses this issue specifically resulted in no action by the board. The EAC was on one path and I believe this body had their recommendations, and the BCC determined that it needed either more study or more time. And so nothing was implemented in the Land Development Code as a benchmark, if you will, that a project would have to meet in order for this standard to clearly be shown than it's met. The basis in the staff report really has three elements to it for their recommendations: Number one is the staffs opinion that directing stormwater to be retained in the proposed upland preserves will disrupt the natural hydroperiod balance. Number two, that the proposed preserve is mostly underlain by well-drained, non hydric soils. And three, that directing stormwater runoff to the proposed upland preserves can result in changes to the nutrient and sediment Page 15 December 6, 2007 loads. Through the course of this application, which as you know from the AR number has been going on for some time, we've provided the staff with a variety of reports and analysis. The first thing we were asked to do is a Harper analysis. A Harper analysis is when you're impacting five or more acres of wetlands, the District typically will request one, and the county staff has come now to request one whether the District wants it or not. The focus of a Harper analysis is to address if the project's water management design will adequately reduce the nutrient loading from development so that the post-development nutrient-loading discharge or the discharge from the project has a lesser degree or an equal degree of nutrient loading as predevelopment. We did that analysis. We provided it. We answered some questions. In the end the Harper analysis was accepted and the project water management design will achieve that objective. The downstream nutrient loading will not be worse post-development than it is predevelopment. We were then asked to calculate what kind of storm event it would take for water even to enter the preserves. Let me explain the stormwater management design as simply as I can. There is an area of dry detention that all the stormwater goes into. That dry detention achieves the pretreatment of that stormwater, per Water Management District standards. That water then enters a lake on the property. The purpose of the lake primarily, it does provide additional treatment, but it primarily provides for quantity or storage. When that lake rises to a certain level during peak events, the water will seep back into the existing preserves, and then as the water levels fall that water will seep back toward the lake and eventually discharge from the site. And the term that Mr. Lorenz coined was pop off. When do we get to that point that water pops off into that Page 16 December 6, 2007 preserve? The water, other than the ground water elevation itself, will rise and move into the preserve. We looked at that, we modeled the system. And what we came up with is if you have a four-inch rainfall in 24 hours, the system will allow water to basically seep back into the preserves. Over the course of 12 years of data there were only a handful of times you had four inches of rain in a 24-hour period. We submitted that information. What we got back was, well, okay, that's not a lot, but what about successive events? What about in a typical year, what if you have one amount of rainfall one day and two more days of two or three or four inches on those days, what happens then? We went back and basically pulled 12 years of rainfall data. We analyzed the 12 years, determined what we thought was the year just above the median. In other words, an average rainfall year, let's take that next year up and let's model a 30-day window, the wettest month of that year. We started at control elevation, which means our control, which is 9.5, is almost like a glass table in the wet season. When you pour water on it it's going to do one of two things: It's going to run off or it's going to stack up. So assuming we started at wet season water table, which is the average high, we modeled 30 days. We took the rainfall events, real time rainfall events and plugged them into the system day after day after day after day for 30 days. And what we were able to show is, in that 30-day window the system achieved full recovery, which means that -- full recovery is defined by when you have a major event, a 25-year storm event, over the course of 15 days the system fully recovers. In other words, the water elevation is back down at that 9.5 control. There were no successive events that allowed water to stage in the preserves to any great degree. And more importantly, throughout Page 17 December 6, 2007 that 30 days, the majority of those days water was not even in the preserves. Our control elevation for this site is 9.5 feet. Our natural grade is between 10 and 10-and-a-half. You'd have to have the water table elevated six inches or more over the seasonal high to even have water in your preserves. We provided that information to staff. And before the EAC, the staff looked at that average year, and Mr. Lorenz testified that there appeared to be in a given year only eight or nine times in which water would enter the preserves. Over the course of those 12 years, there were single events in the number of 15 to 20 that may have allowed it to happen. We felt that information was pretty good. It spoke well of the design. It spoke of the fact that any water being put back in the preserves was short term, short duration, and minimal effect. The EAC agreed with us and recommended approval 5-1. I'll be candid, though, one of their elements of recommendation was gee, you haven't given these guys a standard. Every time you ask them to model something and they do, you ask for more modeling. Well, that wasn't the end of it. The staff asked for modeling, and we provided it. We modeled in addition to the 25-year, three-day event which we had already provided, we provided the requested 10-year event and the five-year event. The result of that additional modeling was the same recommendation. And folks, I think what we're dealing with is not -- we don't want to become the test case. But we have become the de facto test case for water management in preserves. Is there a level at which it's acceptable? We don't have that mark. We believe we've met it. We believe through proper design our water is pre-treated in dry pretreatment to a commercial -- exceeding a commercial standard before it ever goes into our lake. Then it sits in the lake, receives additional pretreatment before it ever discharges into the preserve. Page 18 December 6, 2007 And it only discharges in the preserve in peak events for short durations. The fact that our EIS states that an increased hydroperiod will be beneficial to the preserves, we still have a recommendation of denial -- I'm sorry, recommendation of approval with a stipulation that we cannot discharge into the preserves. I believe what we have is a philosophical issue, not an issue based on analysis. That's difficult for me to stand here and deal with. But let me boil it down to what I think is the actual question we need to answer with respect to this project. It is my sincere hope this body hopefully takes one of two actions today. The one is to approve staff recommendation with the stipulation. That's obviously our second choice, that we not discharge into the preserves. The second is to approve the proj ect or recommend approval with the fact that the project has shown as designed that it does not represent adverse impacts to the preserve. To that end, you're looking at two options. We've given you the information on option one, and let me try and make it as simple as I can. The way we've designed the system, that preserve is connected to our water management system. And the staff sees that as a negative because it allows for water to build up in the stormwater system and move back into the preserves. We candidly think the opposite is true. If we disconnect that system from the water management system, if we leave that preserve as it is today, we all know the first thing we do when we build in Southwest Florida is we elevate the site. Preserves end up being encased, if you will, in two to three feet offill. That preserve will become a bathtub with no outlet. Peak rainfall events as a result will stand in that preserve and they will stage not higher but longer. The only benchmark we've been given is a study by Mike Duever with the South Florida Water Management District. And I'm Page 19 December 6, 2007 sure staff will share that study with you. We're dealing with what's called a mesic flatwoods. And in Mike's report, he says mesic flatwoods, which are one step away from a hydric flatwood, can accept inundation on average for up to two inches over a 30-day period. None of our models show that this system will be inundated for greater than 30 days for more than two inches. I spoke with Mike last week and he went a half step further. That model is not intended to be a snapshot in time but over a six to 10-year window. We believe we have shown that not only do we have a good design, but if you take Mike Duever's report, where the idea is if you get over two inches of staging in that area for 30 days or more, you begin to transition from mesic flatwoods to hydric. Our system does not do that. The model shows that's not what will happen. We've met the only standard we've been given. And I think the alternative is to create a bathtub around the preserve which will actually cause longer inundation. So my request to you is we're not asking you to set policy, but I do want you to take a look at the aerial in front of you, and right where my pen points, you'll see a strip of green. I know it's difficult to see on this aerial, but I want to point out that we have a case study of exactly what we're asking you to approve. It's on-site. Ten years ago this project was approved by the South Florida Water Management District. At that time churches were not held to a commercial standard. Water did not have to be pre-treated prior to discharging into preserves. Our existing stormwater management system takes the church and the parking lot and discharges the water through sheet flow into an existing preserve, which is mesic pine flatwoods. For nine years this has been going on. We're happy to put lengthy testimony on, but we don't think it's necessary. That area is doing well. There's a very simple, and I know, Mr. Strain, you've seen Page 20 December 6, 2007 this, if you go out to cattle lands where you get a lot of standing water over time, the saw palmetto will get what we call leggy. All of a sudden the branches on the bottom will die off and it almost looks like it's trying to step out of the water. You'd think after nine years some of that might be going on if this was being transitioned from mesic to hydric. That's not evident in any way. Admittedly, there are three or four pine trees in here that are stressed. I can take you out to the middle of the Picayune State Forest and show you three or four pine trees that are stressed too. There's no indication -- if everything was being stressed due to water or inundation, we would see a broader application of that. My point is that we've done all the studies. We've met or tried to meet what standards we've been provided in the Mike Duever report. And we have on this very site a case of a higher degree of inundation going into a preserve than what we are proposing on the new preserve in the year. Folks, we've met the standard. And our request of you today is, assuming we meet the standards in all other areas that -- on this particular issue that on this project you determine that in fact what we're proposing does not represent adverse harm to the preserve. With that, and that being the key issue, if you have any specific questions about water management design or the health of the system out there, Jeremy Sterk, who's the environmentalist with our firm, is here. His -- Dan Underhill did the EIS in your package. Jeremy's experience with the site actually pre-dates Dan a little bit. He can address any questions you might have. I've chosen just to focus our presentation on the one key issue of the stipulation, but at this point obviously we'd be pleased to address any questions or concerns you might have about the balance of the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the planning commission? Page 21 December 6, 2007 I would like if we could hold our transportation questions collectively towards the end and we'll have Nick address all those at one time. At least I have some, so I'll hold mine. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, the way I read the staff recommendation is not that the area be made into a bathtub and completely isolated, they're just talking about full water quality pretreatment before it would backflow into the preserve. Are you against -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, that's the wrong -- there's been a new recommendation issued separately by staff. That was their first recommendation. If you don't have the second one -- here, I'll give it to you to read. MR. HANCOCK: The recommendation you have in your packet we were fine with, and quite frankly was a little confused when we got it because didn't match the analysis or the statements in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right after our packet went out, I think it was after the weekend even, a separate recommendation went forth, and not all of us who get e-mail on a regular basis may have received it. And that's why Mr. Midney may not have had it. MR. HANCOCK: Actually, Mr. Midney, if you want to go back to the previous recommendation, we're all for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was going to be my question. The previous recommendation seemed to make sense, especially in lieu of all the studies that you've done and the fact that you're in an activity center in an urban area, I was surprised to receive the second recommendation. But we'll go from there. Mr. Midney, did you want to follow up with that at all? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer after Mr. Murray. Page 22 December 6, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning. I'm looking at the PUD that's extant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, could you bring the microphone. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at the section one statement of compliance, and No.8. I just want to make sure I understand what there are no conflicts. No.8 reads, the planned unit development includes extensive open spaces which are preserved -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I'm sorry -- we'd like to follow along with you. The statement of compliance in the PUD? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, in the old PUD. This is the Neapolitan Park planned unit. January, 1990. My apologies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We were looking at the new one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize. And I'm on page -- I guess it's 424. Section one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, I'm with you now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to be clear that we don't have a conflict in any way. Under No.8, the planned unit development includes extensive open spaces which are preserved from future development in order to enhance their natural functions and to serve as a project amenity. It's that's a statement that's -- although it's intended to be specific, I think it's more general than I'd like it relative to what you're currently relating. Because I'm trying to differentiate, do we lose any of these open spaces as a result of this new program? MR. HANCOCK: To answer that question, I'll refer you to the next to last page of Ordinance 90-06, that same document you're looking at, which is the conceptual PUD master plan for the Neapolitan Park PUD. And if you take a look at what -- it's a little tough to see because it's obviously a scanned -- but if you'll note the size of the preserve. Page 23 December 6, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to get there, if you give me a second. MR. HANCOCK: And the pages are numbered by OR book to 37, then Page 444, then it's the very next page. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I just lost my page. Anyway, go ahead, sir. MR. HANCOCK: If you look at the PUD master plan, obviously compliance statement No.8 is intended to work in concert with the master plan. The proposed native vegetation that will be retained in the project exceeds -- if you'll notice that area of preserve on that master plan? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Well, I'm not sure I can differentiate -- it's Tract B, I guess, that we're looking at? MR. HANCOCK: Correct, it's-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One looks like a lake and the other one might be the -- or are they both preserves? MR. HANCOCK: No, one is a lake, which provides water management, the darker of the two. The lighter color is a preserve. Again, my pen is pointing to the preserve area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This needs to be turned on. I have to look over here. I'll look over here in the meantime. It's as simple as that, huh. Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: So the preserve area within the Neapolitan Park PUD shown on the master plan is actually smaller than what will be retained on-site through the existing combined PUD. Furthermore, what was required on the previous conditional use for the New Hope Ministry site has been increased because the regulation of the native vegetation requirement since the original adoption of the conditional use requires more. And the fact that they left the area to the rear vegetated, it increased our overall. So when you combine the two projects as currently approved, the resulting vegetation is more than what those two projects wouldl Page 24 December 6,2007 have had to have done under the current approvals. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's interesting. Could you return to that other photo where you had your pen. While I was appreciating what you were trying to show us, you showed us what appeared to be a rather small line of vegetation. MR. HANCOCK: And I was incorrect. And thank you for catching me on that. The wider area, which the pen now -- let me get out of that glare. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a little different. MR. HANCOCK: Yeah, that looks more like a preserve and less like a landscape buffer. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah. Now it makes a little bit more sense to me. And the -- how wide would you say that is? That looks, I would guess, maybe 35, 40 feet? MR. HANCOCK: It's actually closer to about 70 feet in width. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You say there are only a couple of pines that are stressed? MR. HANCOCK: There are about 70 pines total in that area, and there are three or four of them in one small cluster that appear to be stressed, based on site visits to the site and whatnot. It's not unusual when one tree gets stressed that you get some boring insects that will spread out to a couple around it. So it's not terribly disconcerting, but it does not appear to be anything related to hydrology. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Let's see if! have anything else that's pertinent. MR. HANCOCK: I do have people far more qualified than I to make those statements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bear with me a second. If I have anything else that's consequential -- yeah, I have this one I noted, too. There's a reference in here and I have to find it. It talked -- here. Well, there's a reference to a 5.12 and there isn't any 5.1 -- Page 8 of the new Page 25 December 6, 2007 planned unit development, the new PUD. Under B, item two. At least it's not contained in this document that I could find. MR. HANCOCK: It should read 5.10. When sections were eliminated from the PUD during the course of review, we failed to catch that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that's just a scriveners or a typo? MR. HANCOCK: That is my fault. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I think -- yeah, my note was a concern I had under Page 4 was internal flooding. I was concerned with the berm actually creating an internal flooding problem. And not in the truest sense of flooding, but containment of water that probably was more -- where are you going to put your water? If you berm it in, what are you going to do? MR. HANCOCK: Well, the only berming on-site for water management areas is going to occur, it's not even going to look like a berm, it's in essence going to be -- you'll see a flat grass area for parking and then it will drop off into a dry detention area and that water is moved through dry detention ultimately back to the lake in the rear and then it is brought through a system of pipes and swales back to the front of the property and the ultimate discharge being a control structure next to the right-of-way on Davis Boulevard. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, thank you, sir. Those were my issues and questions on this for the PUD, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show Mr. Vigliotti is here. And Bob, for your reference, we're on the New Hope Ministries, and we're just now starting the questions after the presentation. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. Sorry I'm late, everyone. MR. HANCOCK: You didn't miss any of the fireworks, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, you were next, then Mr. Page 26 December 6, 2007 Adelstein. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my question, I think, is use of the site and the site planning. What is the educational building? What is the intent of that? MR. HANCOCK: It's really a general purpose building, Sunday school classes and so forth. It's education in association with the church programs and membership. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there a day care on this grounds? MR. HANCOCK: No, we do not have day care. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is why do you have that building up front like that? Why wouldn't you push it to the back? You have a nice axial drive on the future sanctuary. This thing is going to block that. MR. HANCOCK: That particular building, as you see on the PUD master plan what we did is we treated everything at a full build-out. That particular building doesn't have a set of architectural plans in the wings waiting to move forward. And what we're currently proposing, that's in the subsequent phase. So the likelihood that that building is going to be exactly as shown, exactly where shown is questionable. One of the things that you do try and do, though, is that there are times in which the sanctuary is in use and you have educational uses that are running concurrent. And I think what it does allow is it allows you to come onto the campus and access the educational facility without mixing your parking for those that may be using the sanctuary . Can it be moved to the back and be aesthetically nicer or whatnot? It's possible. But I can tell you that this plan was derived from thinking of a couple of years back, and that building may move in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the last question, is all this Page 27 December 6, 2007 parking intended to be paved? MR. HANCOCK: It is our goal to have as much grass parking on the site as possible. I've had discussions with Nicole Ryan at the Conservancy, because they just recently ran into the same problem with their site. It's gotten to the point even for churches, you want to do grass parking but it accounts towards your water management almost as if it were paved. You get very, very little credit for grass parking because you have to have stabilized sub grade and limerock under it. So I've expressed to the Conservancy our desire to work with them, particular in dealing with not-for-profits in a way to maybe, maybe improve that, where the required sub grade is not as high so you get a greater infiltration and you get credit to water management so we can encourage more grass parking. Our goal is to have as much grass parking on the site as possible where feasible. How's that for qualifying? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. I have great respect for your effort. And I'm trying to decide in my own mind how much larger will this New Hope Ministry become by what we're doing? MR. HANCOCK: The proposed sanctuary here, which, due to the time and expense of this process, the church made the wise decision to put as big a number in there as they can dream. And we're talking about a 4,200-seat sanctuary is what we based all of our TIS information and whatnot on. The likelihood of getting there on this campus, you know, I don't know that ultimately all of the ancillary programs that would go with a membership that high can actually fit on this campus. But we wanted to maximize that so we didn't have to come back here in two years because we were off by a thousand. Page 28 December 6, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That is something that I really understand and respect. But my problem is, I still know Davis Boulevard and I know the problem on Davis Boulevard and I can see what could happen on some of these days in which the traffic will not be able to flow. And I'm wondering, how are you going to protect that? This is a very large street with a very small use availability. And now we're going to make this much, much larger. Davis Boulevard maybe is a failed road. There's nothing we can do about it. And all you're going to do with it now is make it fail faster and possibly put us into a major problem. MR. HANCOCK: In response to that, the failure of Davis Boulevard is a p.m. weekday peak hour failure. It's Monday through Friday, 4:00 to 6:00 is when it achieves that failed status, if you will. At build-out, based on 4,200 seats, there's 93 trips in that p.m. peak hour. The bulk of trips that will apply to this campus will occur predominantly on a Sunday morning. In the TIS provided to you, we actually went out and did traffic counts during the hours of operation of the church on Davis Boulevard. Right now traffic coming out of the church has two choices, east or west on Davis. Davis is the only way in, the only way out. With the approval of this project and the requirement of the interconnection, approximately half of our trips will now be heading to Santa Barbara. And that is going to be a tremendous benefit for Davis. And that's why I think the number of 93 peak hour trips, if you begin dividing that between Santa Barbara and Davis, it becomes minuscule. Will there be some traffic congestion on Sunday mornings? Absolutely. And all of us that attend a church of any size have dealt with this. And that's why the church hires the Florida Highway Patrol to allow for safe ingress and egress of their parishioners. Page 29 December 6, 2007 Because this is an off-peak use, I believe, Commissioner Adelstein, that the concern over traffic on Davis, the worst thing that could happen is not rezone this to a church and allow it to become something that contributes to a higher degree of that weekday p.m. peak hour. We're off-peak. If we can get more off-peak uses out there, some of those traffic numbers will look a lot better. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm hoping you're thinking the same way. But the idea is to make sure that it's going to be safe and usable when it's going to have to be usable. MR. HANCOCK: I think if we didn't have the access to Santa Barbara I would probably share your concerns to a greater degree -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I guarantee that-- MR. HANCOCK: -- but fortunately some of the folks developing the Dolphin Plaza just happen to be in the congregation on Sundays, so we've got a good neighbor there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've got one more question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard -- if you'd show that other picture again ofthe -- I recognize that's the current -- when the child care, you said you had no child care, and that's fine. But within the PUD you're asking for the opportunity to provide child care. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So my question would be relative -- very simple thing. How close, and I can't really make it out on this master plan, to be honest with you, where would the child care be relative to those what look to be like residences there? They look like several story high residences. MR. HANCOCK: In the next phase of buildings, the only thing we're actually building in this next phase is -- back by the lake there was a building that kind of ran east-west? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you relate it to that so that Page 30 December 6, 2007 I get a better orientation and I can try to then relate it to this? Okay, that far. MR. HANCOCK: That would be the next building that is firmly in the building program. Beyond that, quite honestly, we're still a little bit in the hope, dream and pray a lot phase. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that's -- based on what you told me earlier is like 70 feet for the preserve area, that's got to be probably well over 150 feet. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, the master plan -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's very hard to read this master plan from my -- it's very -- MR. HANCOCK: You all may remember Ms. Kelly Michelle Smith, who is with our firm. A wonderful lady, but made the mistake of giving you way too much detail. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know. MR. HANCOCK: She took the SDP plan and submitted it as our PUD master plan, and it's got way too much stuff on it. But when you look at this, one of the nice things about the identification of the preserve area is that we've been able to retain native vegetation along the perimeter of the boundary everywhere where we butt up against residential housing, with the exception of, I think there's one building immediately to our east that does not look at the preserve. Everybody else, we're maintaining a strip of preserve anywhere from 30 to 70 feet around that lake. Then there's a two-acre lake, then there's a building. So we feel very comfortable that folks are going to -- when it's all done and said, would everybody like 10 acres of trees behind them? Sure. But we think this plan results in the right native preservation and the right buffering for this condition. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant before we ask transportation questions? Page 3 1 December 6, 2007 Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Hancock, on Page 6 of your PUD, the new one, the current one. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, question on 3.2(B)(2). Included here are boat docks. Why would that be? MR. HANCOCK: Well, with the exception of any type of a summer program where they might canoe in the lake, you've got me. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we can take that out of the PUD? MR. HANCOCK: Can we live without boat docks? The kids will complain, but we'll take it out anyway. COMMISSIONER CARON: And number three -- MR. HANCOCK: And maybe later you can tell me what you were getting at, because I understand there's a story there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Number three includes a bookstore and a printing shop. So is this for commercial purposes, or is this just strictly for the church to print their Sunday morning -- MR. HANCOCK: It's to support the church use. Pastor Thigpen is on tape every Sunday, and there's a lot of recording and production that goes on and people requesting things from the church and whatnot. So one of the concerns we have is these days if you aren't so inclusive in your PUD and you ask for an interpretation from staff that it's consistent with what you have, seven months later you're in front of the county commission asking for a print shop. So it is to support the church uses, period, it is not a commercial use. COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 9, for your preserve area plan what are the water management structures that you're talking about? MR. HANCOCK: It would strictly be related to an outfall Page 32 December 6, 2007 structure. As currently designed, we don't have any structures in there, but if down the road, for example, there was a change in the design, that's what we would limit it to. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then I think it should say outfall structure. MR. HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to go that far as to define the structure, you may want to make sure you put in the pipe that leads to the structure, because the foot of that may end up being into the structure, and I can see someone mincing words during review that the pipe isn't allowed but the structure is. So you might -- I think water management structures covers you because it's anything that the South Florida Water Management District basically requires to be good engineering. I'm not sure by mincing into defining each piece of a structure, if you decide to use an outfall that might vary in shape or size or use a mitered end or something like that, then you've got a different kind of structure but still one that would be reasonable. COMMISSIONER CARON: The goal was to keep them out of issues, not to create issues for them. So if everybody is happy with water management structures -- MR. HANCOCK: It's probably far more limited in actual application than you may think. There's not too much there -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's probably the better way to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we state water management structures as required by permitting agencies? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you're not going to want to do more than that anyway, so-- MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, they're kind of expensive. COMMISSIONER CARON: And on Page 13, vacating the Page 33 December 6, 2007 current conservation easement, is that the conservation easement in front of your property along Davis? Where is this? MR. HANCOCK: No, ma'am, that conservation easement, that preserve area will be retained along the front of the project. COMMISSIONER CARON: What is the conservation easement that you're trying to vacate? MR. HANCOCK: That vacation has already occurred. This PUD's been in process for a long time. There was a taking that occurred along Davis Boulevard for right-of-way and drainage, and there was an alteration in the location and the intended location of the preserves there. To my knowledge of the current conservation easements, we're not vacating any of them. So I believe that's holdover language. Our goal, Ms. Caron, is basically that what you see meets or exceeds the county standard, at least for preserve location and type. The environmental staff has approved it. We just simply -- we're happy to limit ourselves to what's on the master plan. That may be holdover language. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problems striking that language then? MR. HANCOCK: I've just been informed by my client that on the east side there is a narrow strip that the county said is too narrow to be counted towards the preservation requirements that are in place today, so we may be vacating that. However, it's not going to be altered because it's really -- you know, there's drainage that goes through that area. But that may be the only area in which we vacate an easement. As you see on your master plan, though, that area is not culled out as an easement to meet the county's requirement. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, can you explain then exactly where that is? I mean -- Page 34 December 6, 2007 MR. HANCOCK: Going back to the over-information plan, as you look at the right side of this plan, on the bottom right corner you'll see that, you know, approximately 70-foot wide preserve area that we're talking about. And see how it kind of starts to turn up to the north on the bottom right corner there? That used to extend up on as a part of our preserve on that eastern boundary. It's pretty narrow and it's not going to be part of our preserve plan into the future. So that would be the only area that I believe that language would apply to on the current plan. Our current plan in for SDP review is really not to touch that area, but we just can't count it as preserves, so why leave a restriction on it that isn't necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you blow that plan up and specifically show us the easement that the you're considering vacating? MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Bellows. Again, lower right-hand corner, you see how it kind of sweeps to the north a little bit and then the parking area starts? To the right of that parking area is a narrow strip, and that was part of a conservation easement that doesn't need to be there anymore. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thank you. I'm good for my questions in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions before we go into transportation? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm sorry that I was late. You might have went over this, this morning before I got here, but where do you stand on stipulations regarding the water quality? Sorry . MR. HANCOCK: I will do my best Reader's Digest version. We've provided staff with all the information they've requested, Page 35 December 6, 2007 we've done countless analyses on it, and there's not a standard that we're being told we have to meet. And so we are pre-treating all of the stormwater before it would ever enter the preserve. It will only enter the preserve on very extreme rainfall events. And my having it connected to our stormwater system, we believe it will exit quicker. We think it's a better plan than leaving it alone and hemming it in with CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I think we can shorten this by what you already suggested, was that the recommendation that was originally submitted by staff that says the CPUD and master plan show full water quality pretreatment volume before the water reaches an elevation that would have the lake overflow its banks and then backflow into the natural ground area preserves. That one he can live with. The new one that came out bye-mail, I know the look on your face, so that's probably like Mr. Midney, you didn't see it. Another one came out that said all stormwater shall be prohibited from entering the preserve shown on the master plan. That one they can't live with. So they're in agreement with the first one, not in agreement with the second one. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Strain, and that is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, does the backflow back into the preserve? Is that by just natural groundwater seepage or is that by some sort of plumbing, like pipes? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, it's -- between the lake and the preserve there are no structures as a part of the water management system. It literally just rises. And because there's a berm around the lake, portion of the lake that's adjacent to the preserve, the water just basically seeps back. And as the lake level falls, the water seeps back toward the lake. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, if it's all subterranean, Page 36 December 6, 2007 doesn't that imply that there's not going to be any nutrients, it's just going to be the natural flow of water? MR. HANCOCK: To guarantee that there is no nutrient loading is almost an impossible task -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I mean, isn't it considered that if it's subterranean that you're not talking about nutrients flowing back and forth? MR. HANCOCK: That would be correct. And again, because of the pretreatment factor, that the water's being pretreated before it gets to the lake and before it gets to the preserve, we believe the statement that nutrient loading is increased to be erroneous. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we get into transportation, are there any other questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm good, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, if you could, I haven't asked any questions and I do have a few. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start on Page 7, Table 1, Community Facility Development Standards. Your maximum height on that table in your PUD, your reference is 48 feet and three stories. The way we usually do it is three stories not to exceed 48 feet. Do you have any problem with the correction of that language? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the requirements where it says minimum building setbacks, PUD boundary, you have under accessory use a 10- foot setback. Since most of your buildings are accessory uses to the main large building, that would potentially put a huge building right next to some residential areas. Do you have any objection to a larger setback requirement along residentially-zoned properties? Page 37 December 6, 2007 MR. HANCOCK: I think 25 feet, same as principal, would be acceptable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so PUD boundary, where it abuts residential, you're saying will do -- MR. HANCOCK: A minimum of 25-foot setback, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to make some of these changes on notations so we can, in our stipulated motion we can keep it nice and clean, so -- This project has the potential of a lot of uses that may have compatibility problems with adjoining residential areas. You're certainly entitled to the uses you're asking for. However, if you were, say, sold to a different church, as some churches grow out of their different areas and move on to others, and some new facility came in and decided that the uses that are in here mean something different to them, something greater than what the neighborhood or that this board or another board may have intended, we have introduced a suggestion in the code, it hasn't passed yet, but we discussed it with a couple of other PUDs last week, in implementing noncompatibility language, so that if a use is interpreted in the future by an applicant in a manner that seems to be inconsistent to what was intended, staff could request that that use be rereviewed for potential compatibility uses back before a board. I don't know if you're familiar with this language, it was introduced by Mr. Klatzkow some time ago and it's been working its way through the system. Your PUD, should it go through now and prior to that language being instituted, it would basically not fall under that language or be questionable whether it fell under it. So I have a copy of that language as it has applied in the last couple and I was wondering if you have any objection to entering some noncompatibility language into this PUD for the circumstances that I just described? MR. HANCOCK: It I could have the opportunity, as you're Page 38 December 6, 2007 discussing transportation with Mr. Casalanguida, to speak to with Mr. Klatzkow. My primary concern-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here's a copy of it for that purpose, when you do. And then before we get to the end, I'd like to ask you your thoughts on it. What that does is prevent situations like we've had occur in a couple places in North Naples, one being, as an example, the Stevie Tomatoes in Pebblebrook Plaza incident. So -- MR. HANCOCK: Understood. And because we're not a commercial site where we have somebody coming in to -- you know, that was selling property, so to speak, it's lesser of an issue for us. My concern remains, and I'll discuss this with Mr. Klatzkow, as -- you know, what constitutes a complaint? Three neighbors who don't like the church? Are we -- those type of issues. How it ferrets out is my primary concern for this particular project. But I'll discuss that with him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll look forward to your comments before we finish. On Page 9, your preserve areas. Under 4.2(A)(2), biking, hiking and nature trails and boardwalks, do you have any concern if we reference those as being non-paved? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. Your EAC LDC subcommittee also is bringing a recommendation back to you hopefully in the coming months on that same item. But no, sir, for this project pervious only would be acceptable. I assume that does not apply, obviously, to boardwalks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Elevated non-pervious. No, I'm talking ground surfaces. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Patent it, you'll be rich for life. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your PUD master plan, I have two problems with the master plan. One is I do not think you really want to make this your master plan. The fact that you're putting this intensity, Page 39 December 6, 2007 and I would have to turn to Marjorie or Jeff or whoever was the county attorney that reviewed this, this master plan is so detailed, I would be concerned that you might be back in here every year to change the movement of a parking space or the -- it's just way beyond what I think is reasonable in the public record for a master plan. It is an SDP plan, I certainly agree with you, and that's the scrutiny that this could entail going through review for one change is going to be devastating to your applicant. Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, it would be our opinion that it should be more conceptual in nature. They typically are. MR. HANCOCK: With that direction, we'll be happy to modify it, leaving the uses where they are but taking the detail out of it. We didn't want to do that in the middle of the process, because we'd go through 14 reviews. But with your direction, that's only one review, so we're very happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think we could stipulate something that would give us enough assurance that the remaining plan, say with review by both staff and Margie, would be a plan that would be something more in line with a conceptual plan that we're used to seeing, so that we don't have an applicant forced to come back through the system every few months for a minor change. MR. HANCOCK: And preserve locations and lake locations will be unchanged in that plan, basically we're going to remove the parking detail, primarily. And ifthere's any water management that's in addition to this, we'll show it so it's more reflective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, you have a set of standards in the LDC that trigger insubstantial and substantial changes. If you were to use those as a the guideline as the ones needed to be on here, and anything that doesn't require a substantial change for movement, you don't need to put it on here. So I think that would be a good way to approach it. Page 40 December 6, 2007 MR. HANCOCK: We appreciate the suggestion and certainly agree to doing just that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have -- and I should have mentioned this during disclosures, I did speak to the Conservancy, and you reminded me of that by your reference to them earlier. Their suggestion, and I happen to agree with it, is that a lot of these -- and I understand your argument about the grass parking, but grass parking, while it may not help you in water management because of the base that still has to be there, it does help in appearance, a lot of green space and reduces the heat generation from black asphalt, which is a -- for lack of a better reference, it's a warming issue that we all need to be aware of. We have way too much dark asphalt overall. I would like you to consider limiting your asphalt to aisles only on that westernmost large parking area and use grass -- with the exception of those couple of aisles up close to your facility that would have to be handicapped or more daytime and constant use. But once you get past the first two aisles, run asphalt in your travel lanes and leave all your parking spaces grass. Do you have any concerns with that? I know the base issue, I know the sod issue. But honestly, I think if we can do with less asphalt on this planet, we would have a lot better place to deal with. MR. HANCOCK: I don't disagree. The problem that a church faces, for example, is it's a financial issue. Unfortunately it's cheaper to do asphalt over a 20-year period than it is to maintain grass, unfortunately. I think if you will allow me to discuss it with the pastor, maybe when I come back up and we address this other language, I might have something more concrete to offer you, no pun intended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to consider the fact that our recommendation, if it's such, to limit this master plan, will save Page 41 December 6, 2007 you considerably more money over 20 years than coming back before this board every month. MR. HANCOCK: The weight of your recommendation is noted, SIr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tim, I've got to ask you a couple of questions about the Neapolitan PUD. I'm not sure how familiar you are with it. It's 90-16. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had a copy of it with me and I don't see it in my packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might be a question I'm going to better ask of staff. It's not built. So I'm wondering, is this considered sunsetted, do you know? MR. HANCOCK: If you look at when we started our rezone, it would not have been. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When did you start your rezone? Because it would have had a five-year window from 91-102, which was the establishment of our sunsetting provisions. By that would mean if you hadn't got 15 percent done by '96, it would have sunsetted. MR. HANCOCK: We started in 2003 with the application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You would have needed 45 percent done by then, which you wouldn't have had. So I would think this is sunsetted in some manner, unless there is some other action that prevents it, a failure of government or something like that. Ray, do you know? MR. BELLOWS: I don't know if it's sunsetted, but your logic would apply. And I think it should be classified as sunsetted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason that may be important is depending on what Nick's got to say when we talk to him about vested trips and things like that. Tim, that may be all, except for transportation, of which I have a lot more. Page 42 December 6, 2007 So with that, I appreciate your time. Are there any other questions of Tim while he's up here, gentlemen, ma'am? (No response.) MR. HANCOCK: I'll do my best to listen with one ear while we speak to Mr. Klatzkow on this language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I watched you dance around the traffic corridor questions at the BCC meeting. You did a good job. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm a lousy dancer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think you answered their question in some regards, but you did a good job. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll ask the other members here first if they want to ask you any specific questions first. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? I went and found the traffic analysis for the new -- I didn't find it, actually, Melissa did at my request, the traffic analysis for the Neapolitan. And actually Tim's one that they did to provide us with today was not as bad as it would have been. Actually, he was more conservative in his approach. Based on what I can see here, their ending trips were much higher than what peak and -- entering and ending trips were much higher than what Tim indicated they were going to build. So in that regard, it actually comes out better for them. But they're going from 700 seats to 4,200 seats. I know they're Page 43 December 6, 2007 doing it off peak, they're doing it on the weekend, but they're relying upon a traffic access agreement that I haven't seen. Have you seen that in regards -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have not seen that agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we know if one's in place? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I've spoken to Brian Howell probably about eight months ago, who's building that Dolphin site, and he said that that was agreeable to him to provide cross access. But I have not seen the agreement. It might beneficial to have the agreement in place or brought to the Board of County Commissioners before approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if that agreement, when it was devised? When the Dolphin one was I think put together a while back, they would have had to agree to this accessway at the time. And at the time were they realizing that they were agreeing to it for a 700-seat church or a 4,200-seat church? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You know, the difficult part is -- I go to St. Agnes. No church works well on a Sunday morning or a Saturday afternoon. And you can't design the access points to work well for a church. You look at 4,200 seats and you cut it in half and conservatively say two people per car, 2,000 cars leaving at the same time. Even if it's 1,000 cars, it's going to muck up the road system for a good hour. So you can't build the intersection. Now, I will say this: The intersections that are going to be designed, Santa Barbara and Davis, are designed to handle p.m. peak hour traffic significantly higher than Sunday traffic. For that one concentrated 20 minutes where they all leave church, you're going to have a problem there. But every single other church in the county does, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, my question about that access that's being -- that access easement area that they're utilizing, they have a statement in their TIS that says it was designed by Page 44 December 6, 2007 WilsonMiller. My question to you as our traffic engineer, it says these turn lanes have been designed and analyzed by WilsonMiller Engineering, the engineers who have designed the Dolphin Plaza property, and they already have a permit for the right-of-way work. My question is what did they design to for the impacts on that access? Did that intersection work that they now have a permit for? Is it with the intention of a 700 traffic-generated church or 4,200, or would it make a difference? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. And it won't make a difference, and I'll tell you why. I have the WilsonMiller plans here, I pulled them this morning. The Dolphin Plaza is going to put in a northbound right turn lane as part of their site plan. The southbound left on Santa Barbara, which is an access point, is substandard because of the emergency access we have to provide to the EMS site, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking way too fast. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The southbound left on Santa Barbara is underdesigned because of the EMS access we have to provide the emergency medical service. So again, I can't build any access point to any church to peak event, peak entrance-exit traffic. You just can't do it. St. Agnes, where I go is the same thing, you wait a half hour in the parking lot to leave and you wait to get in. Everybody's coming at the same time and leaving at the same time. Now, for point of clarification, on Davis Boulevard -- I spoke to the church fathers before I came up here and I said, I just want to be clear on two things, and maybe it wasn't clear in the PUD document. There is a 60- foot drainage utility easement that's in front of their -- on their property. It doesn't say right-of-way easement. I would like that clarified to read right-of-way easement as well, too. There is an existing eastbound left turn lane, and existing right turn lane. When we expand that road to six lanes -- and right now it's Page 45 December 6, 2007 four lanes divided, not two as we show -- I'll have to rebuild those turn lanes. If this site was not going to expand I would do that on the county's dime. What I asked the church fathers is when I rebuild this road that I get compensating right-of-way of 15 additional feet if! need it and that they pay for those turn lanes. And they've agreed to do that. And I think that's the best I'm going to do working with the church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe that answers the next question I was going to ask, because I think you referenced the same one. In their traffic report on Page 11 under the Davis Boulevard section, they talk about that currently the site provides two turn lanes. The right-hand turn lane is currently maxed out and will remain in place and operational during and after construction, with no modifications proposed. Is that the one you're referencing? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The right turn lane westbound is. And I'm not worried about that, because that's a decel. lane and you've got throats, so that will work okay. The left turn lane will have to be increased, either now or when we get the SDP, and I have copies of the site's aerial, or at the time I widen Davis Boulevard, depending on what we see as traffic impacts. My problem is I'm about a quarter mile from the intersection, I can only lengthen it so long before I get into the turn lanes for the intersection, but my median's pretty thick there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick, I have another one. I'm trying to figure out the best way -- well, there's a couple different ones. Under their trip distribution, Page 6 of the TIS, it says based on discussions with the pastor of New Hope Church, anticipated congregant draw will be about one-third from each of the three directions north, south and west. South? We don't have anything south, do we? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You will, Santa Barbara extension. Page 46 December 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But currently there's a direction coming from the east. MR. CASALANGUIDA: East. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So he's saying that there's no congregants really coming from the east? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I show 25 percent of the driving coming from the east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: And keep in mind, this started in 2003. I think in fairness to Davidson, we met and I finally put my hands up and said I'll deal with the traffic issues. They had three or four internal engineers that started the traffic statement, some people that were fairly new, and it got to the point where we met, I don't know, probably seven times. I said enough, no more traffic statements, I'm getting a headache. I said we'll review it based on what I know about the roadway capacities and the road projects that we have on it with respect to a church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I want to clear a couple of things up for the record, but at the end I'm probably just going to ask your overall impression about this in regards to traffic and see where you go. Page 4, they talk about Phase 2 trip generation for a multi-use building, and they base their table of trips based on the church administrator's prediction. How scientific is that compared to the standards used in the traffic -- ITE? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not atypical to deal with a site like this and talk to the church and say what are you doing right now, what do you propose to use, and you take it on good faith, no pun intended. What I think, you could look at ITE, church sites, they do different things. So I look at worst case scenario. Even if I double the p.m. peak for ancillary uses I'm okay in the future. So you'd ask the overall opinion, I'm concerned about peak event Page 47 December 6, 2007 traffic. I can't do much about it. P.M. peak I know will be fine. If they agree to modify their turn lanes in the future in the right-of-way I think I get an overall improvement to the system that they've helped me with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a serious problem with Davis and 951. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A lot of times -- every time that I can recall we've received a TIS we have had a breakdown of the linkage impacts on each link that the area -- that any particular project impacts. And in this case we'd have to have Davis Boulevard both east and west and Santa Barbara at least north. I didn't see that percentage breakdown, and I know that Tim had indicated to me in a phone call that it was somewhere in here. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it's on page -- the one I have is Page 9. They have Davis and Santa Barbara to 951. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see the percentage, though. Do you see that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Percentage of trips? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Percentage of impact -- where it broaches the level of service impact that we need to be concerned about. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Tim, we've got seven different studies going around on this thing. Are we looking at the same one? Not the one I received? Could be. Let me take a look. Show me 14 over 153. Okay, I see where he's showing it to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, tell me. MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's showing less than three percent -- roughly one percent impact on that link, based on p.m. peak analysis, which is what 5.1 tells you to do. Even if! double that, Commissioner Strain, and I go to two percent impact or three percent impact, I'm still Page 48 December 6, 2007 not going to have an adverse impact on the road going east. The first part of Davis I'm improving is from Radio to 951. State's five-year work program just came out and they still have 2011, 2012 Santa Barbara to Radio in their work program. That's solid, that's been approved. So those links going east are both scheduled to be improved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the analysis for the impact on the adjacent roadways, were you relying on any vested trips for this project? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I was not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Neapolitan approval of the PUD you had not factored in as a vested trip project? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I took what they had done on worst case scenario. I took 4,200 seats, cut it in half and said worst case on a Sunday you've got 2,000 cars. I asked them to do some Sunday analysis. Based on that, the roadway capacity, even with the additional cars, say 1,000 on each lane, is still below the service volume that we look under in p.m. peak design. So they were okay in terms of that. But will they muck up the roads on a Sunday for about a half hour? Yes, they will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No more than the flea market used to and the drive-in theater across the street probably. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Probably no more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 10, under CCMA requirements, Item D, flexible work schedules that are expected to reduce peak hour automobile work trips generated by the development. That's the standard they're supposed to be responding to. Their response is the addition of a multi-purpose building will generate little new trips and the hours of operation will coincide with that of the church. The church's main hours operation are during Sunday, which will not coincide with the peak hours of the adjacent roadway. Page 49 December 6, 2007 How does that answer the question? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It really doesn't. And when they referenced the TCMA, and I can tell you again, we probably had five different TIS's done by five different people from Davidson going forward from 2003 till now. They were trying to go through what was in our policy 5.1, they were trying to go through the Growth Management Plan, and they were responding to all of that in a sense of overkill. And I said don't worry about that, that's not going to be applicable to this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Policy 6.2 is not applicable to this project? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're not going to probably have to do the TCMA requirements when they come in for application, and that will be reviewed at SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 12, the second paragraph, they talk about a significant remaining capacity in the middle of the paragraph, where it says while our project would only will impose another 579 Sunday trips, peak direction, peak hour under the segment. I'm trying to figure out how they got to that calculation. Because on Page 3, the existing peak hour is 536. So how can seven times the existing be only 579? Again, I may be reading it wrong, so I'm looking for clarification. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Peak hour, peak direction. I had said to you 4,200 seats, cut that in half, that's cars, that's worst case. You're looking at 2,000. Then you start splitting the trips up, in versus out in all directions, you get to like a quarter of that. So you get into 500 peak hour, peak direction because they're going to split 25 percent in all directions. So when you start looking at that, that's kind of where you can get to a number like that. Page 50 December 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the Sunday seats in the Page 3 looks like their peak hours are 536 entering and exiting -- or 228 -- I'm sorry, 211. Which one is the right one for their peak hours? Page 3. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think they did a total. I gave them the number of2,000. That's probably where you're getting the 500 from. I said assume worst case. So they probably took my guidance and put that in that response. Again, I've got to tell you -- on Page 3? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it's the existing trips. If they're seven times now the seating, it would seem to me logical that they're going to have some ratio of six or seven times what their existing is. If they're not, that's fine. But I haven't seen any -- I don't know what the reasoning as to why they're not. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're talking about in versus out total trips. When you do peak hour, peak direction, remember, you're breaking total trips down into directions. They come out, they go different directions. If they've got two access points and one goes north, one goes south, you're getting a reduction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's only one direction that this 579 is referring to. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Peak hour, peak direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That helps. Under the first bullet, I need to ask you how this is implemented. It talks about -- and it's on Page 12 again, that they've hired a patrol officer, and looks like he's been there 14 years -- he certainly likes his job -- and he's going to continue to service. Is this an element or an item that is required? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think it's in our codes. I think it's a courtesy the church does to their members as well as to the public. I know at St. Agnes they have a police officer out there as well, too. Page 51 December 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it have any factor into your analysis? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's my traffic questions of you, Nick. Thank you very much. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else that has any traffic questions or have I beat this to death? Thank you, sir -- oh, Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just want to say thank you for the explanation, because I had that same question, but it's the peak direction that's being talked about here with the 579. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's really hard to analyze a church. You don't really have -- you know it's going to be a problem, you do the best you can and go from there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So those stipulations or recommendations, Mark, were you able to notate those, about the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I noted them, but I noted to say no because Nick asked for them. Did you want those introduced? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If I could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're here, they're noted. Yes, sir, thank you. With that, we'll go into staff presentation. MS. ZONE: Good morning. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. We're going to be brief in my presentation, since it was a very in-depth presentation from the applicant and transportation. For the record, New Hope Ministry is on a parcel that is zoned rural agricultural with a provisional use for the church use. And they have purchased the Neapolitan Park PUD, which is west of the church property, current church property. And Neapolitan Page 52 December 6, 2007 Park PUD, by standards of the code, has sunsetted. Why they didn't go through the sunset process staff, you know, can determine that. And staff will ensure that your recommendations are placed in the PUD in front of the Board of County Commissioners. So I want that for the record. But there is a conflicting recommendation. Transportation wants the drainage easement along Davis Road, that 60-foot wide drainage easement, to also include right-of-way. But if that becomes, or if right-of-way can go into that 60-foot drainage easement, it could impact the Lely area stormwater project, and there could be issues. And Robert Wiley is here to address that, if you make that recommendation to include it as right-of-way with the stormwater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to -- Nick's obviously got a comment on this -- MS. ZONE: I know. I know. As well as probably Robert Wiley. But I wanted this board, before you make the determination to hear both sides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will certainly, if we have questions ofMr. Wiley, we'll certainly bring him up here and ask questions of him, since he is here. MS. ZONE: Ifthere's any questions for me, I'm happy to address them; otherwise, staff will support planning commission's recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Nick, would you mind addressing that comment about the -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not at all. The LASIP manager who works on that was Robert, is now Jerry Kurtz, who's in our building, and we coordinate -- all road projects for LASIP are coordinated with road projects, so there will not be a conflict. It's just a clarification that says 60 feet of drainage and utility easement -- it says right-of-way and I need two feet of that. I wouldn't want to have to come back for clarification. But Lely would take Page 53 December 6, 2007 precedence over roadway expansion, so that's not -- will not be a conflict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff before I go to public speakers? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Melissa, I just wanted to let you know that on Page 3 of 8, I think you've got east and west confused. MS. ZONE: Oh, I did. And, you know what, I'll make sure that's corrected for the -- to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for pointing that out. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then if you go to your rezone findings for PUDs, couple of things. On number four, on Page 2 of3, it's talking about internal and external compatibility. And one of the things that you say as far as a pro is concerned is the proposed rezone document incorporated design and buffering requirements. Additional buffering requirements might be incorporated during the development order process. Or we could be stipulating something here today, correct? MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I just want to cite an example for the rest of the CCPC. Mr. Hancock pointed out that in -- that while they've been very careful here to try to make sure that lakes and preserves abut all of the homes, one or two of these homes apparently are not included. And so I'll ask Mr. Hancock afterward, but I think it would be appropriate for us to stipulate now that additional buffering be granted to those residential units. MS. ZONE: I will address that. And also, they had asked for a recommendation -- or a deviation for the wall adjacent to the residential. And staff didn't support that deviation because we wanted when they come in through the SDP Page 54 December 6, 2007 process, there's -- in the LDC, they can come in for a fence waiver. And at that time we could determine if they do the fence waiver against the residential property, they have to enhance the buffering to what the standards would be. So that's also another mechanism to -- in addition to the PUD process or the rezoning process, that we would make sure when they come in -- if they do come in for the administrative fence waiver. If not, there will be a fence there to buffer those residential parcels. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you're not supportive of a PUD deviation for fences -- MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and a wall? MS. ZONE: We're not supporting that. We're saying that if they want the fence waiver, they would have to come in and submit an application and have us look at it more in detail. COMMISSIONER CARON: But that's not on your recommendations. MS. ZONE: Well, no, in the staff report I say we're not recommending that deviation. COMMISSIONER CARON: But wouldn't it end up being one of your recommendations as well not to? MS. ZONE: Usually we're not supporting it. But if you want, I could add that in that we're not -- because they're asking -- staff gave an explanation why we're not supporting it. And -- but if you want me to present it differently, I'm more than happy to work with -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I just think we need to be specific again. And we're trying to be very specific and make sure we include all of these things as to whether they're supported or not supported. MS. ZONE: Certainly. It's on Page 6 of8 in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions before we go to public speakers? Mr. Midney? Page 55 December 6, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, I notice in the Exhibit A, area one is existed native preservation and water management area. So that means that you're combining water management with native preservation, and that's already been there before. Is that kind of combination something that is still normal practice, or are we trying to separate water management areas from preservation areas? MS. ZONE: I know that they're wanting to separate them. I don't believe the LDC amendment -- Barbara might be more informed of that -- has gone through yet or not. But as a whole, that's how they are looking at it now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: In the future. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you have you or somebody else try to explain the sort of controversy or disagreement between staff and the applicant in terms of whether they want to have the water pre-treated or whether they want to prohibit all water from going into the preserve area? MS. ZONE: Yes. And I have here, and I'd like to read it into the record, there is a recommendation that staff has looked at since this discussion, and to read into the record for a new stipulation for this water treatment. It would be that receipt of treated stormwater discharge where such use, including conveyance, treatment and discharge structures does not result in adverse impacts to the naturally occurring native vegetation, to include the loss of the minimum required vegetation and the harm to any listed species, according to the policies associated with Objective 7.1, as determined by criteria set forth in land development regulations. Discharge to preserves having wetlands requires treatment that will meet water quality standards as set forth in Chapter 62-302 of the Florida F AC, it's Florida -- Page 56 December 6, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Administrative Code. MS. ZONE: Thank you, I had a loss there. Florida Administrative Code. And now I've lost it. MR. SCHMITT: The reading is the language from the CCME. I think Barbara is going to have to read the stipulations. MS. ZONE: Sorry, I thought that was the stipulation you wanted m. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Engineering and Environmental Services Department. The original staff report that you received with the stipulation regarding the stormwater was not recommended by environmental or engineering. That was -- it accidentally got into the staff report. It was part of discussions back and forth. But the final determination by the engineering and environmental services staff department consolidated determination that the appropriate stipulation for that staff report should never have been what you had in your original staff report. It should have been what was amended and sent out to you, that no stormwater would be permitted in the upland preserve. And there's a number of things that I wanted to put on record, just to give you some back-up for that. The first that I wanted to correct, or at least expand on, is that the EAC, Environmental Advisory Council, did approve this project. It was not a unanimous approval. One EAC member did deny the project for environmental reasons. But the reason that the remainder of the EAC approved the project, and as they cited on record was not for any environmental reasons at all. All of the reasons that they cited to approve the project was based on the use. And they felt that it was a good use in a good location. It was not -- there was not environmental basis for their approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go farther, Barbara, on that point I'd like to ask the county attorney, this is happening more often. Page 57 December 6, 2007 Why is the EAC getting involved in planning issues that are outside their jurisdiction, which is basically they're an Environmental Advisory Council. And this has happened on other projects. I'm just curious as what product analysis, use analysis they really have to offer when their whole objective is environmental. MR. KLATZKOW: This office allows a free discussion from all boards on issues that they deem to be appropriate. We don't tell a board what they should say or what they shouldn't say. If the Board of County Commissioners starts to feel otherwise, I'm sure it will be communicated downstream to them. MS. BURGESON: We do attempt to keep the EAC focused on just environmental issues. This is one of the -- we rarely see where they go off, stray quite so much as they did on this one particular proj ect. But I just wanted to put that on public record, that it may have sounded like they supported the site plan environmentally, but that was not the basis for the five people to support the site plan. And also, earlier in the discussion there was a comment about vacating a conservation easement. The original New Hope property, the original 20 acres had the entire rear half of the property under a conservation easement. And that was part of the property that had to have the conservation easement vacated. I'm not sure if that's been done yet or whether they're still in the process to assure that that gets done. That was under -- placed under a conservation easement because of the red-cockaded woodpecker use on that site and the cavity trees that were in that area and one that was on that site. During site visits back with Nino Spagna and Kim Dryden and myself, we noticed foraging RCW s on that site, back when their original project was approved. So that's where the vacation of that easement -- I believe that they did mitigation off-site, and that the RCW s at that point when the state accepted off-site mitigation and Page 58 December 6, 2007 vacating that easement, there was no use of that rear portion of the property for RCWs. I also wanted to just put on public record at the -- two items: One is the Board of County Commissioners' final hearing for the language that was approved for the Growth Management Plan. And when the Growth Management Plan language was discussed at that final hearing, there was an attempt to -- or a proposal to modify what the EAC and this planning commission had recommended, which was no adverse impacts. And at one point both the EAC and the planning commission had recommended language that said that it needed to actually benefit the preserve. But then at your final meeting for that hearing, the language went from benefit to no adverse impacts. At the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation was made to change that language. And then towards the end of that meeting, as it was rediscussed, brought back up for a final evaluation of that proposed change of the language, it went back to no adverse impact language. And in that discussion, Commissioner Henning discussed with -- also with Commissioner Halas and Bill Lorenz, had a fairly in-depth discussion in terms of that Commissioner Henning had stated that it's not there to put extra stormwater on vegetation that won't accept it. If it's acceptable and won't degrade it, that's the whole purpose of it. They talked about putting stormwater into a system that necessarily is not used to that much stormwater. And that's why we have the adverse impact statement in there, inclined to allow this to clarify the details of the criteria in the Land Development Code. But as Mr. -- Commissioner Henning stated, that he would have a problem if they were trying to degrade existing upland species. That is not the objective. So that was the discussions even at the final planning commission hearing, that the objection is the stormwater was not to Page 59 December 6, 2007 provide a negative or change to the upland vegetation. Now, concern that staff has is twofold: One, we went through an LDC cycle at length last go around. We had created some pretty specific language that went to the EAC and the planning commission and the board that identified that it was appropriate for stormwater in wetlands, and we limited the stormwater to hydric upland soils. But we were saying that non-hydric upland soils were inappropriate because of the potential change to that vegetation, that the reason that we were protecting these preserves as they were selected was because of the descending criteria. For instance, if we selected a particular upland preserve, it was because that vegetation on-site had a higher function and quality than the lower quality wetland on-site. And so to allow that upland to be impacted with more water than is normal may not cause that vegetation necessarily to immediately die off, but to probably -- and as put on that public record at the board hearing, that it would definitely degrade the vegetation in that upland by having the longer hydroperiod, the longer inundation of the upland. Even the berm around it could have had a spreader swale to allow that, if you had natural rainfall that might be bermed into that area to naturally be discharged as opposed to, as the applicant says, that it would just be a bathtub. You have the ability to do that differently. The -- all of the information that we had and reviewed by staff indicated that we do not have -- we do not have the comfort level that we could find this consistent with the GMP policies or the policies that we are currently working on for 2008 first cycle. Weare not proposing language to allow this in the language that we're in draft form right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, are you about to wrap up your part of it? MS. BURGESON: I can be done. Page 60 December 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only reason is, I didn't think we were going to get into this. I thought we were about done with this one, and I apologize, Cherie', for not stopping at 10:00. We will stop now and reconvene at 10:30 and provide you with the break you should have gotten. Thank you. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from our break. We left off, Barbara was getting close to wrapping up a presentation. I'll ask her if she has any final comments before we ask any questions. Barbara, there is some questions from several members here of the planning commission. The first one was Brad, then Mr. Midney, then Ms. Caron. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Barbara, it goes way back to the first thing you said is that we have a report that the Environmental Advisory Council voted 5-1. But you said that that wasn't an environmental council meeting, that was -- MS. BURGESON: No, I said that was an environmental meeting but the vote was not -- when they put on record why they voted for it, they did not list environmental reasons. The reasons that they supported it were not based on the environmental Conservation Collier -- the CCME or the environmental sections of the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I have is we have an environmental issue that they reviewed, and from the vote it appeared they support it, but you're up here negating that support. MS. BURGESON: I'm saying they supported it, but the discussion was based on they thought that the church was a good use of the property, that because of where the location was that they would support a church in this area, that maybe more people would go Page 61 December 6, 2007 to church. I mean, the discussion was not focused on environmental issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So nowhere in here did they discuss the issue of putting stormwater into the preserve -- MS. BURGESON: They did discuss it. And the only person that voted against the project was voting against it based on the environmental concern. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is my last point. So can I assume that the people who voted for it knew of that concern and didn't have a problem with it? I mean, it's the Environmental Advisory Council, it's not the planning commission. MS. BURGESON: I could not say that-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you can't say it, that's good enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, if I was watching a BCC meeting and I heard staff characterize our vote in the manner you have characterized theirs, I would be concerned over it. I don't think it's appropriate. I think that they voted the way they did because they reviewed everything. Now, they may have complimented the uses, they may have complimented the fact more people need to go to church, but the point is they didn't come out as a majority against it for any environmental reason. And I think they would have if they thought there was one there. And I think that's maybe the basis we ought to be relying upon, not anything else at this point. Mr. Midney, you were next. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, just to go back to what Brad is saying. They didn't put any stipulations in. I mean, if they had some -- if they were unhappy about the environmental aspects, I would have thought that they would have put in some stipulations. And they didn't do that; is that correct? The EAC, they didn't -- you Page 62 December 6, 2007 said that they -- MS. BURGESON: They didn't add stipulations. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. Is the environmental department's objections related to nutrients entering in or just change in the water table? MS. BURGESON: Staffs recommendation on the EAC -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, staffs recommendations on this development. And their objection to any stormwater entering the site, is that based on nutrients or is it just based on water table? MS. BURGESON: It's mostly based on the water table and the inundation, not on the nutrients. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How can you prove that there will be no adverse impact of a development onto this upland preserve? MS. BURGESON: The evidence that we were using was the tables that evaluated the inundation, typical inundation periods of -- and the hydroperiod in a typical upland. We looked at what the maximum amount of stormwater in that area might be acceptable in terms of under normal circumstances. But that's without a berm around it holding it in. And remember, too, that that is always without the consideration for the duration after that event. So if you look at the evaluation for let's just say a storm event that is going to pop off into that preserve area, and they say that it's just going to go up to, you know, maybe two or three inches or three or four inches under normal conditions, if that preserve didn't have a berm around it and wasn't actually part of the stormwater system where the intent is to retain it there for a duration of 12 to 15 days. So you're talking about each of those events has an extended period of inundation. We had -- no one that we talked to felt that that -- that they felt comfortable that that would not -- they could not prove that that would not have a negative impact to upland vegetation, especially where the upland vegetation was in non-hydric soils. Page 63 December 6, 2007 I mean, and through the whole year of research that we did with the last LDC cycle, we came up with the concept back and forth with the stakeholders group that upland soils were not appropriate. And that recommendation through that whole process never included upland soils, it included wetland soils and hydric soils that might not be jurisdictional. But these are not even hydric soils, these are non-hydric upland soils. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm starting to understand what you're saying. If they're building it up, the area around it, the drainage, I guess, would be going down. Usually you think of an upland as an area where water would drain out of. But you're saying I guess that where they build up the area with fill and everything that it will become an area where water will drain into it. MS. BURGESON: Where it pops off after certain major events. And the concern isn't necessarily how often that does that, but the concern is the duration of that inundation in that upland area. And there's another issue, too, and that is when you talk about an upland area and upland soils and the vegetation, particularly the ground cover that's in that area being completely flooded, one of the things that's important to know is that it's not just whether or not that area can accept a minimal amount of flooding, but there's also a critical dry-down period that is necessary for uplands and upland plants, and particularly ground cover, to be healthy and successful. And if what you're doing is just keeping it a little bit wetter all of the summer, and even if it's just a little bit, you're in the root system, you're not allowing the natural dry-down and the actual need for an extreme dry-down in an upland area. So there wasn't -- and for the whole reason that we went for this last process, not including upland soils, we feel that the language in the GMP that requires, and in the discussions with Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Halas and Mr. Lorenz, to not negatively Page 64 December 6, 2007 impact the upland vegetation, that this would not be -- this would be not consistent with that GMP language. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So do you have any suggestions about how they could manage their stormwater so that it wouldn't have to go there? Because it seems like it's going to be kind of hard -- they're not talking about directly discharging in by any kind of piping or anything, but just seepage through the water table. How can you avoid that? MS. BURGESON: I understand that from other discussions that that is a lot more complicated, to design a stormwater system to keep the -- the point here is directed stormwater into that system. We can't -- we don't have a GMP language that specifically says that you can't change the ground table. We do everything we can to prevent stormwater being added into that preserve as an additional threat to the upland vegetation, native vegetation in there. But we do have e-mails back and forth on this particular project where the project manager did say please -- because our recommendation was denial of this project initially. And then we said well, we don't have a stipulation that will allow us to approve this. And then the recommendation from that applicant was we'll accept language as a stipulation that there will be no stormwater in the upland preserve, and we will work around that. And we've got that in an e-mail that they offered that they could do that. And so there must be -- and I'm not an engineer designer, but there must be some other opportunity to design that project, if that was offered in an e-mail to us, in order to approve the project. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, so you are recognizing that they're not directly discharging in there by any piping, it would just be by the seepage from the water table. But -- MS. BURGESON: Well, their proposed plan is direct discharge. It is as popping off over the system, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, we're certainly going to provide Page 65 December 6, 2007 you time to rebut, so -- MR. HANCOCK: Sorry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm a little concerned, and I want to go back to the issue of this vacation of the conservation easement. You made a statement that half of the back of the current project was a conservation easement. MS. BURGESON: Correct. That was -- half of that property was preserved through the previous SDP as listed species preserves and required a state conservation easement on it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And I read in the back-up material that they had mitigated for any listed species issues. MS. BURGESON: Um-hum. COMMISSIONER CARON: Now, does the environmental and engineering staff agree that we as a county are getting more in preservation at this point than we would have gotten otherwise? In other words, I'm trying not to lose -- I mean, understanding that they've mitigated, so that -- MS. BURGESON: Right. I don't have any specific information on what that off-site mitigation was. We were concerned to make sure that the project was compliant with the current GMPs for minimum preservation of native vegetation on-site. And since, the listed species surveys identified that the RCW were no longer on the property. So I can't tell you whether -- assuming that 50 percent of that site, they had originally close to a 10-acre preserve, sayan eight-acre preserve, we are getting less preservation on this site. I don't know what the off-site mitigation acreage is. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll ask Mr. Hancock, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I respect the fact that you're trying to do your job, no question about that. Page 66 December 6, 2007 But you indicated that there -- in conversations with Commissioner Henning and others that they felt, you feel, that there could be no inundation or putting water into those upland preserves, and I appreciate that. But I have -- Mr. Hancock indicated that they attempted to respond to each and every request for scientific determination of when something can be shown proven, scientifically proven, that it will degrade the vegetation. And from what I heard, and unless I'm in error in what I heard, it sounded as though the probability level is extremely low for these events. Is there any standard that you use to reference at what point we should not allow any development relative to such a condition? I mean, is there any point where you will accept that there's a scientific basis for going forward? MS. BURGESON: Yes. And we are in the process of -- Margie asked that I not discuss too much of the draft LDC stuff because it's not been approved or aired yet, but we are in the process of creating criteria. And for this project, because it comes before all of that criteria is created, we went through all of the evaluation of all of the data that was presented to us and the applicant's attempt to support that this would not be a negative impact to this upland soils and upland preserve. And staffs full evaluation and discussion with engineering and environmental, the conclusion has been from the beginning, each time additional information was provided to try to support or change staffs mind that the scientific data would support this stormwater in the upland preserve, staff did not feel -- not feel -- staff did not evaluate it the way the applicant is presenting it to you to feel comfortable that that would not be an adverse impact. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're telling us that you have those criteria. Page 67 December 6, 2007 MS. BURGESON: We are working on that criteria right now for COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So then you don't have those criteria? MS. BURGESON: Correct. We have the-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if you don't have those criteria, how could you possibly make a determination? MS. BURGESON: We have the criteria that we developed through or were using through the LDC cycle last year to come up with the language that we had proposed through the entire LDC cycle that this board approved last year, and went to the Board of County Commissioners and only got to that final meeting where there was a change in that language. And we have done a handful of reviews and projects where we have evaluated whether it's appropriate to put stormwater in non-wetlands, non-jurisdictional wetlands, and have permitted that through this similar type of evaluation. But those have always been hydric soils and not non-hydric -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hear you and I respect the fact that you are attempting to do your job, but I don't think -- MS. BURGESON: We do have criteria that we've been using. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You two can't talk over one another. And I think we heard the story. I think we know what you're going to say if we ask you another question. I have no further questions. Anybody on this panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: We have three public speakers, but I believe they're affiliated with the church. Grant Thigpen, Pete Smith and Earl Morgan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If any of you gentleman would like to Page 68 December 6, 2007 speak, you need to come up to the podium and identify yourselves for the record. And we ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes. Thank you. MR. THIGPEN: Grant Thigpen, Pastor of New Hope Ministries. I want to thank you for seeing us this morning. Really, I think Tim has pretty well voiced all of my concerns and has represented the church very well this morning. And I would just ask you to -- by the way, I don't envy you having to do this. But I just ask you to take into consideration what the EAC has recommended and go with it and let us move on and do what we're called to do. But I appreciate you, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any of the other speakers wish to speak? Ifwe they do so, please come on up. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope, doesn't look like it, Ray. Okay, with that, Tim, do you want to take a short rebuttal? MR. HANCOCK: The word short well noted, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: It was not our intent to engage you in a policy discussion today about stormwater management and preserves, but to display as clearly as we can the extreme effort we've gone to show on this site that it works. I think we have done that. I think the EAC decision reflects that effort and the evidence put into record, despite the characterizations you heard today. I was at that meeting. I'm pretty sure I was, I presented the information. And the EAC minutes reflect that one of the key issues was the lack of a standard. And in the face of the lack of a standard you have to use what is reasonable and prudent. And we as an applicant met at a minimum that standard. The only standard that's been touted out there is Mike Duever's Page 69 December 6, 2007 report which talks about the transition of a hydric soil condition of mesic flatwoods to a wetter soil condition of hydric flatwoods. We don't trip it. I don't know what else we can say in the absence of a standard. The RCW issue, I want to be very clear about this. That preserve, Commissioner Caron, was for an RCW colony, which no longer existed. They even went to the extent of 30 days of continuous video taping and whatnot. And the agencies all signed off that the RCW s were no longer present or nesting. In a form of mitigation for the church when it was originally built, 30 acres were purchased off-site for a combination of wetland and RCW mitigation, and were then improved and exotics removed and so forth. So any concern about a net loss, actually it goes the other way, there's a net of -- an increase in land being set aside, when you combine all of the elements together. There's a patently false statement by Ms. Burgeson that I have to point out when she indicated direct discharge into the preserve. I don't know if it's a lack of understanding, I don't know what it is. But our water management plan associated with this project under the SDP review includes all stormwater entering a dry pre-treatment area, then into a lake before discharging into the preserve. The only direct discharge into that preserve is rainfall under our plan. Characterizing water that comes out of a lake which is part of a water management system as direct discharge is not true. What is true is when you do directly discharge, that's what you get. (Indicating.) Wow, that's awful. I'd hate to see that happen. This is where the water will be going, nine to 15 days a year. I don't see ground cover drowning in that picture. Folks, what is an individual approval that we're seeking has been turned into a policy directive by the environmental staff, and we're not buying it. Page 70 December 6, 2007 We've proved our case, we've made the best effort we can. We can only ask for your consideration. And I apologize for placing you in this position, but on this project where we have nine years of proof that direct discharge has not adversely affected a preserve, for us to pre-treat water three times the commercial requirement prior to discharge into a preserve, meaning less water, less hydroperiod influence, and to ask for your consideration I hope is more than appropriate. With that, sir, I'll answer any other questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, could the drainage system be redesigned to avoid even indirect water table shifts into the upland preserve? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. All that requires is that we give more land up and lose the use of it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How much more would you estimate that it would take? MR. HANCOCK: It would require the construction of an additional lake structure, because the existing lake is wrapped on three sides by the preserve. Due to the side slopes required to even achieve a one-foot across the board volume in this, it may be as much as two acres. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When you say that the lake is what directly goes into the preserve, is there a berm between the lake and the preserve? Or what is it like, the lake merging into a wetland? MR. HANCOCK: The western edge of the lake itself -- and I'll provide the soon to be simplified plan for you. The lake in the upper right hand corner there, as the water enters that lake it will spill over that lake on the western side at grade into the preserve. So no, there's -- it doesn't have to breach a berm necessarily. Now you will naturally, when the lake is constructed, the edges of the lake will come up a little bit, just by nature of construction. But Page 71 December 6, 2007 the water will, almost like a spreader swale, if it gets to that point it will then spread out into the preserve. We're not berming the preserve. What we have to do is we have to elevate the balance of the site in order to meet South Florida District criteria for finish floor elevation. So by elevating the rest of the site, it's a de facto berm. But let me point out that it's happening on the other two sides of these preserves without us doing anything. The difference is, no matter what happens water will never sheet flow out of this preserve. Whether we put stormwater management or not, water will cease to sheet flow across this site. The question is, is it better for the preserve to connect it to a water management system with a positive outflow, or do we allow it to in essence be bermed and isolated and require that the water leave only one way, vertically? Our answer is no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? Ms. Caron, did you have -- did anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I had asked you to research two questions that we had talked about earlier, and I was wondering if you've gotten responses to those. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, and I hope they will please you. On the issue of the language that you put forth, we've reviewed it with Mr. Klatzkow, and for this particular use in this land we have no objection to the inclusion of that language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: The second issues, Mr. Casalanguida mentioned a 15-foot -- or changing that easement to include right-of-way. We have no issue with that. He had requested that the church -- if the turn lanes are required to be extended prior to the road widening, we have to pay for that. If they are extended as a function of the roadway widening, we will Page 72 December 6, 2007 participate in that also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I asked you about eliminating the asphalt for the parking spaces and do asphalt aisles only with the exception of the two easternmost lanes in that westernmost large parking lot. How do you feel about that? MR. HANCOCK: I'd like to go a slightly different route but I think gets there. While the LDC allows for up to 70 percent impervious, there's no minimum. In other words, you don't have to do any. What we'd like to suggest is that we think we can very easily live with a minimum of 30 percent of all required parking for the church will be of pervious surfaces. And we think that what that allows us to do is because that includes the existing parking, which is paved, so we don't get ourselves in a bind there, it results in about half of the required additional parking ending up as pervious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything's better than nothing. I think that's fine. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I have one last comment to make, and your aerial portrays it pretty well. First of all, there's a lake in the bottom of the aerial, and there's one in the north right-hand corner. The property, you're digging another lake. During the rural fringe and during the stewardship area lands review five years ago the environmental community was very concerned about excavations close to preserves. Their argument was that the closer you get with an excavation, the more change to the hydrology and the draining of those preserves is going to occur as a result of that excavation. And so we had minimum standards. And I think they were asking for 2,500 feet, and I think we ended up with maybe 1,500 or something like that. Page 73 December 6, 2007 In this case your lakes are adjacent, contiguous or part ofthe preserves. The hydrology is going to change in those preserves. So from the testimony you supplied today and the engineering that you supplied today, not only do I feel that you are not having an adverse impact to those preserves, you're having a positive impact to those preserves, and I'm glad that you're doing what you're proposing to do. So with that, I have no other questions or comments. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have, and this is a huge question. What was the problem with the dock again? I didn't -- MR. HANCOCK: I'll have to defer to Ms. Caron. We quite candidly haven't been hanging our hat on the dock anyways, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a nice little pond, the kids might want a nice little dock. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's the same with a boardwalk. COMMISSIONER CARON: I asked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The boardwalk wasn't removed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Donna, you really don't want their ability to put a dock in the pond? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no. I asked a question about why there was boat docks, plural, in this proposal when they have a very tiny little lake that -- MR. HANCOCK: We'd rather remove the concern than fight for the docks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you are taking it out? MR. HANCOCK: I'm happy to remove it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not going to fight much for that. It just seems -- I mean, the kids could have a canoe dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go there, Donna, do you care if the dock's in or out? You were just asking a question, right? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just asked a question. It was a very simple question, along with several others about uses that are on Page 74 December 6, 2007 that property, about printing uses and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we can put it back in. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- book stores and everything else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I think in an effort to not cause a problem, we jumped to a conclusion that that was something that somebody didn't want. I don't think that's the case. So why don't we just not strike boat docks and just leave it there. MR. HANCOCK: Applicant agrees to leave it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, what about a marina? Would you like to go for a marina? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. MR. HANCOCK: Nothing over 35 feet, I promise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifthere's no other questions-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Don't worry, administratively you can have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I'm waiting for discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got to close the public hearing first, that's where I was leading to. No other public speakers? We'll close the public hearing and we'll first entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will entertain a motion of approval. But I'd like to make a discussion beforehand, or do I need a second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we -- yeah, why don't we make a motion, then we'd have a discussion as part of the motion. So Mr. Vigliotti made the motion, Mr. Midney seconded. And Mr. Vigliotti wanted to make a statement with the motion. So go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It would be good to know what the motion was. Page 75 December 6,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion of approval. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm really concerned about staffs confusion on this. I'm really disappointed. Staff has recommendations that should have been in that were noted under deviations that aren't here. We got stipulations that came last night, it was early. I have no idea how that happened. Then we're being told that the wording was wrong on the ones we have. Also, we spent most of our time talking about environmental issues and we have an EAC that knows, I believe, more than we do here. And I think we should go with their recommendation. So I'm going to make a recommendation for approval without any stipulations and putting in a 30 percent impervious parking, and I'm sure commissioners have others, so -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Mr. Midney already seconded the motion. Mr. Midney, you still second the refined motion, as we'll call it? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made and seconded. Now we have discussion. And I certainly have -- I have 11 notes that have to be discussed. And Mr. Adelstein wanted to comment. Go ahead, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, it's all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else want to offer any discussion before I go into the stipulations? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I'm waiting for your additional notes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just notes that I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, you had something you want to say first? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I just kind of agree with Mr. Vigliotti, that if the EAC supports it, and they have more expertise Page 76 December 6, 2007 about that than I do, then I'll go along with that. But I am interested in that there be some sort of standards so that, you know, if environmental staff does want to prevent water being discharged into uplands, that there be something concrete that we can go on. And I'm not opposed to the idea of prohibition of drainage into uplands, but I would like it to be something that could be more provable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to add one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Over the last few months we've had quite a few churches come in for PUDs and new construction and expansion. I'm really glad to see the churches getting together and realizing this county is growing and they're stepping up to the plate to the needs of the community and preparing to grow, because it's a costly and expensive situation for a church to grow, and I'm just glad to see they're all stepping up to the plate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the notes that I have, the first one is involving the topic we spent probably way too much time on and that's the wetlands, or the discharge. And basically staff had given us a recommendation originally and then followed it up by a second recommendation. The first recommendation, the applicant has already said they can design to and they agree with, and I think it's a good recommendation. And it reads as follows: The CFPUD and master plan shall full (sic) water quality pre-treatment volume before the water reaches an elevation that would have the lake overflow its banks and then backflow into the natural ground areas, parentheses, preserves. I would suggest that part of our stipulation, that is the recommendation that we include. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine. I'll add that to my Page 77 December 6, 2007 motion. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second does too. Okay. The next item I have is -- we clarified some language, and I'll go through it all. Maybe we'll get a comment at the end. 4.2.8.3, the water management structures that are used -- you have placed in the preserves will only be those required by the permitting agencies. We'll strike Item 5.8.C. I'm not sure what that is, I didn't make a note on it. I'll double check right now so we don't have a mistake. Thank you, Ms. Caron will get that. While she's doing that I'll go on to the next one. The PUD boundary setback to residentially adjacent properties for accessory structures will be the same as principal, 25 feet. And Ms. Caron, is that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: 5.8.C was the conservation easement vacation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right, there wasn't any -- the need, and so we're going to strike that from the PUD. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's already happened, according to the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Under number five, which was the allowable uses in the preserves: The paths, bikeways and pathways referenced will be for non-paved surfaces, excluding of course the boardwalk, which wouldn't qualify for that. That was 4.2.A.2. The master plan will be modified to produce it as a conceptual master plan, because the one that was obtained here is an SDP plan, which would actually lock you in and cause you to be here many more times than you need to be. The master plan shows parking. The 30 percent of the parking will be impervious. Yeah, will be impervious -- will be pervious areas, not impervious, will be pervious areas. Page 78 December 6, 2007 Okay, now those are the items in the PUD that I found. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, you're-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First, before we go further -- I've got more, but let us finish the PUD ones up first. Does the motion maker agree with those for the PUD? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the next ones that I have, there was a -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go off of that, did you talk about the 25 feet -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I didn't check that off. Sorry . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. We talked about verification that the access agreement between -- for that other access on Santa Barbara is in place and should be provided to the BCC by the time this gets to them. That the right-of-way easement on the south side of the property along Santa Barbara that's now shown as a drainage easement will also be shown as a right-of-way -- I mean, it's a drainage easement that will be shown as a right-of-way easement as well. MR. HANCOCK: I believe that's Davis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Davis. I'm sorry, I said Santa Barbara. I'm glad you corrected me, thank you. That the applicant has agreed for providing compensating right-of-way for any additional turn lanes and to pay for the turn lanes that are going to be installed to service their facility. Page 79 December 6, 2007 Staff is going to add a comment to show that they are not supportive of the deviation request and the reasoning why. And that the applicant has agreed to add the incompatible language that we introduced in the previous PUDs last week, same language. Are there anything that I missed? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. Three stories, not to exceed 48 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That was a grammatical change, but that's fine, that was one we brought up. With those changes and those stipulations in mind, does the motion maker accept those as part of the stipulation? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nodding.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second does by nodding affirmatively. Any other discussion amongst the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously 7-0. Thank MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. Page 80 December 6, 2007 Item #8B PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-8416, DISTINCTIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT LIVINGSTON, LLC CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item up today is Petition PUDZ-2005-AR-8416, Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC, represented by Wayne Arnold and Richard Y ovanovich, to rezone from agricultural to an RPUD. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of the planning commission? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich and asked him questions and pointed out issues that I had. And he was going to take it under advisement and we'll discuss it this mornmg. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I also talked to Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I had a conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's been a pretty busy fellow this time. Anybody else besides me? I had a conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich and Mr. Arnold. And we will be talking about the same things here today. And it's involving most of the PUD standards. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And I also spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich. Page 81 December 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, the applicant ready for a presentation? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the applicant. Also with me are Steve Fiterman and Dave Sturdyvin, representatives of the owner of the property, Wayne Arnold, Mark Minor and Kim Schlachta also are available to answer questions. On the visualizer is the -- is an aerial of the property location. This is a request to rezone 17.52 acres currently zoned agricultural to RPUD. The property is located on the east side of Livingston Road just north of Veterans Memorial, as you can see on the bottom half of the aerial. It's completely surrounded by Mediterra to the north, east and south. And further east is Tuscany Reserve. The property is designated urban residential under the comprehensive plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, your speaker -- as short as you are, you need to pull that speaker a little closer. Oh, I'm sorry, I was thinking of Tony Pires. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's a short end for the short guy. Is that better? Okay. I know, I've got nothing going for me. Under the urban residential fringe designation in the comprehensive plan the property owner could ask for the base density of up to four units per acre, plus various other bonuses. The request before you is for 43 units, which is essentially a density of 2.57 units per acre. We worked closely with representatives -- why don't I just do this. We worked closely with representatives of the developer of Mediterra on designing what we anticipated putting on this infill piece of property. They wanted us to have products similar to what they were doing in Mediterra, so they were looking at decent size Page 82 December 6, 2007 single- family homes or decent size zero lot line product on this parcel. And if you drive up and down that street, you'd wonder why this wasn't in Mediterra in the first place. They had issues acquiring the property with the property owner. We came years later after Mediterra was designed and did acquire the property. So we're trying to do basically what's in Mediterra, since it's so close to Mediterra. More than likely, we'll be doing a zero lot line project on that property. However, we do want to have the ability to do single-family if, you know, marketing conditions dictate that we should develop this as single-family. Therefore, I need to make a couple of changes in the development standards table that were pointed out to me through meetings with various members of the planning commission. Wayne and I kind of took this project over more than halfway through and didn't catch these standards in the table. Under the single-family column, you'll see we have a side yard setback of seven-and-a-half feet and then a minimum distance between principal structures of only 10 feet. And as creative as I can be at times, I couldn't figure out how to make seven-and-a-half and seven-and-a-half equal 10. And then I realized well, that's usually not what you see in front of you anyway. Usually you see on single-family, you see a six-foot setback and a minimum separation of 12 feet between structures. So that's really the numbers that should be there for the side yard. It should be a six-foot setback, and then the distance between principal structures should be 12 feet on the single-family standard. Also, under maximum height your staff report says that's maximum zoned height. That wasn't clearly reflected in the table. So we need to say maximum zoned height on that table of 35 feet. And really, footnote number seven is really -- I believe it's footnote number seven, is really not necessary for this project. So footnote seven should come out. I've got that right, right? So footnote Page 83 December 6, 2007 seven should come out of that development standards table as well. One other deviation that you'll notice, we didn't ask for, is because -- which is the standard deviation that -- for cul-de-sacs greater than 1,000 feet. Do you have the master plan? You'll notice that when you measure the cul-de-sac, we were asked to move the access further north to get it away from Mediterra's access. And what that did is that created that portion of right-of-way that will put us over 1,000 feet in length. We were told when we originally went through the submittal of this that we didn't have to ask for the deviation of 1,000 feet, that it could be administratively granted. That was asked -- many of you asked that question of me as we were talking about that. And I just wanted to clarify that on the record that yes, we can have that administratively. If not, I know it's unusual, but we'd like to add that as a deviation at this point, if it's something that we need to add in the PUD. It's something you see frequently, so I hope it won't be something that would be a problem to add that now. But we were told administratively we can have that. It was questioned by several planning commissioners. I'd like to get that on the record. And frankly, it might make more sense to put it in the PUD so you're not going outside of the PUD document to have to track down the record as to maybe that administrative provision goes away in the LDC later and we may have somehow unintentionally gotten stuck with a problem. So I think that highlights the changes to the development standards, highlights the project, shows you what it's about. Wayne's going to briefly take you through the deviations we've requested. And after that, if it makes sense -- or you can ask questions any time, obviously, but if you let Wayne go through the deviation discussion we'd be available to answer any questions you may have regarding the project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, if I may? Page 84 December 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There was one issue that we discussed on Page 4 having to do with the arithmetic, and 1.4. And I spoke to you about if the lot lines we weren't sure, you weren't sure about. I know there's a minimum lot 5,000. When you do the arithmetic, you come up with 7.404 for the home sites. Do you recall that conversation? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, I do. And if you look at the water management report, and that's another thing I need to bring up, you'll see that the lots are not uniform in size. The R area on the master plan is 12.51 acres. So even though we have the minimum lot standards, they're not all minimum lots. And that's going to be the difference in how we come up with this size of the development area of 12.51. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, because my question to you at the time was what are the 5.1 additional. And I speculated what was that, clubhouse, pools, what? And you said no, they were not the amenities. So it's all of those lots, regardless of their size, that are all dedicated to housing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Minus the preserve area, which is .82, minus the water management area, which is 2.2, and the roads, which are almost two. The difference is the development area is 12.51. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I wanted to get that on the record, because that makes it what otherwise would be confusing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I was also asked the question about, you know, the water management report says 41 lots, you're asking for 43. Well, the water management report was the current plan. However, that could change. And we would like to have the ability to do 43 units. In the project it would still be within the same development area and it would have to still meet the development standards. But right now the product we're looking at probably will only yield 41. That's why the water management report shows 41. But we would like to Page 85 December 6, 2007 have that flexibility that if things change we could go to the maximum of 43 units. So that explains the discrepancy between the water management report and the PUD request. Any other questions before I turn it over to Wayne to talk about the deviations? Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, is this project going to do anything for affordable housing? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The answer is yes. And honestly, I didn't know which way to handle it. I didn't know whether to put it in the PUD document or go through a separate donation. We're acceptable going either way. You know, what has become the standard has been 1,000 per unit at closing. We're fine with doing that either in the PUD document or through a separate letter with an agency that provides affordable housing. So that yes, we plan on doing that. And we didn't know which was the better way of handling it, and we're acceptable either way of handling that, however the planning commission deems appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You wait long enough because of the market, we may be paying you not to do affordable housing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know that's a joke and I hope that it stays to be a joke. Anything else before I turn it over to Wayne? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else before we talk to Mr. Arnold? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. Wayne Arnold. I wanted to touch on the couple of deviations that were requested that staff did not support. Page 86 December 6, 2007 We requested a deviation from the standard right-of-way width for this project from 60 feet down to 40 feet. Your staff, in the various comments that we received back and forth over the past several months, we had no idea that staff was not supportive of that deviation request. And upon receiving the staff report, we're obviously concerned that they didn't support the request. We had several examples that both Rich and I and my assistant have just independently have worked on. And I came up with seven projects that I've been involved in that have been approved for that deviation down to 40 feet. Keeping in mind that we have an infill project, we're trying to go ahead and shape this in between a developed community. And we know that that standard can work. To give you an example, one of the more recent infill projects that you heard was V ornado, which was over by the Glades. We were approved with a minimum 40-foot right-of-way for that project. Rich and I were involved in a project for WCI Communities on the south end of Livingston Road called Manchester Square. That too was approved with a 40-foot right-of-way. Lands End Preserve that's off of Tower Road behind Eagle Creek, that project was approved with local roads 40 feet. Copper Cove Preserve, a project that's just north of Fiddler's Creek and off of Collier Boulevard was approved with local streets of 40 feet in width. Orange Blossom Ranch, a mixed used project in the Orangetree area was approved with a reduced right-of-way to 40 feet. Our neighboring Mediterra community was approved with private road rights-of-way of 40 feet. And our clients have developed property in the Pelican Marsh community, and that PUD as well has reductions to 40 feet for local roads. So it's a standard that we know can work and it allows some Page 87 December 6, 2007 flexibility in design for us and for the product type that we're developing. I don't believe it's contrary to anything that's happening in the neighborhood, and it certainly doesn't become, I think, any type of safety standard for something that's serving 43 lots. So I would hope that you can support our deviation and override staffs objection to that, based on the fact that it has been approved on other cases and we can demonstrate that it can function properly. This probably will not be a public road network, it would be private, and again, not requiring the standard types of utility issues and dedications to the county. The other objection to a deviation request was to have a sidewalk on only one side of our cul-de-sac. Staff did not support that. We had offered that we would pay in lieu of for the second side of the sidewalk into the county's fund. They didn't support it. I'm not quite sure on the justification. There was discussion in the staff report that alluded to that this would become an overcrowded community. And I think our clients actually took some very recent photos. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Wayne, I think the words were overcrowded neighborhood character and overstuffed residential neighborhood. And since staff has opined that a 2.57 unit per acre project is overcrowded and overstuffed, I would hope that we never see another project in this county above 2.57 acres. MR. ARNOLD: If I can direct your attention to the visualizer, that is a project called Terrabella, and it is in Pelican Marsh. It's a cul-de-sac street system. It shows a sidewalk on one side. That's one streetscape. It doesn't appear to be an overcrowded streetscape to me. I can give you another view. I mean, I think it looks like a typical single-family and villa neighborhood, which it is, very similar product desired to be placed in the Pezzetino Di Cielo project. Just another streetscape shot down the cul-de-sac. Closer in view of the type of attached villa product that has been Page 88 December 6, 2007 constructed by our clients. They're attached with privacy walls and some other attachments for the accessory structures, but it provides a different style for living on these on smaller lots. You get a lot of product, no doubt about it, for the lot. But I don't think that the reduction of the sidewalk or the right-of-way results in an overcrowded and overstuffed neighborhood that's out of character with anything else you're seeing. I think these are fine examples of very beautiful projects, and they command very high prices of neighborhoods that they're built within. I have some other examples, again, in Pelican Marsh. A Grand Isle community. Very similar product. But you get the sense that this doesn't look like an overcrowded neighborhood to me. It's a very nice single- family neighborhood. So I would hope that we could get beyond this. I think that there are other projects that have been approved with the right-of-way widths and the single side of the sidewalk. You know, frankly, a 43-unit subdivision to me shouldn't warrant a sidewalk anyway. If you notice on those pictures, those were taken yesterday in the late afternoon. I don't see another car on the streets or a person walking on them. So, I mean, the character of these neighborhoods, they're primarily seasonal, they're not heavily used, they're not typically family neighborhoods, they're more adult-oriented neighborhoods. And in this particular case, having the sidewalk on one side seems more than adequate for the streetscape. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The pictures you've just shown us, how many units per acre are those? MR. ARNOLD: Probably in the same range. I mean, the communities vary, but Pelican Marsh overall is approved at around three units an acre, I think. I can look that up on a PUD list. But this isn't a much higher or lower density per se than -- Page 89 December 6, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So it's somewhat equal? MR. ARNOLD: Pretty similar. Mediterra adjacent to us is a good example. You'll find certain local streets where they have -- they were before the days of deviations, but their cross sections allowed certain cul-de-sacs to have sidewalks, certain cul-de-sacs had one side, certain local streets had sidewalks on one side. I don't think they were at the time required to pay into a fund, but part of our deviation was the ability to pay into the county's fund and let them use the money where it better fits the community. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I just wanted to make sure these are a fair comparison, and they are. MR. ARNOLD: I think they are. I certainly think they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's -- one thing. Wayne, when you show these things, what are the setbacks for the buildings? Are they comparable to this project? I mean, we have a situation here where you could put a side entrance garage 10 feet, which essentially would put it right on the edge of your utility easement. And can you plant landscape in the utility easement? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know about planting in the utility easement, but I think that generally speaking if we're going to go to the smaller lot product, you probably aren't going to find too many side-loaded garages if we go down to the 50-foot standard. It's just very impractical to provide the backing and turning movements into that. But I will tell you that for the front-loaded garages, we're going to have to be 23 feet from the back of the sidewalk. And certainly, though, within the 10 feet that would be in the front yard. I don't see a scenario where we would be placing the side-entry garage if we went Page 90 December 6, 2007 that route 10 feet from the right-of-way line because of the easements that we would have to also deal with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The product we're looking at here, what is its front setback at? MR. ARNOLD: The product you see there, I believe -- I can't say for sure. It's either 20 on the side that has no sidewalk or I believe it's 23 on the side where there is a sidewalk. I had a photo where it actually shows vehicles parked in front in the Terrabella project. Let me show you that. I didn't show you that on the visualizer. See, there are a couple of vehicles parked in the driveways on the left side of the screen. It shows that there's adequate room between the setback they provided. And I believe the standards are very similar in Pelican Marsh for what we've proposed here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the 23 is only at a garage? MR. ARNOLD: That's to the face of the garage, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And your setback is 20 for a building? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. But if we have a sidewalk, it's required to be 23 feet. The footnote number two provides for the back of sidewalk at least 23 feet to the garage -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From a garage door, not from a primary structure. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one thing, while we're looking at number two, you have that 20 feet only if there's a sidewalk. Could we also add to that or back of curve, in case there's not a sidewalk? In other words, do you want 20 feet from a garage door on the side of the street without the sidewalk? MR. ARNOLD: Let me think about that for a moment and I'll give you an answer. Let me have our client contemplate that to see if that makes any material change to what they hope to do. Page 91 December 6, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another question. So essentially we're going to be 30 feet from the center line and we have a 35-foot height that we could build to. That could be a problem, I think. Number four, footnote four on the development standards, some of the things that I'm not sure about is you can encroach into the adjoining -- you see my concern is you're allowing people to encroach if the unit owner allows you. Obviously there's no unit owner, so it would be designed with that encroachment, I assume. But what is that you're actually describing to have happen? MR. ARNOLD: I have a photo that may describe that for you, Mr. Schiffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, when you talk, you have to be on the speaker. It's hard to record your comments. MR. ARNOLD: Let me go back to this one. It's hard to make out, but in this location, between those two structures is a six-foot high privacy wall that provides for a courtyard on the interior of that wall that is utilized by one of those structures. There would be a like courtyard on the next side for these attached structures. That also carries forward to the rear of the structure where they might have a pool or a pool enclosure where you would have a privacy wall that could be actually on the property line, where you have the screen enclosures that come and meet on that privacy wall. That was how that's intended. It's comparable language to others you've seen. I know that Mediterra, Pelican Marsh, some of the other communities have utilized a standard that allows this encroachment language. And I think that encroachment language is there primarily so that there can be maintenance easements that are authorized for the continued maintenance of those facilities. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why wouldn't you just put the property line essentially down the centerline of that wall or on the outside of it or something? Page 92 December 6, 2007 MR. ARNOLD: Because in some cases the product doesn't have just a linear wall that's parallel to that property line. There may be indentations in and out where there could be the structure built actually on the property line. In other cases it would be offset from the property line. But the accessory structures typically would have that attachment, at least through the privacy wall there that would go across the property line in the front and rear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that seems -- and then people would be measuring off of a property line as the wall is come across. So I mean, that seems -- MR. ARNOLD: Right, that would be -- I mean, ifthere's an easier way to say it, I'm happy to do so. I guess the intent of the language was to allow something similar to this, where you would have privacy walls and accessory structures that would be allowed to have these encroachments up to and on those property lines. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the benefit, I guess, being that if you followed that wall with a property line, your setbacks would be subject to following that regular property line, I guess. I mean, if no one has a problem with it, I have no problem with it. The -- can you show that one picture you have that showed Mediterra, the aerial photograph? MR. ARNOLD: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so our preserve will not be contiguous with their preserves? MR. ARNOLD: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. The other issue is the cul-de-sac. The concern I have is that if a fire -- emergency vehicle comes into this development, there's really not enough space for it to turn around prior to the gate. So if they are in the wrong development, they have to, I guess, go through the gate, go all the way down, turn around at the end of the cul-de-sac. Page 93 December 6, 2007 Is there a way you could put at least aT-turn or something prior to the entrance to the gate? MR. ARNOLD: I think we've designed one. If you look closely, we have an area that's shown as a utility easement to the north property line, just north of the preserve, on our master plan. We've worked with the county to provide the potential for a pump station at that location. And you could come in and we have to provide a turnout for the county to get its utility vehicles in. So there is an opportunity, I think, to -- it would be a backing movement, but I think that would be acceptable to the fire department to make that movement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It looks a little small now, but if you could just do that, so that if they are in the wrong development, they can get out. If they are -- this is the right development, the lengthy cul-de-sac is not an issue. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I'm certain we can accommodate that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: First of all, we are going to have driveways of 23 feet, aren't we? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: All of them? MR. ARNOLD: I think the driveways are all going to be -- if you take it to the edge of the pavement, they certainly would be. But where you have a sidewalk we have to be 23 feet to our garage door to provide adequate parking. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: On this idea of a sidewalk itself, I see no reason for you to have two of them. It doesn't make sense. First of all, because of the size of this. Second of all, you're trying to make it feel comfortable. And in doing so, I would say even if you wanted it to do for good, for the actual look and appeal of it on one side of the sidewalk is absolutely Page 94 December 6, 2007 correct. Otherwise it gets a little bit out of line for something 42 or 43 units. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think that it's a difficult thing for people to understand. But if you live in a community that does or doesn't have sidewalks, there are a large number of people who really don't want the sidewalk in their front yard. It takes away from an area that can be landscaped. And it does. There's a certain curb appeal that it's just -- it's something that some people really desire. And for those who don't want to live in a community that would have dual sidewalks, I would hope that they would go find a community that offered them, if we're allowed to have this deviation. But otherwise, you're going to go know going in when the road is constructed whether or not you have a sidewalk. And if they choose to live on the side that would have the sidewalk, that's great. If they didn't, they would have an option to live on the side that might end up with a little bit more green space. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Arnold, could you put up that last picture that you had with the villa? I think it's in Pelican Marsh. MR. ARNOLD: Was it this one that showed -- you can't really see that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, that's the one. First of all, this is an attached situation. And your PUD, it's not for attached villas, correct? MR. ARNOLD: This is technically an attached villa. And we would do something -- our attached product would be very similar to this. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's not what your PUD says. MR. ARNOLD: Maybe we can look at the development standards. This would be -- Page 95 December 6, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Says single-family detached and zero lot line detached. MR. ARNOLD: Right, these are zero lot line detached because the principal structures on that product are not attached. You have the accessory structures that are the attached component of that villa product. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I asked you. MR. ARNOLD: And again, if there's another way to express that that makes it more clear, I'm happy to do so. COMMISSIONER CARON: So in other words, this building that I'm looking at right here, that's one or two units? MR. ARNOLD: You're looking at the garage face that's there with the vegetation on it, one unit. And to the right -- COMMISSIONER CARON: To the left? MR. ARNOLD: -- on the screen is another unit. COMMISSIONER CARON: To the right is another unit. MR. ARNOLD: You see the vegetation between it -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, okay. MR. ARNOLD: And that attachment on this particular model, the attachments are the accessory structures over and across those lot lines. And you end up with a 10- foot separation between the principal structures. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, that's what I thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll ask for a staff report. And Melissa did this, you're kind of filling in, right? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. Yes, for the record, Ray Bellows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? (No response.) Page 96 December 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll make it easy for you, Ray, because I know you're probably not prepared to do a presentation. Well, one may not be needed. MR. BELLOWS: I appreciate that. Just for the record, I just want to put on one note in regards to the deviations. I did discuss the deviations with Melissa Zone, who's the planner. And the deviation process is one that where the standards that are being deviated from it, if they are intended to be applicable on every instance, then those would be the standards that would be the ones that would be the normal permitted standards and not ones -- so therefore, deviations wouldn't be required. And I think it was her opinion, based on -- or her research into the project that those deviations would reduce or enlarge the footprints of the buildings and not providing for pedestrian safety. But the photos, information depicted by the applicant I think shows that they can work. And if he's committing to a development such as that, I don't have an objection to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, I think it would be wise if we avoided terminology that we can't support in the LDC from the discussion that's used to either to be in favor or against any deviation. Overcrowding and overstuffed are not terms in the LDC defined. Ifthere's an incompatibility issue, then fine. But I think we ought to avoid that kind of terminology. It's ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear reference to the LDC for a turn down reason, so -- any other comments of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, there's no need for rebuttal then, thankfully. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me just state something. I asked Wayne to check out something that doesn't make Page 97 December 6, 2007 sense, and that is that if the garage was on the side without the sidewalk, there's no way you could get it closer than 25 feet to the sidewalk, so it's a moot question. I think it's actually a stupid question I asked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't want to admit that for the record, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the point is, I just don't want Wayne to waste time trying to figure that one out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for the clarification, sir. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one thing for Mr. Yovanovich before we go to a motion. There's been a lot of reference to how well you've been working with your neighbors at Mediterra. The landscaping that you have in front of your project, the planned landscaping, will it be like Mediterra? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: So that as we drive down Livingston, I'm not going to know essentially where Mediterra ends and where your project picks up? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Other than signage. COMMISSIONER CARON: Other than the signage, yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, no other questions, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Anybody have a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll make a motion-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll make a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, I think, was first, then we'll go to Ms. Caron. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that PUDZ-2005-AR-8416 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to staff Page 98 December 6, 2007 recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need a second before we can go into discussion. I don't think we -- most of us here don't seem -- I don't think we're going to be supporting staff recommendations, but let's see ifthere's a second with it that way. Is there a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion dies for lack ofa second. Ms. Caron, do you have a motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I'll make a motion for approval for PUDZ-2005-AR-8416, and with the following conditions. I believe that the deviations that were listed are appropriate and we're going to also add deviation D, which is for the 1,000-foot-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Minimum tangent. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- minimum cul-de-sacs. There is $1,000 a unit for affordable housing. They have offered to pay in lieu for the second side sidewalk. And we made certain changes to the development services -- to the development standards table. And let me try to find those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Six-foot and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Side yards setbacks were six feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For single-family. COMMISSIONER CARON: For single-family. Which would make it 12 for -- we've taken out deviation -- I'm sorry, 12 for minimum distance between principal structures. We've taken out footnote number seven. And, yes, and the height of course is zoned height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That agrees with my notes, too. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that was everything that we talked about. Page 99 December 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go into discussion, let's have a second. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein seconded that. Now discussion. Mr. Klatzkow, what's your issue? MR. KLATZKOW: Just for purposes of clarity, since this is going to be a PUD stipulation, they're paying in lieu of the sidewalks. When will the payment be made? COMMISSIONER CARON: When do we normally require that, at CO? MR. KLATZKOW: It's part of the PUD, so we're making a change to what we're normally doing. It could be CO is fine, building permit is fine. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: CO is fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: CO is fine with us. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sure it is. I'm asking when we normally do these things. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would expect it at plat. COMMISSIONER CARON: Plat. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it would be at plat approval. COMMISSIONER CARON: So at plat. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we expected, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's been a change to the payment in lieu of. The stipulation would be a payment in lieu of for the second sidewalk at the time of plat. Does the motion maker accept it? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does the second accept it? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: As part of the short comment, we should get CO, don't you think? Page 100 December 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't want to complicate this any more. COMMISSIONER CARON: Really. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I also want clarification on the affordable housing payment that we use, our typical language, and that it's credited against any further fees and so on, the typical language that we use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that acceptable to the motion maker? COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second accept it? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to add, you know, the one thing you have in there, the deviation on the cul-de-sac length, I would like to add into that sentence, if acceptable fire department turnaround is at the entrance. In other words, that length wouldn't be a good idea if you couldn't turn around prior to entering that. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think they've already covered that in their county easement turnaround right at the entrance, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The layouts that they show on this exhibit wouldn't make it. It's close. I think they can get it. I don't think it's a hardship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, the only problem you might want to consider with that is, if that was up to county staff to make that decision I think that would be fine. But when you've got a dozen different fire departments, each having a different idea of what size truck they may want to turn around, it could get rather complicated for the applicant to get it figured out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There is a county standard for the turnaround, and it's part of the cul-de-sac requirements. Either the 50-foot outside diameter radius or it's a T-turn, which I think would work better in this case, which they can make. Page 101 December 6, 2007 I mean, the reasons we have lengths of cul-de-sac is to prevent emergency vehicles from being trapped. And especially something that has such narrow right-of-ways, they'd have no other way to get out of there but go all the way down to the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: Again, Wayne Arnold. I think as we stated on the record, we can and would provide an appropriate fire turnaround. And I don't know exactly how that's going to be configured. I think Mr. Strain's correct, the fire departments all have a little bit different standard. But it's not always a cul-de-sac. We've found that they've allowed hammerhead type turns and stabilized turnarounds and various things. So I think the provision for us to do it, we certainly will and can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have no problem with that. Ms. Caron accept it as a -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept it? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else in this discussion phase? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Just a real quick note. I'm Italian and I have a real tough time pronouncing the name. I'd like to see a shorter name, if nothing, for the sign purposes in front of the street. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Pezzetino Di Cielo -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm Italian and I have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, we're on record here. Ray, did staff get all that information? MR. BELLOWS: I just want to go over it. It's being approved subject to the requested deviations by the applicant, plus the additional Page 102 December 6, 2007 deviation for cul-de-sac length. Then we're also having a condition that the elimination of the sidewalk would be paid for in lieu of at the time of plat approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BELLOWS: And we're also to add the language to credit if there's a fee increase. Then there's a change to the development standards table for single-family structures. The side yard setback is six feet and the distance between structures is 12 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BELLOWS: And you're eliminating footnote number seven. And then on the building, zoned height, we're going to make sure it says zoned height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You missed the affordable housing. MR. BELLOWS: Affordable housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it would be the standard language that's utilized. I would think for record purposes we ought to make that by letter in lieu of in the PUD. Does anybody have a preference on this panel, since the applicant offered either way? I think it would be safer to do it by letter. MR. BELLOWS: Can you say that again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant offered to make the commitment to the 1,000 stipulation by letter instead of incorporating the language in the PUD. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: He has to do it in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He has to do it in the PUD? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We always to it in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know we always do. But there's been some concern over the -- MR. KLATZKOW: I've got a better ability to enforce that if it's in the PUD than if it's outside the PUD. Page 103 December 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then that's the way it will be. Just trying to clean it up. But that's okay, we'll leave it dirty. Anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. And we will take a 15-minute break. We'll come back at noon. I think we'll finish up easily the boat dock and we'll be closed for the day. So we'll be back at 12:00. Thank you. (Recess. ) Item #8C PETITION: BD-2007-AR-12154, SAUNDRA CLANCY- KOENDARFER CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please take your seats. Nick is leaving us. He doesn't feel he can contribute to a boat amendment. We're at a loss now. But the next petition up is BD-2007-AR-12154, and it's Saundra Clancy-Koendarfer, represented by Ben Nelson, boat dock up in Little Hickory Shores. Page 104 December 6, 2007 With that, are there any disclosures on the part of the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how about let's swear in those that are wishing to speak on behalf of this petition. I did it backwards. (Speakers was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And with that, we'll ask the applicant for a presentation. MR. NELSON: Good morning -- or good afternoon, whoops, there we go. Thank you for your patience this morning. I appreciate the job you're doing up there, and I have a real appreciation of what you do, actually. The applicant, Mrs. Koendarfer, and her husband, what their plan is here, if you have drawings that show that, is that they want to replace an existing dock that extends approximately 20 feet out into the water and is approximately 15 foot from the property line. They want to replace that with a dock that extends 25 feet out into the water and has a boat lift on the front of it. So actually, and I will put this on -- what this drawing does, this drawing shows the existing dock lighter and it shows the proposed dock right there. And also, you're going to notice here -- also you'll notice here that this is the adjacent property owner. There is the approximate location of their porch on this side. And this is kind of a line of view that would go across from this corner over across where the existing dock is. And because we've moved this other dock, this is what our recommendation to the client was, was also to move it over to where it was a conforming dock to where it was 25 feet off instead of 15 feet off. And the actual dock extends only about five feet out further than the existing dock. So instead of putting a boat lift right in front of this dock, we Page 105 December 6, 2007 decided to redo the dock, move it over, go out five more feet to get to the better water depth, and then add the lift onto it. And that's essentially it for the boat dock. I'd just like to comment on the reasons for doing this. Naples and Collier County, I think you've all been at the forefront of maintaining in front of these -- in these natural areas, and even on canals, maintaining a good benthic resource in front of these walls. And one of the ways to do it is that back in the past, even on the bays, when somebody would put a seawall in they would dig it out and dig it out to depth, and then you would have nothing in front of these seawalls. And I think that, like I said, Naples and Collier County has been at the forefront of maintaining these now. And this wall here, the existing wall has some rip-rap at the base of it. It has a nice gradual slope. It has some benthic resources, which would be some oyster shells and some other things out. And we have an aerial that really kind of shows -- I hope it shows up. I think you can see on -- maybe you can see. Really light, you can see where this -- the bar comes out right here, the actual water, edge of the water that's the deep water. You can see the rip-rap at the base of the wall, just behind the dock, and you can see this edge of this water. That's what we're trying to get out in front of, well in front of, because that's at the end of where those resources are. So anyway, the goal was to go ahead and get enough water depth to where we would have adequate water depth for the boat that they presently have and for the future boat lift, and also to move it away from the adjacent property owner so that it wouldn't be as much in the view there. And basically I think that's all I have to say, unless you have some questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: How will you affect -- by moving this dock, how will you affect those oyster beds that are there?$ Page 106 December 6, 2007 MR. NELSON: What we're doing is we're going out, we're going further out over that. The walkway will be in a different area, but going out further out is the best way to do it, because what we're trying to do is to get the boat into an area to where we won't disturb any of that. The worst problem that we have in a lot of these shallow water areas, if you put your dock in too shallow water, you know that automatically your client is going to be prop dredging, trying to move oyster shells out of the way of the boat. The boat lift is going to continually bottom out and you're going to cause turbidity and all types of stuff. So really, long-term solution, the best way to do this is to go ahead and go out to deeper water so that boat never does kick up turbidity, it allows that bottom to go ahead and be a good part of the ecosystem there. So that's our goal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The picture that we're looking at right now on the visualizer, the -- that's the present boat dock, is it not? MR. NELSON: Yes, sir. And there's a boat moored at the front of it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see that, yes. And you have a line that you put on there that shows the person's vision from the next door; is that correct? MR. NELSON: Approximately, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if you were to superimpose the new dock and push that boat out the distance associated with the new dock, wouldn't that line of vision be obstructed? MR. NELSON: Well, what happens is, though, we come another 10 feet this way. So if we go from here, the actual dock would be out another five feet. So that line would be right about there, would be Page 107 December 6, 2007 exactly where the front of the boat would be. So actually, it wouldn't be any -- and that's what we showed on the previous drawing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's what I'm relating to. The previous drawing, when -- because you didn't have it marked off for the new location. Why don't you put that back up then, please. And I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to be clear on it because of the old dock. MR. NELSON: So here's the old dock right there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The old dock there. And you're saying to me that's being moved five feet; is that it? MR. NELSON: We've moving it actually-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ten feet -- MR. NELSON: Ten to 12 feet, actually, because this dock actually goes at an angle here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, you're making me feel more comfortable when you use the word 12, maybe even 13. Because I would say to you if you're going to be concerned for the vision of the people next door, then you need to come more center to the property. MR. NELSON: Right. And like I said, this dock comes at an angle. So it's 10 feet here, but actually if you go out here where the riparian line is, it moves over some. And if you recall, the boat -- the boat -- actually, I'm going to draw on this. The front of the boat was actually right there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I appreciate it. That's what drew my attention to it, especially when you put a lift on there and that size boat. MR. NELSON: And so when we get over into this area, the boat would be approximately like this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. NELSON: So I don't think that -- I really think there's a good argument to be made that it doesn't worsen that part of that view. Page 108 December 6, 2007 But I think really that my concern when we design these things is that I think that we need to look at the environmental challenges here first, that we really need to start taking better care of our resources. So far as dredging in these areas, really the DEP or anything, they're not going to allow you to do any dredging here, mainly because you have an option. They're going to tell you go out a little further and don't do any harm to the environment and keep this littoral zone intact right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The proposed deck area, it is essentially doubling in size. Is that necessary? Or could you lessen the overall extension by making that, the proposed platform, narrower? MR. NELSON: Well, you certainly could narrow it up. I would say that the waterward section of that, the waterward line, the edge of the boat lift needs to stay where it is. But I think that you could narrow that dock up. In other words, right where the boat is moored out is the important point to get to. So you could go eight feet with it, you know, and narrow it up by two feet, but it would actually be the back that moves towards the open water, if you see what I mean. Where the boat actually sits is the important part for the mooring. And maybe I can show you on the drawing. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, because you do actually have depth there now. I mean, all you have to do is take a look at your neighbor to the east. They're only 19 feet out and they've got a lift and they're -- MR. NELSON: But if you'll look at this aerial again, you can see -- you see this line, and I'm going to draw the line along the edge of that. Thanks. You'll see it actually curves like this. And I'm not sure what the water depth is like in this in here, but I have an idea by looking at the Page 109 December 6, 2007 back end of this that it's probably not -- I know it's not as good as the water depth out here. And if you come back into here, we have a topographical survey that shows that the existing dock, the front is like .3 to .35. That's really not quite adequate for the type of boat that we visualize being moored here. And we would rather be in that minus four to minus five. And I think a lot of you, when you see these come in, that's generally the goal, is to be at that minus four to minus five. Especially when you have a boat lift, and that boat lift cradle itself can be anywhere from 10 inches thick to 12 inches thick to support that boat. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, again, one of the things we were trying to protect in these waterways here, because we're in a shallow backwater area, is that we don't have boats that are too large for the backwaters. MR. NELSON: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: And so by moving out to a depth that will just allow you to have a larger boat is not a goal for this panel or, you know, should it be. We shouldn't be lessening our standards just to accommodate larger boats in an area where it may not be appropriate. MR. NELSON: I agree. And I don't think that this lessens the standards at all. I really don't. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm comfortable with what I see. MR. NELSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is -- waterway is 640 feet wide there? MR. NELSON: It's 640 feet, approximately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're looking at 37 feet. Have your neighbors complained? MR. NELSON: I think we have had a complaint about the view. That's why I mentioned the view. The neighbor to the east has made a complaint about the view there. And that's why I put this drawing up. Page 110 December 6, 2007 And I know that there's concern, and I'm not going to say that the neighbor shouldn't be concerned. I mean, neighbors have a right to be concerned, so I don't want to -- I just want to show you on this drawing, this is their boat dock right here. This is different for me here. Sorry. There we go. This is their boat dock right here. This is their porch and their lanai right here. And I think their concern was is that because if we went straight out with this dock right here the way it was, it was going to get further into this view. But actually -- and I'm not sure that they were aware of it or not, they may have well been aware of it, but we are moving it over, too. So I think the line of view -- I think a good argument is to be made is that because of that, we're going to stay approximately in the same line of view as we are now. And if you'll notice right here, we have some photographs, but right in here, the reason that we don't crowd this over, right in here there's a lot of vegetation. Pretty substantial vegetation right along this site here that pretty much blocks this view here, the upland view. So that's why we drew this line across the bow of this. This one is probably more of the concern. And because of where their own boat dock is right here, we kind of drew the line across from where that blocked that view. So I don't know if that's a fair representation or not, but it's the best I could come up with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, this is kind of to you, is that given them the larger deck area, it would be nice if they would cover it. There's nothing we do today that gives them the ability to put a boathouse cover on it or something; isn't that right? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. Page 111 December 6, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they would have to come back if they wanted to do that? MR. NELSON: Absolutely. And then I think the county's criteria on boathouses and the setbacks on boathouses and the criteria for view really comes into play majorly then. So I would see little or no chance of that happening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a staff report? THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. NELSON: Oh, I'm sorry. F or the record, Ben Nelson. MS. CASERTA: Hi. Ashley Caserta, Senior Planner for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you cut your hair? MS. ASHTON: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You look totally different. It looks very mce. MS. ASHTON: Thank you. No report. Staff does recommend approval. If you have any questions for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one registered speaker. James C. Welch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Welch, if you could approach one of the podiums. Thank you for your patience today. I'm sorry the schedule got changed around. MR. WELCH: Thank you for seeing me. I appreciate it. THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in? Page 112 December 6, 2007 MR. WELCH: No, I wasn't. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. WELCH: I have three current pictures, one, two, three, that will make some sense. And I also took the liberty of taking the Collier appraiser's. I'm not a public speaker, but I'm rather confused why a 37-foot protrusion is necessary when the maximum permitted protrusion is 20 feet as the norm. As the three pictures demonstrate, in my opinion, you know, the docks all along the side are not protruding 37 feet, and they're considerably large boats connected to them, as my neighbors, which has a V -bottom boat and doesn't have the need to be out that far. In my opinion, this will leave -- it will have a major impact on my westerly view and sunsets I look forward to. As I see it, there will be a boat hoisted on a lift 25 to 37 feet out in the water, which I think also compromises the existing customary channel of navigation, which is along the seawall. I don't understand why it's necessary to hoist the boat 25 feet from the seawall, as the pictures show. Other boats are not. I would appreciate clarification on the purpose. I haven't gotten it with the depth. I'm asking members of the board to consider the relevance of size of dock versus depth of water. It appears to me that three-and-a-half feet at low tide is plenty of depth for a vessel. I'm also questioning why depth was measured at my property line, as shown in Nelson's rendering, rather than petitioner's proposed site of construction. To this end, I ask that the present character and simplicity of the neighborhood be preserved. I just don't understand the need for a boat lift 25 feet from the seawall. I do not see on the documents what the total elevation of the boat lift will be out there, 25 to 37 feet out. I'm also concerned that at a future date another lift could be installed along the 15-foot walkway, which would further impede our Page 113 December 6, 2007 View. This graph paper, I represented a foot by each block, and I actually drew it out exactly the way it comes out to show as it would be rendered, because I couldn't understand the Nelson Marine rendering per square footage. So I went and did one myself. And as you can see, there's a considerable impact on view. I would just ask if this must be approved, I'm going to request that the dock be placed further west of my property in preserving my westerly view, which I cherish greatly and why I chose to be at this location. It seems this raises the bar for allowed protrusions. There are three other protrusions in the bay. One is a public dock, and two of them are for a condo association at the end of the bay. Other than that, they don't protrude out this far. For one boat on a lift, it seems like a considerable amount of protrusion into the bay. I took the picture also, the boat that's there drafts approximately six inches. I draft approximately one foot with my boat. And it's no difficulty, you know, being close to the seawall as I am. That boat right there is a 17-foot boat that I have, and it draws a foot of water. Pontoon boats typically draw six inches of water. And I would ask that the board consider either relocating it further west or maybe by the side of the dock, rather. But the depth, I question how the depth would come about, because I stand in the water out there. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I have a question. You had -- the last photograph you showed, I mean, I'm trying to figure out where it is, because the -- maybe you could show it, it was number three, you had a number three up in the corner of it. There it is. That picture shows a canal. Where is that in relationship to this facility? MR. WELCH: The canal starts about four or five homes down. My neighbor is still on the bay, as I am. Page 114 December 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I was confused. I remember seeing the diagram that shows a 640-foot deep bay, and that's why I couldn't figure out where the canal occurred. Are there any other questions of the gentleman? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is your concern -- in other words, there's a couple dimensions that are important. One is to the edge of the dock itself and then one is to the outside, you know, edge of the lift. Is your concern more to the edge of the dock or the whole thing out to the outside edge? What he's asking for, his dimensions are to the outer edge of that lift, which is 37 feet. Ifhe pulled the whole thing coming in, what kind of a number would make you comfortable? MR. WELCH: Well, if the issue is the depth of the boat, if it was on the side of the dock, that would be perpendicular to the seawall. That would be one issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. WELCH: But I don't understand the need to go out that far. I'm confused, because I stand in the water, I know it's deep enough. I have -- I know what my area is. And by the county's picture, I know that there's that band that goes around it, goes against the seawall, but I also know that if you look at that, that's what I'm going to have to look forward to in reality, not that sketch that I saw from Nelson Marine. And I drew that out, hand sketched one foot for every block. And that's what I'm going to be looking at, 37 feet out, God knows how high in the water -- out of the water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But how many people -- it looks like the existing boat is docked on the outside edge of their dock now. MR. WELCH: Yes, but it's in -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It doesn't have a lift, it's in the Page 115 December 6, 2007 water, right? So your concern is even lifting that boat up, it would lift it into your view. MR. WELCH: Right. Well, it's going to be one more obstruction. There's going to be a protected walkway that's going to have a rail on it. Then there's going to be a dock that's going to be 10 by 20 out. And then on top of that there's going to be a hoisted boat that's going to be 25 to 37 feet out into the water, and that totally blocks my view. I don't know where somebody thinks it doesn't block my view; it's apparent from this sketch that I took the time to draw. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, from our past LDC work, isn't that boat also able to have a cover on it now? MR. WELCH: It has a cover. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean, where we came up with regulations on covers that are supported by pilings. So essentially wouldn't this be allowed even on top of that boat that there's a cover sitting out there? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's worse than you think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the gentleman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. WELCH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. By the way, Mr. Klatzkow, do we have to keep the papers he's shown for record? I think we do. MR. KLATZKOW: I think you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could give them to the court reporter here, she'll make sure they're filed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Shouldn't we accept them as evidence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We each haven't got a copy, Bob, so let's just leave it like it is. Page 116 December 6, 2007 MR. NELSON: Mr. Chairman, would I be allowed to make a couple more comments? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, you can have rebuttal. MR. NELSON: So far as the water depth, I think a lot of you remember when it used to be -- water depth used to be a source of contention, the neighbor would say this, we would say that. So that's why you started requiring for us to get the staff is to get a certified surveyor to come in and do the water depths on there. You see this bathymetric survey actually has the water depths on both sides, in other words. And what they did, the reason that they put the lines on both sides here is so that you could kind of connect the dots and come across here and see where those lines are. So it kind of takes the dispute out of it of what the water depth is. And so far as the other docks in the area -- I'm going to change this again -- you have this drawing, too. This kind of shows kind of an example of the docks, just a sampling of the docks. From my experience as a marine contractor, a lot of the times these older docks that have been put at 20- foot -- and these don't include the lifts on here, these are just where the dock is, the protrusion of the dock, and these are fairly accurate measurements here. And you'll see that a lot of them are 21,23,21, they're all in that area right there. A lot of times in the past people have just put the docks in at that 20-something feet, rightly because they don't want to go through this variance process. They come to us or come to somebody else and they say, what can we put in? Well, you can go out 20 foot or you can pay another $2,000 and whatever and we'll take a shot at getting you out there with a boat lift. Some people choose not to do that. Some people choose just to go ahead and do a walk-around dock in the shallow water and deal with that shallow water. Page 117 December 6, 2007 I quite frankly don't think that that's the best case scenario. I think the best case scenario is to get these boats into deeper water, because the resource -- I believe that the resource is very important. Not that the view and everything else isn't important, but most people have a boat and a dock and a boat lift behind their house that they look at too from behind their house as well. And I understand how when you want to look towards the sunset and you want to look across your neighbor's property that that's a concern, but I think that shouldn't get in the way of somebody's right to adequately have safe, reasonable access. And I think that if you ask your staff if this is safe and reasonable access and a reasonable request as part of the criteria that you've set out, I think that you'll find it will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the depth that you have it at now? MR. NELSON: It's probably -- it's at a bit of an angle to the shoreline, so I'd say it was at an average of a minus 4.5. What that translates into is about at low tide, it's about four-and-a-half feet deep at low tide at the front of the dock. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And at full tide what is it? MR. NELSON: At full tide it would probably be six foot. If you get a foot-and-a-halftide change, it would probably be six-foot deep at high tide. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. MR. NELSON: And so far as the channel also, it's fairly deep. I think it's fairly deep across there. The gentleman's right, people have a habit of hugging the shoreline as they go along there. But there is no marked channel in this area, mainly because it stays so deep. This is what I would consider to be a -- you wouldn't call it a manmade waterway, it's a man-altered waterway. Years ago, in the Page 118 December 6, 2007 late 1950's, early 1960's, they went around the area and in some areas they dug this out by crane. You can see that by aerial photo. It's kind of interesting, really. And so right now the whole area's taken 40 to 50 years to kind of recover environmentally from that. And so what our goal here is just to try to do something that doesn't hinder that process. And although we would be -- I have no objection at all to moving it further away to the west away from the client here, I have no objection to doing that at all, as long as we don't encroach in the 25 feet from the other side. I'm sure my applicant has no objection to doing that. But it will make it go towards the other neighbor we haven't heard from, but they're not here, so I can't speak for them, that's for sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Nelson, I think you said something about improving safety or making sure that there was safety associated with -- MR. NELSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that mean that when the original community was developed that the 20- foot docks were not safe? MR. NELSON: Well, I think that what the goal is to have safe and reasonable access. And because of the 20-foot dock, when you put a 20-foot dock in there, if it's too shallow, if you don't have a boat lift, if you don't have proper access, your boat sits on the bottom or whatever. I don't think it's considered safe access. And, you know what, there's a good argument to be made that if you're not in that deep water depth, and as long as you're able to stay out of a navigational channel, I think that you've got safe access. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, I'm not going to disagree with you necessarily, but I will say that one of the pictures that we saw looking down to that canal seemed to be a very large vessel behind the vessel that was just in front. And I would say that if the Page 119 December 6, 2007 community were planned with the 20- foot there, I recognize there's a great deal of width in the bay, but a vision -- you know, somebody's view is important, and the community character is important. And ordinarily I wouldn't take umbrage, but we have somebody who's indicating it's directly impacting. And even I noted that it looked to me like when you put that other vessel out there, and you made a statement earlier on indicating the vessel they want to put there, which means that they have in mind something other than the vessel we're looking at right now -- MR. NELSON: Sure, most people do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- which would be considerably larger. MR. NELSON: It could be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Presumably. So I don't know, I thought that these were safe the way they were. I just caught that and wondered about your choice of the word there. MR. NELSON: And towards the other end of the canal there, where the picture was taken down there in the canal, the character of that canal changes. As you get down further towards the mouth of that canal, the water depth increases towards the seawall. As you can see by the drawing, the water depth increases towards the seawall, it gets deeper, so you're able to come back in there further. Also, as you get to that canal, you're limited. That canal is only 80 feet wide. You're limited to 20 feet, and that's all you'll ever be able to do. So that's what they have to live with. And being a manmade canal then towards that end, you're able to dredge there. So there's a lot of reasons why it changes as it gets down towards that way right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: From the point ofland to the water, how far out would it be for three feet of water? MR. NELSON: Right now the dock is 20 feet out, and it's at 3.5 Page 120 December 6, 2007 feet. So the existing dock. So right now if she just left the boat the way it is, she's in three-and-a-half feet of water. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How long would it be if it was just three feet? MR. NELSON: It appears -- it says right here that it's at minus two point -- see, it drops off rather rapidly. At 15 feet out it's minus 2.3. At 20 feet out it's minus 3.5, so you kind of split the difference in between there. Approximately 18 feet. Now, minus three, by the way, minus three, if you ask the department of environmental protection, minus three is the minimum water depth that they would consider adequate water depth. And so very seldom -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It is adequate. I've been using it too. MR. NELSON: Yeah, it's very minimal adequate water depth, but -- and it depends on the draft of your boat. Generally, and I think that in the environmental community, generally minus four, like I said, a minus four to minus five is the usual, and it is the best thing for the environment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing right now. They couldn't put a lift on the existing dock right now, because that would add dimension to it and would violate the 20 feet, correct? MR. NELSON: We would still be here. Yeah, we would still be here to get a variance for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's not like we're just -- you know, the rebuilt dock is quite a bit bigger because of that lift. The lift lifts the boat into a view that it may not normally be in. And because of the potential of the covers that we recently approved, it could be a permanent structure sitting out there. I'm done. Thank you, Mark. Page 121 December 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of anyone at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Ray, we're done with public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to deny. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made to deny, motion's been seconded. Is there discussion? The only consideration I would have thought is the gentleman suggested that if they could move this dock further away from his house, it might help the situation. And I think they could move it further away, based on the plan that's presented. I saw that as a positive. So that was my comment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I respond to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He can only move it over five more feet. And even looking at it, I was trying to sketch it, he could really only pull it in five more feet. So moving it over five feet and bringing it down to 32 still doesn't help, I think, the issue with the neighbor. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's right. MR. NELSON: But I would ask what the option for the client is. Does he not have the ability to have a boat lift? Is that what the commission is telling us? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Based upon the 20 feet, probably not. I mean, nobody else does past the 20 feet. Page 122 December 6, 2007 MR. NELSON: Yeah, there's a whole county full of people that do, actually. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean on the wall of this thing. I think there was another thing that Donna said true, too, is that this isn't an area where they really want to go out of the way to keep getting bigger and bigger boats into it. So that's another factor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments on the motion? There's been a motion made to deny. It's been seconded, there's been discussion. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries 5-2. Okay, with that, we will end. Thank you all for attending today. Item #9 OLD BUSINESS Next order of business is old business. Do we have any old business? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to kind of bring one thing up is -- and Ray, we've got to be wasting a lot of money on delivery of things. I'm getting letters, I'm getting fellows to the door with one piece of paper. Page 123 December 6, 2007 Could we do this, could you organize how you update data and poll the members to see which they prefer? And here's what happens: I print out an agenda that comes in e-mail, then two days later there's a guy handing me one at the door. So we didn't achieve anything other than the waste, that guy's expense. So isn't there some way you could poll the board and see what's the preferable method of update for different members? And also, I think when you revise the agenda, I think revising it like you did here, revision two, is a good idea. But I think if you could just put the date that you revised it, that would be better than numbering them one, two, three. So I just really feel bad getting a letter, getting a guy and getting an e-mail at the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, rather than have to have staff make phone calls and correspondence back and forth, why don't we just ask it? As far as I'm concerned, if we were to establish a policy, say 10 pages or less it becomes e-mailed, 11 pages or more you send it out, unless one of us indicates otherwise. Does that work for everybody here? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Works for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will save you polling everybody. MR. BELLOWS: That will help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other old business? Item #10 NEW BUSINESS Is there any new business? Page 124 December 6, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll ask for a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made, seconded by Mr. Midney. All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're 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 12:35 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 125