CCPC Minutes 05/15/2008 R
May 15,2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
May 15,2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning
Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Mark Strain
Lindy Adelstein
Donna Reed-Caron
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David 1. Wolfley (Absent)
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review
Thomas Eastman, Dir. of Real Property, School District
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 15,2008, IN THE.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 330 I T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
- ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR 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
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 28, GMP MEETING; APRIL 3, 2008, REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - APRIL 8-9, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; APRIL 15,2008, GMP MEETING; APRIL 22-23,
2008, REGULAR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-12322, Livingston Professional Center LLC, represented by Robert L. Duane,
AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc. is requesting an amendment to the Hiwasse PUD to revise existing development
standards, transportation requirements and property ownership information. The +/-12.52-acre subject
property is located 1400 feet north of the intersection of Eatonwood Lane and Livingston Road, in Section
13, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) FROM
5/1/08
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: BD-2008-AR-1273 I, Jim Fonntain, represented by Eric Schneider of Turrell, Hall and Associates,
Inc., requesting the addition of a boatlift to an existing dock. Proposed change includes adding a boatlift and
removing an existing floating swim platform on an existing fixed wood dock approved by BDE resolution
2000-18, allowing a total protrusion of 48 feet from MHW. The additional boat lift would not require any
further protrusion into the waterway, but the proposed additional slip constitutes a significant deviation from
the plan approved with the original extension petition. Property located at 208 San Mateo Drive, Lot 27,
Sonthport on the Bay, Unit One, as recorded in Plat Book 15, pages 51-53, Section 6, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ashley Caserta)
1
B. Petition: SV-2008-AR-12943, Woolbright Development, Inc., represented by Glen Weldon of Glen Weldon
& Associates, LLC, of Anderson, South Carolina, requesting six variances. The first three variances are
from the Land Development Code (LDC) Section 5.06.04 C.I. which requires a minimum separation of 1,000
lineal feet between signs to allow a sign separation of 70 clc feet, 705clc feet and 775clc feet. The fonrth
variance is from LDC Section 5.06.04 c.1. which permits a maximum of two pole signs per street frontage to
permit a maximum of three signs along a street frontage. The fifth variance is from LDC Section 5.06.04
C.16.b.i. which allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet for an off-premise directional sign to allow a
76clc square foot off-premise sign. The sixth variance is from LDC Section 5.06.04 C.16.b.ii. which allows a
maximum sign height of 8 feet for an off-premise directional sign to allow a maximum sign height of 9-foot
4-inches. The subject property (Collection at Vanderbilt) is located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of Airport Road (CR 31) and Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862), in Section 35, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach)
C. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-9143, Standing Oaks, L.L.C., represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, Inc. and
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from Rural
Agricultural (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to be known as Standing Oaks PUD.
The 4i. H acre Rural Agricultural zoned site is proposed to permit 164 single and multifamily residential
dwelling units at a density of 4 units per acre. The subject site is located at 6473 Standing Oaks Lane, 6400
Standing Oaks Lane, and 6565 14th Avenue N.W., in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach) CONTINUED FROM 4/17/08
D. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12581, Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc. and The Empowerment Alliance of
Soutbwest Florida Community Development Corporation, represented by Heidi K. Williams, AICP, Q.
Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., requesting a PUD rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A-MHO) Mobile
Home Overlay Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development Zoning District, to be known as
Esperanza Place RPUD. The 31.63clc acre site is proposed to be developed for affordable single-family and
multi-family residential use. The subject property is located on the north side of Immokalee Drive,
approximately 1/2 mile west of SR 29, in_Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee,
Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone)
E. Petition: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11914, Germain Properties of Colnmbus, Inc., represented by Dominick J.
Amico. P.E., of Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, Inc. and Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, of RWA, requesting a
rezone from Planned Unit Development Ordinance No. 90-50 to Commercial Planned Unit Development
(CPUD) to be known as Germain Toyota CPVD. The purpose of the request is to increase the maximum
building area from the current maximum of 60,000 square feet to a maximum of 130,000 square feet. The
13.05+ acre subject property is located at 13329 Tamiami Trail North; lying in the southwest quadrant of
the intersection of Tamiami Trail North (US 41) and Wiggins Pass Road (CR-888), Section 16, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone)
10. OLD BUSINESS
Ii. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
5/15108 cePe Agenda/Ray Bellows/sp
2
May 15,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to
the May 15th 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 BY THE SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And will the secretary
please do the roll call.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSINER KOLFLAT: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is not here.
Ms. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Midney is just walking
m.
Mr. Wolfley is not here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's been with the--
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, Tom, I should include
you. Yes, I should. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And our microphones are real sensitive,
Page 2
May 15,2008
I notice, this morning. We're a mile away from them and they're
picking up all kinds of noise.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
Next item on the agenda is the addenda to the agenda. And we
certainly have some discussion on that today.
First of all, there's a petition for Germain Properties of
Columbus, Inc. It's the Germain Toyota CPUD in North Naples. That
item is being asked to be continued indefinitely. So that will not be
heard today.
The Item D, which is the Florida Non-Profit Services of the
Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida for the Esperanza Place
RPUD in Immokalee, there's been an issue involving staff times today,
and they've been asked to move that one first on the agenda. And so
that will hopefully be Item A instead ofItem D. And all the others are
moved one back from that.
And that's the changes -- oh, the consent agenda item is not
going to be on today's agenda. There's some concerns on the way it's
been written. In fact, I certainly have a concern with the master plan
that was provided to us.
Anything else, Ray, that -- any other changes or any other
issues?
MR. BELLOWS: That's all the changes I had.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. We will be bringing Hiwasse back to
you. Unless there are substantial changes made back to the master
plan, we may be reopening that one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
So with that, is there a motion to accept the agenda with the
Page 3
May 15,2008
suggested changes?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Adelstein.
Seconded by --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Commissioner Vigliotti.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
Planning commission absences. Our next meeting is -- well, our
first meeting is June. I don't remember what day it is. I think it's the
5th of June, something like that. Does anybody know if they're not
going to be here for the first meeting in June?
It is the 5th?
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's the 5th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looks like we have a quorum.
Page 4
May 15,2008
While we're on that, I want to talk about the 19th of June. The
19th of June, it appears that this room is needed by the Board of
County Commissioners for another purpose.
So we have three choices: We can move the meeting over to
CDES, and it's a -- the 19th meeting has one, two, three, four, five, six
items on it -- or seven items, actually. So to move it to CDES with the
public participation and the way it's a little crowded over there might
be difficult.
Or we can move it to the Friday after the 19th -- the following
Friday, not the 19th but I think it's the 27th of that month. And I can
honestly tell you, I don't know why we're married to the third
Thursday or even the first. So if we have to move around to
accommodate the BCC, there's nothing wrong with that.
Or the third choice would be to move the whole thing to July
3rd. We have three items on July 3rd. This would add seven more. As
you well know, things get continued. I don't know if all those would
end up being heard anyway.
So the three choices are go to CDES, move to the 27th or move
to the 3rd.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark, the 27th is Friday. You
mean the 26th, don't you?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the 27th, on a Friday. That's the
only other day the following week that this room would be open.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My only objection would be
going to CDES. It's not a good place for us to be for the public. So
either one of the other choices is okay with me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think the room at CDES serves
the public that well, both for participation and just knowing where we
are when we are there. So if we -- I think staying in this room is the
preference by all means.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think the 27th sounds like a good
Page 5
May 15,2008
option alternative.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I think the 27th is better
than the other building for sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This room is open on the 27th.
Ray, is that a confirmation?
MR. BELLOWS: Last I checked it was open. I'll verify that
agam.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you verify it before today's
meeting is over and lock it in for us and we'll set everything up for the
27th.
Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: I just want to note for the record that moving
items to the 27th for the petitions that are going to be heard on that
date does put them at risk for being heard at the subsequent Board of
County Commissioner meeting.
I have no problem moving it. I just want the petitioners to know
that are scheduled for that date, there's no guarantee that we will be
able to bring anything back by the 3rd for their consent agenda item,
which would then put them at risk for their July meeting. But that's the
way the chips fall, that's the way they fall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and also if we -- you had
suggested instead of going to that Friday, moving to July 3rd.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wouldn't have helped the issue,
you'd just put it off --
MR. SCHMITT: No, it doesn't either way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we didn't change the use of this
room on the 19th. Our meetings are locked in, or known to be years in
advance --
MR. SCHMITT: We were scheduled for this and then we got
bumped. And that's the way it is. It's the way it is.
Page 6
May 15,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So is there a motion from the
board to approve the 27th for the date in June for our meeting, our
second meeting?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made that motion to -- for
the 27th--
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein seconded.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so our June meeting will be on
the 27th, the second meeting -- it will be the second meeting in June,
instead of the 19th.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: MARCH 28, 2008, GMP
MEETING: APRIL 3, 2008, REGULAR MEETING
Approval of minutes. We have the March 28th GMP meeting
minutes. Is there a motion to approve or correct?
Page 7
May 15,2008
Anybody?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, motion to approve.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
The April 3rd regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti.
Any corrections, comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
Page 8
May 15,2008
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
We're working our way down the list.
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - APRIL 8-9, 2008, REGULAR
MEETING; APRIL 15,2008, GMP MEETING; APRIL 22-23, 2008,
REGULAR MEETING
Ray, we have the BCC report.
MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any report for you for this
meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: I was out the last two days--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the agenda has a whole pile of
them, but that's fine.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
Chairman's report. My only issue was going to be discussing the
June meeting. We're already done that.
Page 9
May 15,2008
Item #9D
PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12581, FLORIDA NON-PROFIT
SERVICES, INC. AND THE EMPOWERMENT ALLIANCE OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
So we're on to the advertised public hearings. The first one that
had been moved in our agenda will be now 9-D.
All those wishing to participate in discussion ofItem 9-D, which
is PUDZ-2007-AR-12581, Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc. and the
Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community
Development Corporation for the Esperanza Place RPUD.
Please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those having disclosures on
this item.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I discussed with Heidi
Williams the reason for the architectural standard deviation and some
comments about the site plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, I also met with the
applicant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
I had a meeting with Ms. Williams and Mr. Delate over all kinds
of issues on this project, all of which will be discussed today.
And with that, we'll have the presentation by the applicant.
MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. Thank you for hearing us
today. My name is Heidi Williams. I'm a senior planner with Grady
Minor Engineering in Bonita Springs. I'm here on behalf of the
Page 10
May 15,2008
Esperanza Place RPUD.
Today I'm representing the Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc. and
the Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community
Development Corporation.
With me today are Michael Delate, an engineer with --
professional engineer with Grady Minor; Marco Espinar with Collier
Environmental; and Jim Banks with JMB Transportation Engineering,
Inc.
The subject property is located on the north side ofImmokalee
Drive, west of State Road 29. The site is surrounded by development
on the north, east and west side. Immokalee Drive is located to the
south of the property and agricultural use is located south of the site.
The property is intended to be developed in -- you know, in two
phases: Multi-family phase on the west and single-family phase on the
east.
We're seeking a rezone today from agricultural with mobile
home overlay to residential planned unit development for 31.63 acres.
Currently the site is in the low residential category of the
Immokalee area master plan, which is an urban designation in Collier
County. We're seeking residential use for up to 262 multi-family and
single- family dwelling units.
This property is to be almost 100 percent affordable housing,
broken down into both workforce housing, owner-occupied units and
low income rental units.
This is our conceptual plan. We have three tracts. Tract A on the
west would be developed by the Florida Non-Profit Services, that's the
multi-family product.
Tract B is for single-family use, and that's to be developed by
the Empowerment Alliance.
And tract C is a two-acre parcel that will be retained by the
current owner for one single-family home. That home does exist
today.
Page 11
May 15,2008
I'd like to -- because this site is in Immokalee, it's got a long
history. A lot of us don't know much about that part of the county.
We've really focused on coastal Collier County a lot. So I'd like to go
through really briefly the history of the site.
This was actually part of the original Shellabarger homestead,
which the family came to in the Immokalee area and homesteaded that
property in 1916. They were granted the land in 1921.
They used that property for a variety of agricultural purposes,
from row crop development to cattle grazing, cattle production use.
This is an aerial image ofImmokalee in 1953. And what is
amazing about this is a lot of the infrastructure that is there today is
visible in this aerial photograph.
We have Lake Trafford Road, north of our site, Immokalee
Drive is already there south of our site, and State Road 29 is in place.
The surrounding area, much of it appears to be undeveloped to
the south of us, but there are pockets of agricultural use all around it.
And from our analysis -- and Marco Espinar can speak to this in more
detail, if you'd like, the site is outlined in red there. Might be hard to
see. But it appears to us to be in use for agricultural production, with
row crops in the northwest corner and cattle grazing lands in the
southeast corner, or southeast part of the property.
This is an enlarged view of that same aerial.
And I believe that this -- the wetland depression you see there is
a wetland that's moved over time. We've had pretty extensive
discussion on that wetland with the EAC. And a portion of it remains
today.
In 1973 -- the site unfortunately is cut off on this aerial, but
looks very similar to that cattle production aerial from before. And this
is significant because it's the year of the Collier County clearing -- tree
protection ordinance.
We went through some of the common agricultural cattle
production practices with the EAC, and I left this in here because I
Page 12
May 15,2008
thought it was interesting and also thought it was important for this
site.
We had a lot of discussion on native habitat with the EAC, and
we don't need to rehash it, but we did present to them that being a
good steward of the land, you would not clearcut property for use for
cattle grazing, and that is why there still remains some tree canopy on
the site, even though it was used for agricultural purposes.
Next I'd like to move into the zoning we're seeking and some of
the discussion we've had on this zoning district.
The PUD, we outlined what the uses we're asking for and the
tracts that we're requesting. Weare requesting two deviations from the
Land Development Code. The first is from the architectural
requirements, which is 5.5.8 of the Land Development Code.
This section is only applicable to the nonresidential structure in
tract A. There is a recreation site on the master plan that would be
used by the developer for a variety of uses for residents there. And
because they are a nonprofit, they've asked that these standards be
deviated to allow them to have some cost savings.
The second section is as a result of the agreement -- and I'll get
to the commitment later -- with environmental that we have a certain
amount of native vegetation preserve required, and the GMP was
amended to allow off-site preserves. But the Land Development Code
does not yet contain those provisions. So we need, even though we're
consistent with the GMP, to request the deviation from the Land
Development Code to have an off-site preserve.
We also have several commitments. The first I touched on is the
affordable housing commitment. You should have our agreement in
your packet today. Since this packet has been distributed, we've got a
signed updated version. The only things that have changed from that
density bonus agreement are the dates and having the signatures and
notaries on that document.
Weare committing to 60 workforce owner-occupied units. We
Page 13
May 15,2008
are also committing to 176 low income rental units within this PUD.
The transportation department staff asked that we commit that if
the property were gated -- and we do not intend to gate this property --
that if we do pursue any type of gating mechanism at the entry, that
those be located 100 feet from Immokalee Drive. We've included that
in the PUD zoning.
We've also agreed to pay a proportionate share of scheduled
improvements to State Road 29 and Lake Trafford Road intersection.
We also have three environmental commitments. We've agreed
to all of them. The black bear management plan has been included in
the EIS. It will also be included in the PPL submittal and the SDP
submittal.
We've agreed to the deviation in this commitment for off-site
preserve. We will either provide an equivalent amount of land area or
contribute to Conservation Collier 115 percent of the value of our
property for acquisition and maintenance of land.
We've also been asked to pay after-the-fact clearing fees for 23.6
acres of the site.
The zoning staff and all staff has recommended approval of this
project. They had a few stipulations. The deviations we already
covered. They asked that we remove potential from the
interconnection. We've agreed to do that and have already updated
that. And we've already updated the affordable housing density bonus
agreement.
Overall our project is consistent with the Land Development
Code.
We have staff support, and we ask today for your support as
well. And we're all available for any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions of the
planning commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
Page 14
May 15,2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess, Heidi, number
one, why did you want a deviation from the architectural standards?
You stated to save money, but even though there's requirements to add
things to buildings, they don't have to be expensive. They can be the
cheap version.
MS. WILLIAMS: Actually, Carl Kuehner is here. He's with
Florida Non-Profit Services. And he'd like the opportunity to respond
to that.
MR. KUEHNER: Good morning. Thank you for the
opportunity.
My name is Carl Kuehner, and I chair the board of Florida
Non-Profit Services.
I've also spent three years on the planning advisory committee of
the City of Naples. In that role I was one of two authors of the design
review board for the city. I then spent two years on the design review
board. So I'm very sensitive to architectural issues, if you will.
If one comes to the decision that one is going to have
architectural control in one's community, there are really two different
approaches: One is the prescriptive ordinance that Collier County
elected to do. The other is a design review board which can review
each of the individual applications.
Problems with prescriptive zoning or prescriptive ordinances is
they work well in the center of the bell curve, they don't work well on
the extremes, either in size or in functionality.
We have that situation here. We're proposing a 4,500 square-foot
building internal to a planned unit development, which is not viewed
by anyone other than the residents.
In addition, we have no architectural control of the 98 percent of
the floor area or elevation area of the project, because it's residential.
So we're now talking about the two percent in the center.
This building, because it's within a PUD, would then have to
have four primary facades. So that each of our facades, the one
Page 15
May 15,2008
fronting the children in the playground, would have the same primary
facade as would the one on the road frontage.
If you look at all the requirements, including Porte-cocheres and
towers, et cetera, it just doesn't apply to this particular building. It's the
same code that would be applied to the Grey Oaks 40,000 square foot
clubhouse. You know, it just doesn't work.
Having said all of that, because of my sensitivity, the building
that will be built will be very functional and architecturally appealing.
But to be restricted or constrained by the codes that exist today, we
would respectfully ask for a waiver.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If I can respond. First of all, a
building less than 5,000 feet doesn't have a lot of requirements on it.
And you kind of scare me, because I would feel better if you went
through the standards and pointed out what it is about it you didn't
like.
The Grey Oaks building of the size you mentioned would be a
different creature. It's a menu driven thing, so it's a matter of you're
going to be required to put a percentage of windows. So put cheaper
windows than Grey Oaks would do.
I mean, I don't understand -- you kind of scare me that you want
to get away from it because what would you do with it? If we let you
go you could build a square, and the residents don't benefit from that.
MR. KUEHNER: But isn't it a little ironic that I have the ability
to build a square, if that's the terminology, for 98 percent for 176,000
square feet of buildings and we're now talking about the 4,500 square
feet?
In any case, if you want to talk about specifics, design features.
You have to choose two of the following: Glazing covering a
minimum of 30 percent; a covered public entry, which is of course no
problem; arcades; Porte-cocheres or tower elements. I must select one
of those.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
Page 16
May 15,2008
MR. KUEHNER: A tower element in the middle of a farm
worker project?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Remember the one you said no
problem. You got it with that one.
MR. KUEHNER: I have one out of four. I'm required two out of
four.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then put some windows in the
building and you have the other one too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, we're trying to -- the request is to
-- the deviation is requesting that that not apply. Simply we ought to
waive the deviation on its whole thing, not piece mea ling the
architectural code.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree with that. But the point
is that they just want to throw the whole thing away and they've never
pointed out what's the problem with honoring it.
We don't need to spend a lot of time on this. But I just don't
understand why, you know, this clubhouse wouldn't have to meet the
requirements -- the concern of expense means that you honor the
architectural plans with less expensive things than the other people do.
But we can move on.
And if it's a design issue, I can discuss the next one with you,
and it's the site plan. When I went through school, architectural and
planning were one in the same. This site plan looks like the, quote,
Fort Dix site plan that we used to criticize or use as an example of the
worst site plan. I mean, can't we come up with something a little bit
more 2000?
MR. KUEHNER: The site plan that you have is a bubble
diagram. I mean, it's a conceptual use plan. We have not submitted an
SDP plan. I won't tell you that the SDP plan that we would propose
would be significantly different than this.
This -- with the zoning requirements or requests that we're
making, we could create many more units on the site, another 70 or
Page 17
May 15, 2008
some large number. We have elected instead to make a major open
space in the center of the project.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, but my
concern is -- and you know what I mean by the Fort Dix site plan.
MR. KUEHNER: I understand.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is exactly that. I mean, the
drawing I have has outlines of buildings. Granted, these are adjustable,
but --
MR. KUEHNER: We have a lake in the front of the property
fronting Immokalee Drive. We have a clubhouse in the center. We
have a very large open space area behind the clubhouse.
The question is how does -- you know the answers. I mean, how
does one want to trade off the space is all. If you look at the
single-family project which is part of this PUD application, I mean, it's
obviously yet another Fort Dix site plan then, because it's a regular
plan using linear relationships.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, let's not argue
that anymore. But the concern I have is that we have PUDs. PUDs are
supposed to be a creative form of zoning, and yet this one represents
the least creative form. Enough on that.
In the development standards, and I think maybe you can answer
these too, or Heidi, is -- there's one thing I'd kind of like to do is your
distance between structures, just change that 20 feet to greater than,
just to prevent some building code issues.
Would that be a problem, Heidi? That could be 20 feet, one
quarter of an inch so --
MS. WILLIAMS: I wonder if you could just point that out again
for me.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go to page -- I'm on Exhibit B.
And the distance between buildings, make that -- just make that
greater than 20 feet. It's dimensionally nothing, but when you hit the
other books, it means a lot.
Page 18
May 15,2008
MS. WILLIAMS: I'd like to make sure I understand what you're
saying. Under multi-family we have a 20-foot minimum distance
between structures of 20 feet. And you want that to say greater than 20
feet?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't think we have a problem with that, but
I think that stating the minimum means that it will be that or more.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But my concern is if you
make it exactly 20 feet you're going to get into some fire rating issues.
If it's a hair above 20 feet you're fine. I mean, trust me, dimensionally
it means nothing, the Fort Dix could still work.
MS. WILLIAMS: We can add that language.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the other concern I have is
you have an actual height five feet higher than the zoned height. Now,
I can go back to my soapbox. Actual height was a definition, not a
requirement, but we're now making it a requirement. What that would
do is lock you into essentially a 10- foot roof.
And the concern I have is that I don't think we had the definition
of actual height to make every building in Collier a flat roof, which is
what you may have to do to meet that code. When you came up with
50 feet, did that come from some thinking or --
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. We looked at the definition, and the road
elevation for Immokalee Drive compared to the ending site elevation
was about a difference of five feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the -- it was higher or
lower or --
MS. WILLIAMS: Immokalee Drive is approximately five feet
lower than what we anticipate to be the finished floor elevation of the
site.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then see, this is a disaster. Now
you've guaranteed yourself a flat roof because what you did is you
took what the zoned height is and then you translated it back to the
Page 19
May 15,2008
road to say that the zone height would be -- but the actual roof height
would be to the peak of the roof. The zoned height would be to the
midpoint of the roof. So you've got to cut -- I mean, I think -- I don't
think you mean that.
MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Schiffer, I understand your concern. And
the intended product on the site is actually only two stories. So if
there's a number you'd rather see here, we can make that work.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If your intended height is two
stories, we have no problem.
MS. WILLIAMS: That is our intended height.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. If you want to leave it,
leave it. But I think nobody should translate back the zoned height to
somehow equal the actual height, because you can't do that.
What about the community center too, you have the same
heights for that. Is the intent to actually have a 40- foot high roof on
the community center?
MS. WILLIAMS: It was for just simplicity. It's not intended to
be that large, especially at 4,500 square feet. It was designed for
flexibility. And again, if there's something you'd prefer to see there,
I'm sure we're open to that.
And if we could go back, I know you don't want to belabor it,
but regarding the site plant, the master plan, we are working with a
relatively small site and it's already in, you know, four linear parcels.
Long, narrow parcels. We've been able to combine those to create this
PUD, but it doesn't give us a whole lot of flexibility in site design.
So not only does the product that we intend to build fit this way,
it's really the most efficient and it provides for open space. I know you
brought up that as a concern that there wasn't a lot of open space, but
we've really brought all the open space together in one portion of the
site. Just wanted to make sure we responded to your concern. I don't
think it satisfies your concern.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Well, that's exactly the
Page 20
,.__."'----------~_.,._-~_...._-~-_._--.~,..~~>--
May 15,2008
reason Fort Dix worked, because of those same reasons.
Mr. Chairman, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Morning. Just out of curiosity,
there are two structures on the property now, one is intended to be
razed and the other remaining. And so I'm wondering, is the common
theme architecture going to apply?
MS. WILLIAMS: Within each tract we'll have to comply with
the land Development Code for that provision.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the new structures will
emulate the current architecture of the building present or --
MS. WILLIAMS: No, Tract C stands alone. So structures within
Tract B will have a common architectural theme and structures within
Tract A will have their common architectural theme. They don't
necessarily have the same theme as each other.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I understand that. So then
this structure then is apparently a lot younger than -- 10 years old,
something of that nature?
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe the existing single-family home in
the southeast corner was built in the early Nineties.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That will be it for me for now.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at
this time?
Heidi, I can't let you go that easy.
MR. WILLIAMS: I know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to Exhibit B, Page 410.
First one is your minimum front setbacks are 20 feet. There's no
footnotes to this table. Usually we see a footnote that indicates that if
there's a sidewalk you will be at least 23 feet back from the sidewalk.
Do you have any problem with adding a footnote to that effect?
MS. WILLIAMS: We'd be happy to add that footnote.
Page 21
May 15,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under single-family attached to duplex
you have side at zero feet and five feet. And then your separation
distances between buildings at 10. This board has for years now
basically requested six feet as the minimum on the side, which would
be 12 feet between buildings. Do you have any objection to that?
MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under your accessory structures,
I have the same issues. You have 20 feet and then five feet. Should be
23 feet, assuming there's a sidewalk, and then six feet for your sides.
MS. WILLIAMS: We have no problem with that change either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your Exhibit F, the list of
developer commitments, Item C, the subject property was used for
agricultural purposes and incurred clearing for which no permit can be
located.
Do you know a time when the clearing occurred?
MS. WILLIAMS: From several sources we -- I don't think we
have an exact date. We have aerial photography that indicates the
site's been in use for many years. We feel it predates the clearing
ordinance.
We also have an affidavit from the property owner, who's a
direct descendent of the original homestead holder, that the site's been
used for agricultural purposes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if staff has accept the fact
that this property's been cleared?
MS. WILLIAMS: I'd defer to them. But we do have an
agreement on certain areas being cleared and certain areas not being
cleared. This stipulation is at their request -- or this commitment is at
their request.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they can request things if they're
consistent with code. We've got to establish that first.
Do we know -- then Melissa, would you mind answering that
question since you're -- I'm not asking for your entire presentation yet,
Page 22
May 15,2008
just an answer to that question.
MS. ZONE: Good morning. Melissa Zone, principal planner
with the department of zoning and land development.
Environmental is going to be more likely to have your definite
answer. But I do know that they looked back at aerials continuous
back to -- I want Susan Mason to talk, but I know early Eighties, and
found that portions of the site was cleared but not all of it was cleared.
And again, I'd like Susan Mason to review -- or speak on that
behalf.
MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason with
environmental services review.
I have some aerials here of various eras. This is basically the
current situation out there now. It's these four parcels right in here.
This was an aerial from 2005.2003 you can see there was a little bit of
work done on the western half where there's some vegetation taken
out.
We've got older aerials. This is from '96, where the eastern
portion looks pretty much the same and so does the west from 2003.
Here is '93 where it's these portions here where there was a fair
amount of vegetation on the western portion.
This is back to '89 where you can see there's more vegetation.
'81. Pretty much between the early Eighties, and this is all the
way back to 1953, where you can --let me put it back in the same
orientation -- this is the parcel here. You can see, too, that barring the
large slough wetland area down here, the upland pine areas in
Immokalee were historically rather open canopy, not densely forested.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so my question was does staff
agree that this property was previously cleared? I'm trying to
understand the date at which you agreed that it was or was not.
MS. MASON: Well, I think over many years it was cleared.
There was more additional clearing back at least in -- you can see the
portion that I know was referred to earlier as the row crops that were
Page 23
May 15,2008
in that extreme north. And this is back in '53, so that portion was
certainly cleared over 50 years ago. And there were impacts on a
varying scale throughout time.
Most of the clearing was done -- I'll look at these aerials -- on
the west half by 1996. You can see -- and that was really the aerial
that we went by. I worked with the -- my department director, Bill
Lorenz, to determine kind of -- I don't know how much you want to
get into this, because it's not like the official staff presentation yet. But
this was the aerial we went with. In regard to -- it's been over 10 years,
which was the rezone requirement back in '96 for not requiring
recreation of preserve that basically excluding any wetland vegetation
that may exist, but the canopy had been removed from the western
portions of this property.
And the eastern portion we based our determinations on the
larger areas of vegetation, especially really those that included intact
understory .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Again, I know the county has a
problem in finding permits prior to 1997, I believe. And I'm just
wondering why the -- based on that -- I mean, this is a nonprofit group
seeking affordable housing in the Immokalee area. And yet they're
being more or less fined an after-the-fact clearing fee for 23.6 acres.
And I'm trying to establish evidence that shows it was illegally
cleared. I mean, the assumption by the county is. But does anybody
know if there was ever a permit or not obtained on it?
The fact you can't find one I understand is a common occurrence
prior to '97.
MS. MASON: My recollection of the discussions was that even
the applicant had stated that they didn't -- that kind of the general
quote was no one in Immokalee got clearing permits back then. And
that mayor may not be the case.
In our discussion we did look for permits, we asked them for any
evidence that -- you know, receipts. Sometimes people have old
Page 24
May 15,2008
receipts for a clearing permit, you know, at least the fee if an
application had been submitted or anything. .
That really wasn't -- there wasn't any information supplied where
we could make a recommendation for that. And that was to charge the
after the fact. It was really the only way that staff could consider this
legal clearing and not require recreation and preservation based on the
entire site.
So that was the determination with me working with Bill Lorenz.
And Joe Schmitt was also involved in some of those discussions, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the fine line between being illegal
and legal is an agreement to pay some sum extracted by the applicant.
MS. MASON: The applicant was definitely reluctant to agree to
that. That was staffs determination, strictly, that this was the only way
we could find this project consistent with the Growth Management
Plan regarding preservation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they decided to pay more they
could be more consistent, if they decided to pay less they would be
less consistent.
MS. MASON: No, no. We based it on the clearing that was done
for agricultural uses, and that was the way we made the determination.
It's not a matter of paying more and they'd have less preserve at this
point. It's based on what's existing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, prior to 1976 they really
don't have to have a permit on file.
MS. MASON: Right. Any clearing that was done for agricultural
use, or really any use, there was no tree protection ordinance or
clearing ordinance prior to '76.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand why we have our rules and
I understand why we fine people for things that are intentionally done.
I just don't see any of that applying in this particular case in paragraph
C.
I don't know what is to be gained by charging this organization,
Page 25
May 15,2008
penalizing them for property that we can't prove was illegally cleared.
We're making the assumption because they can't prove it was legally
cleared that it's now illegally cleared. I think that's a reverse of what
the United States democratic process stands for.
So I'm certainly not in favor of seeing Item 3.C remain in this
PUD. But that's my comment at this point. Thank you.
MS. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Strain, ifI could also add, the
statement by the applicant was that we felt we had an ongoing
agricultural use that began prior to clearing permits being required.
And the ongoing nature, although it looks like re-growth and
re-clearing, is standard to agricultural practices.
The affidavit we provided was in support of that. There is no
clearing permit. And it's really our contention that we never would
have been required to have one. But obviously staff and the applicant
differ on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those were the only questions I had at
this time. So anybody else?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: As long as we're on the subject of
that clearing permit, how much are you being asked to pay?
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe the calculated amount is about
$6,000. The monetary amount goes beyond that, though. Because if
you accept the clearing, then you accept that there is native vegetation
that needs to be retained, and providing that off-site amount was about
$25,000 as an estimate. So the two environmental conditions are in
excess of $30,000 for these non-profits.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to join the chorus.
That's one of the items that I was going to raise when it was the staffs
opportunity to talk. I support your argument about the -- I question
this, quite frankly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Williams, following this up, under
Page 26
May 15,2008
the deviations you're asking for, and you're asking for deviation of
Section 3.05.07, which requires on-site preservation, 25 percent of
native vegetation, if the clearing issue -- because it can't be proven
you're illegal -- is the clearing issue, if that went away, how does that
change your deviation number two?
MS. WILLIAMS: Deviation two would relate to the
commitment 3.B, that we commit to provide the off-site vegetation.
That doesn't -- if you took out 3.C, it wouldn't change deviation two,
we would still need that, unless the planning commission found a link
between the illegal clearing commitment and the native vegetation
commitment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any native vegetation on
that site, from your reports and studies?
MS. WILLIAMS: We agreed to an amount to consider as native
vegetation. We went all the way through the Environmental Advisory
Council, the first hearing, to -- with a disagreement on that. The
pictures staff has actually just placed on the visualizer show standing
pines. They show some understory. This is a presentation maybe
Marco Espinar could add some things here.
It was always our contention that the fact that there is scattered
pines left for shading cattle during a bona fide agricultural use does
not make it native habitat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this picture one that you just put on
the overhead projector?
MS. WILLIAMS: Staff just put this up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it staffs presentation we're hearing
now?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I put it on just to help --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, let's go with what's fair.
When the applicant's here making a presentation, they will put the
materials on that benefit or don't benefit their case. That's up to them.
When staff makes their presentation, they can counter with pictures
Page 27
May 15,2008
like this, and that's fine. I've got no problem with that.
But we shouldn't -- a court of law wouldn't allow it and this
board shouldn't allow it. You stick to what the facts are. The
presentation is being made by the applicant, it shouldn't be interrupted
by staff unless some member of this panel asks staff.
So I would hope that doesn't happen again.
MS. WILLIAMS: If it's okay with you, I'll put up the aerial
image of -- the current aerial.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead.
MS. WILLIAMS: This is a current aerial. It's very clear that the
west half of this site is pasture lands.
Our EIS categorizes the eastern half of the site as unimproved
pasture. And unimproved pasture does have scattered pine. It does
have palmetto secondary growth, and a new word that I learned is
ruderal growth, which regrows after animals have eaten everything
that's available to them.
When the animals are rotated off of the land and brought back
later, the land heals itself and vegetation does regrow. That was sort of
where we had split with staff. And obviously they will speak for
themselves. But our opinion was that the entire eastern half of the site
was a legitimate agricultural use, and the fact that trees were left did
not leave native habitat.
We had a very lengthy discussion with EAC. We had a split
decision from the EAC that that was the case. I believe it was 3-4 that
they felt that was -- three of the seven members in attendance at the
time agreed with that analysis, four did not.
And staff, along with the applicant, we were requested to come
back to a second EAC and basically came to a compromise that only
portions where there are multiple trees and understory that had
perhaps regrown over time, that those areas would be considered
native habitat now. And we accepted that in the interest of moving
forward with the project.
Page 28
May 15,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice this project is surrounded by
housing on, looks like three sides, Immokalee Road on the south.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had to do a black bear management
plan.
I read the endangered species environmental report, and there
have been no signs, or I didn't see any sightings of black bear. This is
in downtown Immokalee or close to it.
Do they have a huge problem with black bears roaming around
downtown Immokalee disturbing people? Does anybody know?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was wondering, did you pay for that
black bear management plan?
MS. WILLIAMS: The plan that we actually provided is just a
list of things that they will do on the site. It includes things like
keeping trash cans inside. And I'll turn it over to Marco Espinar to
speak to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why you didn't do a
Manatee protection plan study too?
MR. ESPINAR: For the record, Marco Espinar, Collier
Environmental Consultants.
The black bear management plan is more of a preventive
medicine to -- about trash cans. And it's more preventive than
anything else. We did not have any black bears on-site. But it's just
measures to prevent them from going into basically trash and
rummaging through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is an urban area, and I have seen
proj ects come through here that are in rural areas that don't have such
management plans attached to them and would be more appropriate.
And I'm just trying to understand the rationale for treating urban areas
with the intensity that we should be looking at in our rural lands that
we don't. So this just seems odd.
Page 29
May 15,2008
Appreciate your time. Thank you.
Any other questions of the applicant before we get into the staff
report?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MS. ZONE: Good morning. Melissa Zone, principal planner
with the department of zoning and land development.
The subject property and the applicants are requesting a rezone
from rural agricultural with a mobile home overlay zoning district to
the residential planned unit development zoning district to be known
as Esperanza Place.
And as the agent, Heidi Williams, mentioned earlier, that this
PUD will consist of262 single-family and multi-family residential
units. That does bring them to a gross density of 8.28 dwelling units
an acre.
The petitioner proposes to develop a rental and owner-occupied
project. The Florida Non-Profit Services will develop 176 dwelling
units for an affordable rental multi -- or affordable multi-family rental
residential community on the western half of this site.
The Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community
Development Corporation will develop 85 single-family dwelling
units that will be owner-occupied on the eastern portion.
And then as the staff report points out, that the one home on the
southeastern corner will remain as a single-family residential unit.
If you have any questions related to staff report, the findings or
how staffhas reviewed this petition, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of staff?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, on the staff report, Page 5
where they're talking about the transportation element, and down at
the very bottom of the page, Immokalee Drive, it says, last sentence,
Page 30
May 15,2008
level of service is not currently analyzed by Collier County on this
collector road.
Why isn't it analyzed yet?
MS. ZONE: I'm going to have Michael Greene, the planning
manager from transportation services, discuss that.
MR. GREENE: Michael Greene, transportation planning.
The reason we have that in here is because Immokalee Drive is
not currently looked at as a concurrency link in our system.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why not?
MR. GREENE: Because they're a low volume road. We looked
at State Road 29, Lake Trafford, some of the more high volume roads.
I'm sure as time passes and this area grows up it will be added as a
concurrency segment. But today it is not.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
Before you sit down, Mike, let's finish up with you, while you're
up there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: While you're up there.
Relative to the mitigation or the fair share contribution toward
intersection improvements at State Road 29 and Lake Trafford Road,
my question is when will be the mitigation go forward? In other
words, we're asking them to come up with some dollars. They're
somewhat away from that location but we understand they could
impact it. But the collector road is not being impacted. So I'm
fascinated.
When would we go forward with the mitigation? What is the
plan? Is it in the five-year work plan?
MR. GREENE: It is actually already under design. That
intersection improvement project will be in place in the next
year-and-a-half or so.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman?
Page 3 1
May 15,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Big fan of interconnections, but
what is the benefit of this one? I mean, there's a passive, nice little
calm neighborhood that will be going in to get --
MR. GREENE: The intent is to connect two neighborhoods
together. The neighborhood to their west that we're asking for the
interconnection is all public roads. This project has the requirement of
a right turn lane because of the number of vehicles that are going to be
accessing that western driveway.
So you actually would be able to increase a safety for the local
residents using the interconnect because now they have a turn lane that
they could be using also.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the beneficiary ofthat
interconnection is the current residential neighborhood that will --
MR. GREENE: The beneficiary of that is everybody. Imagine--
I always like to use something that Nick said. You have two neighbors
in these two different neighborhoods living together. They have kids
going to the same school, they go to the same soccer practices. It's
nice to be able to interconnect those communities so that they can
carpool or walk or ride their bikes to each other's homes without
having to go out to Immokalee Drive and then back into the next
neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern I have is that
the density of this neighborhood really is about 11 units an acre. Do
you have any concerns that you might be flooding that existing
neighborhood with traffic that they don't really need or --
MR. GREENE: We looked at the generators and attractors in
this area and we don't see that many attractors farther to the west that
would draw this unit through to the west to that adjoining
neighborhood. But the attractors would be to the east of this
neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is the
Page 32
May 15,2008
beneficiary mostly would be people in the existing neighborhood
would have that turn lane, would be able to pull into this -- this new
project and then go into their project.
MR. GREENE: There would be some expectation of that
happening.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is the -- the roads are going to be
built by the applicant and then they always have to be maintained by
the applicant. Why can't they turn it over to the county, since this isn't
a gated community, for the maintenance of the roads?
MR. GREENE: That question has come up a number of times.
The initial application had no interconnections. With no
interconnections in an isolated PUD, there's no public benefit to
turning the roads over to the county for maintenance. And county
maintenance doesn't want the responsibility of these additional roads.
With the potential interconnection there would be a small
portion of their entry road that we would be willing to take
responsibility for maintenance of. But beyond that there's no further
interconnection to any other public roads that would benefit from
county maintenance.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: For example, Farm Worker
Village, do they have to maintain all their roads, or are those county
roads?
MR. GREENE: I don't know that.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because it seems as though it's a
burden on them. I mean, it's public property, it belongs to the county,
a lot of people will be going in and out of those roads. It seems as
though the county should be able to maintain them once they're
properly built. They should be able to be turned over to the county.
MR. GREENE: I'm sure if it pleases the board that the county
maintain these roads once they're built, then we would ask for separate
Page 33
May 15,2008
roadway plans to be thoroughly reviewed and it would be built with
inspectors managing this project and that appropriate vehicle
interconnections be in place to the other public roads around it.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Wouldn't these roads have to be
properly built anyway?
MR. GREENE: There's different standards. When you're talking
about non-county maintained roads that are completely isolated inside
their neighborhood, pavement thicknesses aren't as great.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Paul, to be safe, we might
want to let that be an option of the landowner, assuming that they -- if
they want to meet the county standards and then turn the roads over to
county, and the county has no objection, that that could happen. Just
doing it without that caveat, you could be putting a burden on them
that they can't utilize very easily, especially with neighborhood roads
being different sizes and things like that.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Good idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll throw that in there.
Any other questions of Mike?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. You're looking at a
contribution for Lake Trafford Road and SR 29. That's quite a ways
from this site. What is your justification for that?
MR. GREENE: When you look at the distribution from the TIS,
there's 30 percent of their traffic going through that intersection, which
is about -- I think it's about -- ends up being about 52 trips through that
intersection, with a service volume that's only about 860. So it's a
fairly large percentage impact at that intersection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I don't disagree with you
there would be some impact on that intersection, probably as well as
others within the community. What then do impact fees that they're
going to be paying cover if they don't cover things like that?
MR. GREENE: Impact fees cover the improvements of all the
Page 34
May 15,2008
other roads and the maintenance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't that include the improvements
to an intersection that is required?
MR. GREENE: Some basic intersection upgrades, yes, but a
complete intersection redesign where we're having to add turn lanes to
accommodate additional trips from the subdivisions, a lot of times, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this particular single subdivision
causing the turn lanes to be constructed?
MR. GREENE: The trips from this neighborhood plus
Arrowhead, another one going together, the combination of the two
do, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Arrowhead also providing a pro-rata
share on that --
MR. GREENE: Yes, they are.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, can I, for the record, correct
Mike? Impact fees do not cover maintenance. Impact fees cover just
improvements generated -- or requirements for improvements
generated by the additional capacity created by the development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Any other questions of transportation before we go on with any
other staff comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Were you in the middle of your presentation or finished with it?
MS. ZONE: No, sir. I asked if you had any additional questions
from me, I'm available. If not, I'm --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have questions, but I'll wait and
make sure others -- Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one that's -- I think it's
environmental. And it's -- what it is, is looking at these aerials, there's
-- on the western side there appears to be a piece of water or
something. Yet in some of those old aerials you showed it disappears,
Page 35
May 15,2008
so -- I'm not familiar with the site. What exactly is that? It's in line
with the --
MR. SCHMITT: That's the wetland area.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Looks like a wetland to me.
MR. SCHMITT: There's a wetland. We have pictures from 2003
and 2006. 2003 shows it fairly vegetated at that time. That's the area
that the District is requiring for mitigation, as I understand.
MS. MASON: Yes, that's what's kind of commonly called a
pothole wetland. There's a lot of those around this part of Florida. And
they're just these little deeper areas surrounded by, often, uplands.
And half of it was impacted by the project that currently exists,
the residential project to the west. And this other half remained on the
site.
And the South Florida Water Management District will be
requiring off-site mitigation for it for that impact. And then there's the
native portion it that was calculated as part of the preservation
requirements for this site.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this site plan design, they
intend to fill that in, essentially.
MS. MASON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then make a lake
someplace else.
MS. MASON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't there a more creative way
to take advantage of this existing thing?
MS. MASON: That was discussed at great length at EAC. There
were quite a few members who did want them to try to keep that. And
I even talked with them a little bit about trying to preserve it and
restore it, and then they wouldn't have an off-site preservation issue.
And I just know there were some problems with the design
phase, that it really wasn't going to work for them. They could go into
more information about that. But the District will consider that already
Page 36
May 15,2008
an impacted wetland, probably no matter what. It could work for
stormwater management, perhaps, and county preservation, but I'm
not sure it would really help too much with the District permitting
process. But Marco might be able to answer more of those details.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, is the concern you
could not use this wetland for stormwater, yet you could use the
man-made lake?
MS. MASON: Environmental staff does not have a problem
with them preserving that area and using it as stormwater. I don't
know if engineering would have any issues regarding that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even if we go that direction of
somehow retaining that wetlands, it would require a change to the
master plan and a redesign that are not here today in front of is.
I'm not sure -- I understand where you're going, Brad, we might
want to even discuss it, but if it changes the master plan, we'd have to
come back and start all over again. I'm not sure anybody really needs
to do that.
Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Schiffer, that option was discussed at great
length. The site is being split down the middle. There's two different
actual developers, as was pointed out. And that would have impacted
-- my understanding, that would have impacted the development on
the western half, reduce significantly the number of units.
And they are bringing a significant amount of fill into this site to
bring it up to grade. So they chose instead to just build a water
retention area, water detention/retention area instead.
But that option was discussed at great length in an attempt to
look at preserving that and preclude any off-site mitigation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
MS. MASON: If I could, I was just going to -- I know there was
a lot of discussion earlier about the conditions of approval that staff
had put on the project and that the EAC had approved when they
Page 37
May 15,2008
heard the project. And I kind of hopefully would like to do a little
brief presentation and then perhaps it will answer some questions. And
if not, I'll answer whatever remain.
The first one was in regards to the black bear management plan.
And what I just put up on the viewer is the section of the Growth
Management Plan that requires that in areas where the black bear may
be present that they have to do a management plan.
And just as Marco Espinar had previously testified, the plan in a
situation like this is largely informational regarding trash
containerization that they -- residents be aware of the potential for
bears to be on the site, and not to create nuisance bears, really, as more
people move in.
The map that I just put on the visualizer now is provided by
Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, and it shows the
areas, which you can see the entire hatched area, which is the vast
majority of Collier County, except the extreme coastal area, is
considered bear habitat. And that is the map we go by.
And most people, if not all, will put in their management plans
for their preserves just a brief caveat. It's often one or two lines about
trash containerization. Some have gone as far as saying it will be in
the deeds for the property owners, just so they know. There's often
some stuff about not letting cats and dogs run loose or leaving food
out, things like that.
It's really not only a requirement of the Growth Management
Plan, but it helps decrease conflicts between humans and the animals
in the area.
B was about portions of the property that are considered native
vegetation by the Growth Management Plan definition. And these are
some examples of some photographs that staff had taken. They're of
the upland area that's on-site and the areas that were considered to be
native vegetation.
I know there's a lot of intricate details here. It's not native habitat
Page 38
May 15,2008
that's evaluated, it's native vegetation existing on-site. And it is a very
small amount, 25 percent of the upland that qualified as .13 acres. And
the wetland portion is less. I can't see my numbers right here.
And staff has agreed, since there's no conflict with the Growth
Management Plan, to actually allow them to use the mitigation that the
South Florida Water Management District is going to require for the
impact of that wetland anyway, so there won't be any additional cost
to the applicant for the wetland portion of the native vegetation.
Regarding the upland portion, it would be .13 -- or 115 percent
of the value of .13 acres would be the donation.
And also the after-the-fact fees, I know there were some
numbers, I think it was 30,000 that was offered out there that would be
additional cost. The cost for after-the-fact fees for that portion, it's two
times, according to the fee resolution, at $250 for the first acre and
$50 for each additional, then two times that, it would be $2,800 in
clearing fees. So I don't believe .13 acres, 115 percent of .13 acres
would bring $2,800 up to $30,000. I don't know what that value would
be, but I think it's significantly less than $30,000 to comply with all
these conditions.
And that's the --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to the black bear,
which clearly it's good that we learn to deal with the animal's habits
and such. That should be all over -- I know from time to time the
Naples Daily News or other media will show a bear located
somewhere in urban Naples City.
MS. MASON: Even Naples Park, I believe, recently.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that does happen. So I think
that's admirable.
But the question that I have has to do with the statement that was
made by one of the gentlemen who said that part of the plan is having
Page 39
May 15,2008
trash cans inside. I'm not sure that we have garages on these, I
presume there are. But I don't know where inside would be and if in
fact -- is that part of it? They're required to keep their trash internal to
their structure?
MS. MASON: There's a variety of bear management.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know the parks systems in the
federal uses something on their trash cans that make it much more
difficult for the bears, but I don't suppose we're going to go to that
length, are we?
MS. MASON: No, no. Those grizzly bears seem to be a little bit
more intense than the black bears that we have around here.
What it identifies in the Growth Management Plan is that
garbage be placed in bear-proof containers. And what most people
have done, especially regarding the multi-family area, is that they'll
have to have locks and maybe some -- you know, the fencing. A lot of
times the requirements that the county already has for buffering those
things can largely comply with the bear not being able to easily access
that. There are just little wire cages that people can put around trash
cans. They don't necessarily have to be inside. There are other
alternatives.
For some people the easiest thing is just to keep their trash can in
the garage. I personally live out in Golden Gate Estates. I have my
trash outside but I've taken other measures to not encourage bears to
be attracted.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What the Chair has brought up I
had myself thought of, when I was reading this, is I was amazed,
because we've seen any number of PUDs that talk about intensity --
not intensity but density, and those without density, and we've never
brought up the black bear before. And I was just fascinated.
What's the value, or cost, if you will, for compliance? Is there an
initial cost associated with it for the builder and then is there a
continuing cost associated with it? Has anybody bothered to evaluate
Page 40
May 15,2008
-- we want to help these people who need affordable homes, and for
all of the others that come before us, we don't require it of them, and
those are, you know, housing that people theoretically can afford. So
I'm confused. Did we evaluate the cost of this?
MS. MASON: Most projects, EISs and other projects, whenever
there's a preserve management plan they're already included, and that's
why it's not a condition, because it's in the management plan as it's
already written.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we don't hear about it.
MS. MASON: Right. A lot of times it's just -- it's not an issue.
And I know there's been some other ones where we've listed that
as conditions of approval, and projects that I've done out in
Immokalee in particular, because that was the area of my territory
where I did a lot of reviews.
As far as costs go, there probably would be some initial, I
suppose, in the beginning planning type. But I have no idea what they
would be.
And as far as ongoing costs, I don't really think there would be
any in terms -- except for if you needed to replace something at some
point in the future.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand you wouldn't
necessarily know it, but I was trying to bring to the point that you
haven't -- we're foisting on people something that, you know, it's like
-- well, we're making them do something that's going to be an expense
and we're taking the people who we conceive of having the least
potential to be able to do extras and making it clear to them that they
have to do it.
I didn't know it was included in --
MS. MASON: In many --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Many, not all. And it's included
where, in the LDC?
MS. MASON: No, I'm talking about in their management plan.
Page 41
May 15,2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that. It's not in the
LDC, right?
MS. MASON: Well, it's in the Growth Management Plan and
therefore it's referred to. I don't know the section in the LDC but it's at
least referred to in the LDC. But we have requirements whenever
there's listed species that could potentially use the site that
management plans be included.
And I also would consider the cost to owners if they don't take
some precautionary measures ahead of time and they get nuisance
bears. The damage to screens or a bear getting into their kitchen or
something like that because the bear has now looked at those people
as a new food source would be even greater than designing a dumpster
more appropriately.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have no argument with the
prophylaxis. I think that's fine. It's just that was raised by the Chair
and myself is that suddenly we have a condition for affordable
housing and we're talking about --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just get past the bear issue. I think
we can wrap it up on the bear. Thank you.
Before you leave, Ms. Mason, there's an article -- there's an item
in the staff report I'd like to ask you about. I'm assuming you inserted
it. Talks about the contribution of a monetary payment to
Conservation Collier plus a 15 percent of that amount as an
endowment for management of off-site land. It's on Page 8.
MS. MASON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- is our code -- is that pursuant
to the Land Development Code?
MS. MASON: No, it's not. Just like Heidi had mentioned, the
Land Development Code has not yet been amended. The Growth
Management Plan has to allow off-site preservation.
The 15 percent was the result of meetings that they -- we have --
and conversations we have had. There was another PUD, I can't recall
Page 42
May 15,2008
the name right now, that was seeking --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Mason, before you go too far, my
question simply was, is that issue, those two issues, the contribution of
a monetary payment to Conservation Collier plus 15 percent of that
amount as an endowment for management of off-site land, is that
pursuant to the Land Development Code?
MS. MASON: No, it's not. There is a percentage in the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, if it's not part of the code, let me
go to the next step.
Can the county attorney tell me, if it's not part of the Land
Development Code, on what basis can we place this upon the
development?
MR. KLATZKOW: There's voluntary and there's involuntary. If
the developer wants to voluntarily do something, that's fine. But if this
is something the developer is getting foisted upon, that's a different
Issue.
MR. SCHMITT: It's also in the Conservation Collier ordinance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Conservation Collier ordinance?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, is that in the Land
Development Code?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir, it is part of the Codes of Laws and
Ordinances as part of the Conservation Collier program. If the
applicant wants to mitigate off-site, they can -- they voluntarily can do
it. We have an LDC amendment working through the process now that
will make this consistent with -- it's already in the GMP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the point is it's not part of the code
today. I think that's been clearly stated, right?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I was trying to find out.
Because my next question before we close is if the applicant wants to
do this. Because if they don't want to do it, they don't have to. That's
Page 43
May 15,2008
what I'm getting at.
And I would appreciate it if we stuck to the code. That's all I was
trying to find out.
We also didn't get the EAC report verbally that we were
supposed to get today.
MS. ZONE: Right. Susan Mason was going to present that n or
do you want me to, since I'm here?
The EAC heard this petition at their May 7th public hearing.
They -- it was a brief meeting because they were pleased that the
applicant agreed to resolve the issues that the EAC had, and that
everyone came together.
So the three items that were discussed today in length on Page 8
of our staff report, A, Band C for what the environmental staffs
conditions of approval are, the EAC voted to have these incorporated
into the PUD document, was a unanimous vote 8-0.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what -- where are those
recommendations?
MS. ZONE: Page 8 of 12 of the staff report. And they were the
black bear management, talks about the native vegetation, and then
number C, which talked about the clearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll have a discussion on
that, I'm sure.
Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, I've got questions on Page 3 of
your rezone findings.
MS. ZONE: The rezone, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question 13 reads, whether there are
substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with the existing zoning.
The subject property -- your response was the subject property
could not develop residential dwelling units in accordance with the
Page 44
May 15,2008
existing zoning because the -- the current zoning is A-HMO and that
zoning does not allow this type of residential development.
I'm sorry, that doesn't -- it's asking why it cannot be developed in
accordance with the existing zoning. The existing zoning then is
A-HMO. It's not the zoning they're asking for.
So can the property be developed under A-HMO?
MS. ZONE: Right. And the answer was that under the current
zoning they cannot because there are restrictions at the density as well
as the type of dwelling units they're proposing.
If they rezone, then obviously they will be able to. But under the
agricultural mobile home overlay they cannot go to the density that
they currently are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's back up to my question, whether
there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in
accordance with the existing zoning. The existing zoning -- just say
yes or no to this. A-HMO, is that the existing zoning?
MS. ZONE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's mobile homes?
MS. ZONE: It is agriculture with mobile home overlay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can they put -- and mobile home
overlay on that property, can they put agriculture -- that's agriculture.
Can they do HMO on that property?
MS. ZONE: They can do mobile home property, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, why can't they do that in response
to question 13? If they can do it, then the simple answer is yes, they
could do that but that is not the choice of the applicant. Instead I've got
an answer that doesn't really answer the question.
MS. ZONE: It goes with their application that they are
requesting, not that they're requesting to build mobile home overlays.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Ray--
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I understand where you're
getting at, Commissioner, and we will address that better in the future.
Page 45
May 15,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We have a long ways to go
because I think I'm going to be arguing every one of these.
Let's go to the next page, Page 4. Fourteen, whether the change
suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county.
And the answer was that the stipulations set out on Page 11 or 12
of the staff report will ensure the RPUD will comply with all the
objective criteria set forth in residential zoning districts in the LDC
and conform to all the goals and objectives of the GMP.
We know that. We wouldn't be here today without that.
Is it out of scale with the neighborhood? Is what they're
requesting out of scale with the neighborhood? Just yes or --
MS. ZONE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Number 15, whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites
in the county for proposed uses in districts already permitted for such
use. There are many sites that are zoned to accommodate proposed
development but this is not the determining factor when evaluating the
appropriateness of a rezone decision.
I don't think anybody was asking that. I think we need to stick to
the answers to the questions. And the answer was really in the first
part of that sentence was all you needed to say.
Sixteen, I think that we have similar problems. I'm not going to
spend the whole morning going through the findings for the PUD. But
I found similar problems in one, two, three, four, five, six, seven and
eight. So I would hope that in the future that we could look more
closely at what the question is, and we don't need to respond by
paragraph, we could just simply say yes or no.
MS. ZONE: Right. But then we know that if we would just say
no, we could get hit with why didn't you expound on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the reason of no, not no and then go
into another reason that has nothing to do with the question. If you say
Page 46
May 15,2008
no, respond to no in reference to the question. That's all I'm asking.
That's what I think these are set up for.
I see Ray nodding his head yes. And if -- Ray, if you understand
it, maybe you could provide --
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it will be a topic of our next planners
meeting.
I also wanted to let you know a status. A few months ago we did
talk about revising these PUD and rezone findings, and we're in the
middle of doing that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
The last question I have of staff, and I'm going to ask this, Mr.
Schmitt, for your involvement as well, we had a project come before
us a while back, it was for a borrows pit that the county was actually
paying for part of out by Oil Well Road. They had a berm requirement
to put around that pit, which was in the middle of a giant ago field
surrounded by the same property owner's ago fields.
This board thought that the berm was a waste of money. We
suggested it be removed. Unbeknownst to us, after the meeting staff
came back and said well, you took the berm out, now we want an
irrigated landscape buffer between the borrows pit and the empty ago
fields. And that's fine, I understand what staff was trying to do.
But I want to know, if we take out that paragraph that I'm
referring to in Exhibit F, Item 3.C, involving the clearing, are we
going to have an issue come back to the applicant that well, you took
out 3.C so now we're going to do this to you?
I just wanted to understand that if the recommendation is that
3.C didn't need not apply, that there's been no bona fide proof that
they haven't got a -- that they didn't legally get a clearing permit, a
clearing issue that we feel is needed to be addressed in this PUD. Are
we going to have another after-the- fact problem with staff in regard to
some -- another burden they put on the developer as a result of
dismissing 3.C?
Page 47
May 15,2008
MR. SCHMITT: I would only answer by stating that I don't
know how this board can make that conclusion. We have records that
show that in 2003, and our permitting records go back quite a ways. I
know it's light from '97 and earlier. But you're asking are we going to
change our position. I will present your position to the board as I have
to present the staff position to the board. If there's disagreement, we
will present that to the board.
The issue here is your -- basically your ruling is you do not
believe there was any illegal clearing and they should not be assessed
an after-the-fact fee. Is that what you're stating?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm stating that I don't believe
there's any proof of illegal clearing. And because there's no proof they
shouldn't be requested to pay this after the fact.
MR. SCHMITT: Then I would prefer that you put that in a
motion so that we can present that to the board, because I don't have
the latitude to make that decision. From the standpoint of -- the board's
fee ordinance is very clear. I don't have any latitude for authority in
adjusting that ordinance. That ordinance is very clear on how to apply
after-the-fact permitting fees. Now, that's if we deem it to be an
after-the- fact.
You're already stating that you do not believe there's any merit
in the staffs position that we should charge after-the-fact clearing fees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again let me say, I didn't see any proof.
I didn't see any proof today that this was illegally cleared.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I have aerial photographs that show from
2003, even 2006 that shows significant difference in clearing.
Now, I'm not alleging that this was illegally cleared. All we're
stating is there were no permits.
But I will -- if that's the way this board wants to pursue this, I
will make that presentation to the Board of County Commissioners,
noting that this panel or this board has deemed that this project should
not be deemed to be an after-the- fact clearing or illegal clearing, and
Page 48
May 15,2008
that's the way I'll present it to the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe, could you do that right
now, just show us these two photos.
MR. SCHMITT: This is what started this whole discussion many
months ago between Marco and my staff, the 2003 and 2006 aerials.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What is this one?
MS. MASON: This is the 2003 aerial.
MR. SCHMITT: That's the earlier one.
MS. MASON: This is 2005.
MR. SCHMITT: That's 2005. And you can see the significant
difference, especially around that wetland on the west. And then we
circled some of the trees.
Look, it doesn't matter to me. If this board wants to make that
determination, that's the way this will be presented to the Board of
County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there a way you could put
both on the screen side by side, fold them or --
MR. SCHMITT: That's 2005 and then 2003.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, I think the argument is that the
initial clearing took effect years and years ago. This is vegetation that
grew back. And if the initial clearing took place years and years ago
and they were going back in and reusing the same land, why are we
penalizing them for that? That's what I can't understand.
MS. MASON: This black and white aerial here is from 1993.
This is the wetland area. This is second tract from the west, which is
right here. So you can see that since '93 to 2003 there was significant
clearing in that portion. The pines that exist that we calculated today
as vegetation are mature. They're many decades old.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, but these exhibits only
Page 49
May 15,2008
show that there was clearing involved. It does not state whether it's
illegal or not.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. We are not making a -- all we're
stating is there were no clearing permits by our GMP. It clearly states
that we're required -- that the applicant should have clearing permits or
they would have to restore, basically, native vegetation for their
preservation plan.
We agreed that the best way to approach this would be to issue a
permit for clearing. To issue a permit today would require me to
assess an after-the-fact permitting for clearing that took place
previously. That would then negate them from having to preserve
on-site the number of acres that we're saying that existed. And we're
not talking native habitat, we're talking native vegetation now.
But if you all in your motion want to present that to the board,
that's the way it will be presented to the board. I'm not going to fight
the issue, if that's what you're asking.
I think that was already presented to the EAC, that was already
-- at least the EAC reviewed this. But if this board believes that this is
the way it should be presented to the Board of County Commissioners,
that's the way it will be presented.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'd like to speak to the
applicant.
Heidi? At the EAC meeting that was most recently held on this
Issue --
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- these three, A, Band C, did you
agree at that meeting to these three conditions?
MS. WILLIAMS: In the interest of moving forward, this is a
compromised position that was reached. And --
COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's what was agreed to.
Thank you.
Page 50
May 15,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Heidi, while you're up here, this
issue involving the clearing, I know that it was put into your PUD to
allow other things to happen. Do you have any concern if that is
elected to be removed from your PUD of negative consequences that
would be more problematic than if that just stayed in?
MS. WILLIAMS: One of our main concerns is actually to keep
this project on track for a funding deadline. We have to have our
zoning approval in place prior to June 16th. So the compromise was
reached with staff in order to move forward.
We certainly heard what Mr. Schmitt has said, that staffs
position will have to be presented to the board. Weare interested in
keeping this thing on schedule on June 10th for the BCC.
We did reach that position a little bit in protest. We did agree to
it to keep it on track, and we have that as our first goal to stay on the
June 10th, BCC meeting. I'm not sure that answers your question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does. And it doesn't really make me
feel good about what had to happen for you to get here today, and I'm
disappointed in that. But I understand your position. I appreciate you
telling us. Thank you.
Any other questions of the applicant or staff or anybody before
we -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the neighborhood meeting,
did the residents of the neighborhood to the west discuss the
interconnection ever?
MS. WILLIAMS: We showed it on our master plan. We hadn't
revised it to show full vehicular interconnection at the time, but we did
have the note that it was a controlling interconnection. And we didn't
have anyone object to the project at all. In fact, we had people at the
meeting ask how they could get on the list for homes.
So we felt it was a very productive meeting.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there were representatives of
the neighborhood to the west there --
Page 51
May 15,2008
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, there were.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and they voiced no objection
whatsoever to that interconnection.
MS. WILLIAMS: We did not hear any objections at all to
anything in the neighborhood meeting.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Melissa, are you going to
answer that question, too?
MS. ZONE: Just stated at the NIM that staff was requesting a
full interconnection and none of them objected to that as well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I think to make this board -- and I'm
going to offer this to the board because I can't do it. As part of your
motion, we'll issue the permit. We do not assess the after-the-fact fees,
that's in the ordinance, which I do not have authority to change. But
I'll note that to the board. The board can make that decision.
We just issue the clearing permit and that's it. I mean, that's
something I can certainly put in a staff report and as part of this
board's motion and of course as part of staff presenting that to the
board, I would fully support that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. That's a good
solution. We appreciate that.
MR. SCHMITT: I think that's the best way to go about it. Again,
I don't have the authority to do that but I can present that to the board
and ask the board in this case that we just issue the permit and the fees
appropriate to that permit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a great solution. Thank you.
Okay, ifthere's no other questions ofthe staff or of the applicant
at this point, I want to see ifthere's any public speakers. Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we will close the public
hearing and entertain a motion.
Page 52
May 15,2008
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
make a motion that we forward Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 to the
BCC with a recommendation of approval, with removal of the
after-the-fact clearing fees and the resultant off-site fees. That the road
maintenance be optional to the applicant. They can decide whether or
not they would rather try to make it to county specifications so that it
could be turned over to the county, or if they would prefer, just to
maintain it with the specs that they have right now. And I think that
there are some other things, but I can't remember all of them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think for discussion, if we could get a
second on that?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating).
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Vigliotti had his hand up.
Are you intending to second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do. May I comment?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. And your
comment, sir?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Chairman, are there any
other things we can do to reduce the costs for these people?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how we could do it without
getting into discussions that would take us longer than we might end
up with a positive result. I'm not sure how we can get there today,
Bob.
I wish we could have -- I wish a project like this could go
through with less cost. But I don't think the circumstances, and
especially their needs to get funded in a timely manner, would allow
us to explore that too much deeper today.
I would suggest that Mr. Midney's motion change slightly to
align itself with Mr. Schmitt's recommendation, and that is that the
after-the-fact permit clause stay in, but we recommend that it be done
Page 53
May 15,2008
without any fees for --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's very fair, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with the motion maker?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's okay with the second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree, no fees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only other thing, Mr.
Midney, I think we discussed, and Ray, I would turn to you, because
you keep these notes pretty accurately. We had several different kinds
of suggestions to the development standards table. One is a greater
than 20. The other is a 23-foot footnote. The other is six-foot sideyards
and 12-foot distances between buildings.
Did you get all those adequately?
MR. BELLOWS: I believe so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney and the second, would both
of you accept those as part of the motion?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Clarification. Mr. Midney, in his motion, also
proposed no off-site mitigation fees? Is that --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Anything that would be resulting
from the after-the-fact clearing.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay, but not with Paragraph B, where
basically they're -- this is the requirement for mitigating the impact on
native vegetation where they -- I thought that you made a statement
about off-site mitigation fees but not -- they still have to meet
requirements, South Florida Water Management District, they have
off-site mitigation for impacting wetlands.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, that's okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And then the other issue was the impact on
native vegetation they were agreeing to, and I can't remember, .32
Page 54
May 15,2008
acres.
Marco, I don't think that was -- Heidi, that was a problem, was
it? Was that in your motion?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it was just pertaining to the cost
for the clearing permit after the fact. And I think everybody's in
agreement with that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity, Ray, would you read off
what those changes to the development standards were that you had,
just in case?
MS. ZONE: I'll read them for the record.
That under Exhibit B, Table 1, under single-family attached and
duplex, that for the minimum setbacks for the side setback, that the
five feet would be changed to six feet.
That under multi-family the minimum distance between
structures would say greater than 20 feet. And that a footnote to be
added that for those structures that have garages, a setback of 23 feet
from the front instead of20.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the sidewalk.
MS. ZONE: From the sidewalk, thank you. It's the standard that
we use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. ZONE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think that sums it up.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on deviations one and
two, are we just going to go with those?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they've been fleshed out enough,
unless you've got some concern --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not going to make a point. I
don't see any reason to get rid of the architectural standards for this
application. The standards aren't based upon money, they're just based
Page 55
May 15,2008
on design. The need for the housing is much more important than that
point --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand your concern. I toured
Immokalee with some people out there and I've repeatedly heard that
these architectural criteria shouldn't apply to Immokalee like they do
the coastal area.
I've not seen that wanted by the people I've spoken to out there,
so I fully understand what they're trying to do here. And being within
the community itself, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. So that's why I
tend to want to see deviation one stay as it is.
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't have a problem with
deviation one being approved because it was submitted as a deviation,
number one, so that it could be discussed publicly and decided on.
Secondly, it's internal to the site, so it's not going to affect
anybody's view in the community other than the people that live there.
However, it is an LDC requirement. So if we're going to be very
stern with everybody about is this in the LDC and is this in the LDC,
then this is in the LDC. And to make an exception for Immokalee,
they need to get it into the LDC.
I have no problem if they want to make it an exception, but get it
into the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments on the motion?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I would just like to
comment that both of these groups that are doing this, Florida
Non-Profit Housing Services and the Empowerment Alliance are both
non-governmental organizations that I believe originated in
Immokalee. They have a track record. They've been here and they've
been providing housing for a while. And they've done a good job with
the housing that they have done in the past.
Page 56
May 15, 2008
An especially positive aspect of this is the amount of rental
housing. This is going to help a lot of people to get out of renting
trailers. Since Immokalee is the blue collar -- you know, a big blue
collar center in this area, we really have a big need for rental housing,
because a lot of people can't afford to buy house, especially now.
So I think this project is exactly what we need out in Immokalee.
And as far as the architecture and maybe leaving more trees up, it
might have been nicer or prettier if they hadn't had to do that, but in
the overall picture the need for affordable housing is better. So I'm
definitely in favor of this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Not to belabor the fees, but
there was a $2,800 fee that either staff or the applicant brought up.
What was that for?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one we're waiving.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's the one -- only one?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, I'll call for the vote. All those in
favor of the motion as stipulated, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
Page 57
May 15,2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
And with that we'll take a break until 10:20.
(A break was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will please take
their seats, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda.
Item #9A
PETITION: BD-2008-AR-1273L JIM FOUNTAIN
The next item we'll go back to is Item A, which is Petition
BD-2008-AR-12731, Jim Fountain, for the addition of a boat lift on
208 San Mateo Drive, Lot 27, Southport on the Bay.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please
rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures on the part of planning
commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, the applicant please
proceed.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Eric Schneider with Turrell, Hall & Associates,
representing the applicant, Mr. Jim Fountain.
The proposed project is to add a boat lift to an existing dock and
remove an existing nonconforming structure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, sir, we're being
passed something out. Can you explain to us what this is and why it's
being passed out?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Sure. This is just a clean set of the exhibit
drawings. It's the plan set. And then the last page is the aerial
Page 58
May 15,2008
photograph relative to other properties in the area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they differ in any manner from the
information that was distributed by staff in our packet?
MR. SCHNEIDER: There was one typographical error in the
staff report. The total protrusion in the exhibits show 46 feet and it
should show 48, as the new set that you received shows 48 feet total
protrusion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Then before we go
too much further, because this will actually have to be used as the
packet that is now being recommended or denied today since it has the
right dimensions on it -- Mr. Murray, did you move to approve?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to put it into evidence, the
packet that was just given to us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein.
Any objections?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all in favor signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
All opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, let's go forward, sir.
MR. SCHNEIDER: The existing dock has a previous BD
Page 59
May 15,2008
resolution from July of 2000 for a total protrusion of 48 feet. The
addition of the boat lift will not increase the protrusion of the dock or
vessels, it will only reconfigure the docking facility.
The dock with moored vessels would protrude 48 feet into the
waterway. The waterway is approximately 900 feet wide.
And we have received state and federal permits for the dock and
have presented them to staff with this application.
I will just run through the existing conditions. As you can see,
there is an existing swim platform that is currently non-compliant.
And it will be removed. That's this structure right here. Part of the
proposal is to remove that. And I will show you the proposed drawing.
The proposed drawing shows that the dock will not be changed
to protrude any further into the waterway. We'll just be adding the
boat lift and removing the swim platform.
And finally, I will show you the aerial showing the proposed
project relative to the existing docks in the neighborhood. And as you
can see, it's a fairly common length of a boat dock extension due to
extensive mangrove growth in that area and obtaining adequate water
depths to launch the boat at all tidal cycles.
And as you'll see in the staff report, all primary and secondary
criteria were met, and it is just a modification of the existing dock.
And I'll turn it over for any questions or comments and for
Ashley's --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just looking, sir -- that's me
here -- I'm just looking for any kind of notation for distance from the
proposed new lift to the shoreline or to the mean low water point.
What is the distance there, please?
MR. SCHNEIDER: The distance from the proposed dock or the
proposed lift addition?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir.
Page 60
May 15, 2008
MR. SCHNEIDER: We don't have it noted on here.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What size vessel do you
anticipate will go in there?
MR. SCHNEIDER: It's an 18-foot flats boat.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would anything larger fit in that
area, due to what your understanding of the --
MR. SCHNEIDER: No. He could probably get a little larger
vessel about the same make, but anything larger and he may, you
know --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Run aground.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yeah, it may not work for the depth.
And one of the things is, you know, we don't want his boat
protruding out any further than the dock.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have a mean low water line
there. How far out beyond that line do the mangroves actually --
MR. SCHNEIDER: There's a very faint line. If you see in the
north -- actually, I'll put this up. Right here, if you see, this denotes the
mangrove fringe line, and it actually goes all the way out --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, my.
MR. SCHNEIDER: -- close to the proposed lift.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Will they have a permit to
remove some mangroves?
MR. SCHNEIDER: No. There's no proposal to remove any
mangroves. The existing dock has mangroves right up to it and there's
no proposed changes to that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, yes, but the existing dock
is surrounded by -- I mean, the vessel would be surrounded by the
dock, so that is already clear. What I am looking at is what appears to
be really rather no room to bring another vessel in there without in fact
hitting the mangroves.
Thank you, Ray.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Oh, yes. Actually, no, their -- I think, you
Page 61
May 15, 2008
know, to put the vessel in here, I don't think that there would be any
need to trim mangroves or remove any mangroves.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have no way of knowing
what distances are, and that's a problem. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is that it, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. I can't get an answer to
the question, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You indicate that the existing
structure is 566 square feet of overwater area and this will be reduced
to 446 square feet. Is that because that's due to the elimination of that
swim platform?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, sir, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But you said that swim platform
was in noncompliance.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So there really is no net
reduction then, because the only thing that was in compliance was the
fixed pier.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, sir, so the --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So why don't you better phrase
that and say it remains the same, there is no change in the fixed pier?
MR. SCHNEIDER: We could note that the existing dock
excludes that swim platform and that the total square footage would be
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, the pier would be the
same, remains unchanged.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: This gives the impression that
you're giving a reduction credit there in the area by reducing the
overwater area, which is not true because part of it was in
noncompliance to begin with.
Page 62
May 15, 2008
MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay, we can note that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, my concern is really
you're going to have two boats, you're really going in for shallow
water. So I think my concern is covered by that. But the length of
those boats aren't allowed to give more than 50 percent of the property
line.
So since we -- I figure the property line is 88 feet. You somehow
figure the shoreline is 90. Do you think these boats could get over 22,
23, 24 feet, or --
MR. SCHNEIDER: No, actually, that's one of the figures that
we provided in the staff report. And actually, I'll explain the
difference. The 88 feet is the platted property line length. And the 96
feet is the meandering mean high water line. So that's where that
difference comes from.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you're going to say these
boats aren't going to get greater than 24 feet, we're not in any -- okay.
The other question is kind of like that, is should we be
measuring from the property line instead? We should be measuring
from the most restricted the property line is. So could this cause
confusion?
MR. SCHNEIDER: In previous applications what we have done
is all of our protrusion is from the most restricted point of the mean
high water line, and that's what we have been using. And in which
case the -- from the most restrictive point from the mean high water
line, the protrusion is 48 feet.
If you were to measure it from the platted property line, it would
be a little bit greater. But we have always used the mean high water
line to measure protrusion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't have the code in front
me. Obviously you need to measure from a bulkhead or mean high
water line. It doesn't say or property line. Normally the outside face of
Page 63
May 15, 2008
a bulkhead is the property line.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Right. I'm not sure, you know--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What code says, okay.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yeah. The previous use has always been to
measure from the most restrictive point of the mean high water line to
the greatest protrusion of the dock.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, did I understand your
response to Mr. Schiffer was that no boat would be over 23 feet in
length?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, actually, the existing slip in the
middle, I believe his boat is 26 feet. And the proposed lift will
facilitate an 18- foot flats boat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So there will be a boat over 23
feet there.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. In the center slip I believe there's an
existing 26- foot boat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And the other one will be 18
feet, that will be the limit on the other one.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one. So you're -- going back to
what Mr. Murray was talking about, so your statement is that while we
don't have anything to indicate it on this plan, the 18- foot boat will
neither come out of the back, it won't extend beyond the dock, and it
also will not infringe on the mangroves.
MR. SCHNEIDER: That's correct. That's correct. We're going to
set the lift at a place where his outboard will not protrude further than
the dock. And we don't foresee any mangrove trimming being needed
to park the flats boat there.
Page 64
May 15, 2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But that's certainly not in
agreement with this illustration or this drawing you're showing us.
From this drawing it would be obvious that the boat would impact in
the mangrove.
MR. SCHNEIDER: It would be tight. But again--
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, if that's a scaled drawing,
I think it would be more than tight, it would be --
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yeah. And again, this mangrove fringe line
is the absolute most outer part of those mangroves. And using n you
know, field locating it, it seems that there's plenty of space to park the
boat in there and operate the lift. There may be some branches
hanging out over at about head height. But, you know, in field locating
that boat lift, it seems that we wouldn't have to even trim any
mangroves. I think we've got adequate space to park that boat there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll go to the staff
report.
MS. CASERTA: Good morning. Ashley Caserta with
department of zoning and land development review.
Staff review showed that the request meets all five primary
criteria and all six secondary criteria.
All they're doing is adding the boat lift and they're not going out
any further than the already approved boat dock extension. So we
recommend approval.
Do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a quick one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you measure to the -- I don't
Page 65
May 15,2008
have the code in front of me. Do you remember what you measure
from?
MS. CASERTA: The code states that measurement is made from
the most restrictive of the following: property line, bulkhead line,
shoreline, seawall, rip-rap line or mean high water line.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So don't you think we should
adjust this to the property line? If we say you've got 48 feet, the most
restrictive would be the property line, and that's not what they're
asking for.
MS. CASERTA: That's true. I was just looking at the drawing on
that. I was going by the previously approved petition, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But why don't we do
this? In our motion today we might ask you to adjust that to --
dimension to the property line just to make sure.
MS. CASERTA: The applicant has a comment. Would you like
to hear it?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sure.
MR. SCHNEIDER: I'm not sure about all neighborhoods, but I
do know that this Southport on the Bay subdivision, in all previous
cases we have used the mean high water line as -- coincidingly as the
property line. The platted property line does differ from that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And some of these, which we're
familiar with, the property line is actually out further than the high
water line.
Why don't we do this: Why don't we put both dimensions,
dimension to the mean high water and the dimension to the property
line so that there's no problem?
MR. SCHNEIDER: That would make sense, sure. The platted
property line is that one.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then one more thing, while
we're looking at the platted property line. It's from that that we get the
50 percent, so could we put a note in there that the combined length of
Page 66
May 15,2008
the boat can't exceed 44 feet.
MS. CASERTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: My question is did the
environmental department representatives review this that shows the
mangroves protruding as far as it did?
MS. CASERTA: Yes, environmental services staff did review
the petition.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And they had no concern about
adversely impacting the mangroves?
MS. CASERTA: They didn't voice any concern with me during
their review.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of
the staff at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, Ray, do you have any
public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No other questions from the -- Mr.
Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me close the public hearing and I'll
entertain a motion. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move to approve Petition
BD-2008-AR-12731 with--
,
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the addition of the distance to
the property line added and a notation that the maximum length of
combined boats is 44 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Caron.
Page 67
May 15,2008
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My discussion is I think this is a
good boat dock thing. Obviously I'm using the other side. But the
point is that they're really respecting the kind of boat that would be in
this water. They're asking for about two-and-a-half feet for their lift,
which is definitely what this area should have.
So this is an application for people who are responsible to the
depths in this area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does your motion include staff
recommendations?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second include those as well?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made, stipulated.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you.
Item #9B
PETITION: SV-2008-AR-12943, WOOLBRIGHT DEVELOPMENT,
INC.
Page 68
May 15, 2008
The next item is Petition SV-2008-AR-12943, the Collection at
Vanderbilt. The applicant is Woolbright Development, Inc., the agent
is Glenn Weldon.
All those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition, please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures on the part of the
planning commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a discussion with Mr. Anderson;
basically talked about the project. Anything I said will be brought up
as well today.
Hearing no other discussions, Mr. Anderson, it's all yours. Good
to see you again.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of
the Commission.
F or the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel
and Andress law firm. And with me today is Mike Troxell from
Woolbright Development and Glenn Weldon, the designer of the
signs.
Simply stated, these variance requests are for the applicant to be
able to put a classy residential-style monument on each side of the
three entrances to their proj ect.
Two of the entrances are located on Airport Road, and one, the
third one, is at the entrance to Vanderbilt Beach. On the diagram.
The variance request at Vanderbilt Beach Road is what the code
technically calls an off-premises sign because of its placement on the
bank outparcel. The bank of course has given its permission to locate
the sign there and the Land Development Code places limits on the
height and square footage of an off-premises sign that are more
restrictive than on-premises. So part of the variance request is height
and square footage as well so that we have matching monument signs.
Page 69
May 15,2008
The other variances are for the entrances on Airport Road. Three
of them request a reduction of the distance between signs. And again,
this is necessary to have matching monument signs on each side of the
entrances.
The last variance is to be able to have three signs rather than two
along Airport Road, again, necessitated by the desire to have matching
monument signs on each side of the entryway.
I would point out that the Land Development Code does allow
pole signs to a height of 15 feet and directory signs to a height of 20
feet, but these monument signs are at a height of just under
nine-and-a-half feet.
And as the staff report states, the Land Development Code
doesn't distinguish between a pole sign or a monument sign, or for that
matter a directory sign.
I'd like to show you a sample of a directory sign that is located in
the same activity center at the southeast corner. And that's a typical
directory sign under today's Land Development Code, and it is a very
. .
mce sIgn.
You'll note that it lists all of the major tenants in that shopping
center. And I would ask you to -- here's an example of what could be
placed at the Shops at Galleria if they went with a directory sign.
Our signs are the type that you normally find at the entrance to a
residential community. And again, none of the commercial
establishments are listed on there.
I would submit to you that the five variances at issue here for
these signs are much better than having three directory signs that
could be erected without the necessity of a variance. I'll show you a
scale comparison of the directory sign that could go here and the
monument sign that is in fact proposed.
What we're asking for is for you to address a difference that the
code doesn't recognize between these two types of signs. We ask you
to approve the staff recommendation to grant the variances to allow
Page 70
May 15,2008
these discreet, very tasteful residential style entry monument signs.
And in closing I'd like to read into the record a portion of a letter
that we received yesterday from the Foundation of Pelican Marsh.
The Foundation of Pelican Marsh, Incorporated board of
directors voted 7-0 in favor of approval of the five requested height,
distance and number of ground monument sign variances at the three
separate locations within the Collection at Vanderbilt. The design
review committee and the board of directors is grateful to and
commends Woolbright Development, Inc. for working with our design
review committee in continuing our theme of ground monument
signage throughout the Pelican Marsh community.
I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you have; otherwise,
I'll let staff come forward and give their report.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat has a question, but I've got
one thing to interject. We have 28 pages of just dealing with signs in
the LDC and you couldn't find a way to fit in those 28 pages. It's
amazing. We have so many rules but yet none of them fit for
something like this.
MR. ANDERSON: I was astounded that the code did not make a
distinction between a monument sign and a sign pole -- pole sign. I
mean, the sign code has been amended I don't know how many times.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I'm just sitting here in
amazement. Every time we have a meeting with LDC we change the
sign code again, and still we can't seem to capture everything we need.
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I think your signs are very
attractive. I was impressed by the appearance of them. My question,
though, was about the number of variances that you seek. You say
there are five pole signs we're talking about, so there are five
independent signs.
MR. ANDERSON: We're talking about three signs. How staff
did it is if on one sign you ask for two different variances, that counted
Page 71
May 15,2008
as two different variances instead of just one for one sign.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The report says that there are
five pole signs that are addressed and there are six variances. Now,
what about A-I and A-2 --
MR. ANDERSON: It is a total of five signs, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And so now A-I and A-2 are
two of the five signs. But there is no 1,000-foot difference between
there, nor is there a variance request to vary it.
MR. ANDERSON: I believe there is.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Not between A-I and A-2.
MR. ANDERSON: It's apparently not required because it's
off-premises.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, there also is no distance
clearance between C-l and B-1. It has no variances requested for C-l
and B-1. The distance requests are for B-1, B-2, B-1 to C-l and B-2 to
C-2. But there's no request difference from C-l -- between C-l and
B-1, which is 705 feet.
See, I think when you identify this as five pole signs, then
immediately you put up some standards required for distance
separation that has to account for all the signs.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm told that the fourth variance does request
that waiver of that distance requirement between C-l and B-1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it the one that says 705 feet between
signs C-l and B-1 ?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's in the fourth whereas of the
resolution as well. Is that the one?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
MR. ANDERSON: I see the staff report doesn't mention what
the distance measurement is, just says C-l. Doesn't make a reference
to B-1 --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: B-1 has to adhere to the
Page 72
May 15,2008
standards, too. B-1 has to have 1,000 feet from it of any other sign. So
you have to apply that twice there, one for C-l and one for B-1.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mutual variances.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, we have a variance between B-1 and
B-2. Then we have a variance for C-l from B-1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, the resolution may make it clear.
If you look at the fourth whereas in the resolution, I think that may
cover it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it does, too. If you look on
Page 1 of the resolution.
MR. ANDERSON: Unfortunately we have a copy of the staff
report.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Should be attached to the back of
the staff report.
MR. ANDERSON: The fourth whereas clause?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-hum.
MR. ANDERSON: On the resolution?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Um-hum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have it, Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Do you agree?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We were looking for your response.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We were waiting for you.
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, I think what seems to be is
that the resolution's written correctly. The staff report may not be as
clear as the resolution is.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, it's only a technical matter
to be sure that we have the number of variances that are required so
the record is straight.
MR. ANDERSON: I appreciate that.
Page 73
May 15,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We wouldn't want to have you go out of
here and have to come back again, Bruce.
MR. ANDERSON: I enjoy your company.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the
applicant?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, you showed the three
signs, the one that's allowed and the one that we're proposing here.
Once we give you this today, would you be able to still build the one
that's allowed, or would this eliminate that right?
MR. ANDERSON: I'll let Nancy answer that. I don't believe we
could, not without another variance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that then, we'll take the staff
report. I think we're done with the applicant.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. Nancy
Gundlach, principal planner with zoning and land development
reVIew.
And staff is recommending approval of this sign variance.
Before I go into the recommendation, I do want to clear up one
item. And I apologize, I left out four letters under variance number
four. It's shown on Page 6 of 10 and the source of much discussion
this morning. There is a request for a 705-foot separation between sign
C-l, and these are the letters that are missing from the staff report, and
B-1. So that's variance number four on Page 6 of 10. And it is
correctly stated in the resolution.
And we are recommending approval to forward this petition,
sign variance AR-12943 to the Board of County Commissioners for
approval with the following conditions.
And they are: Number one, that the sign copy for signs A-I, A-2,
B-1, B-2, and C-l, as depicted on Exhibit A of the overall site plan,
shall be limited to 76 square feet.
Page 74
May 15, 2008
And recommendation number two, the signs for A-I, A - 2, B-1,
B-2 and C-l, as depicted on Exhibit A overall site plan, shall be
limited to the name of the shopping center and no individual tenant
names shall be shown.
Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff?
Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The one I asked Mr. Anderson.
Would they be able to build the signs that they have by right now to
be able to build, or will this eliminate that?
MS. GUNDLACH: Currently they have two permits for two
signs, and obviously one is built. But they do need the variance to
build the other signs.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But my question is -- and
I guess, Ray, can you put up again the here's what we're allowed and
here's what we want to do picture?
Okay. The one on the left is allowed to be built today by right.
Once we approve these, which are essentially spacing requirements
and things, does the one on the left disappear, that right?
MS. GUNDLACH: The one on the left would disappear.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, I'm looking at Page 8 of
10, Nancy, Item F. And let me say at the outset that I don't find
anything negative about what we're dealing with here, but you
answered yes to the question that's posed. And under item four speaks
to, you know, identification and sufficient information about the
occupants and products and services available. But it effectively
negates the argument that you're trying to make in support of it, it
would think.
I know you're constrained to using what's available to you, but I
wonder if you want to modify that in some other fashion. I don't know
Page 75
May 15,2008
that it conveys what you are advocating.
MS. GUNDLACH: We can remove that item. That's not a
problem.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My only thought, maybe I'm not
giving you adequate guidance, I'm sorry. What I'm saying to you is
that if this commission agrees that this is a good thing to do, Item F
might jump out at somebody and say well, wait a minute, it doesn't do
what the intent of the ordinance -- I mean, the revised ordinance might
be applicable, but not to the LDC. That's all I'm relating to.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We'll work on
the language.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You understand what I'm getting
at?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I understand. Answering the question F
appropriately.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
Then the other question, I thought it went without saying, but of
course nothing does go without saying, you have to verify that the
signs on the left, as in the prompter there, have to be supplanted by
this. In other words, they're not going to be there at all, it has to be in
the record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, Ray, do we have any
public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing and
entertain a motion.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I will make a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'd like to make a motion that we
Page 76
May 15,2008
forward Petition SV-2008-AR-12943, the Collection at Vanderbilt, for
approval, subject to staff recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We thought you were finished.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We got a second?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you second it?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I sure did, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to make a further
comment that the sign deviations like this that are meant for
variations. This is what our variation process should be for. This
betters our community in so many ways I cannot begin to articulate. In
fact, we should be encouraging this and discouraging the others.
So I commend everybody for taking a good look at the
community and respecting it and doing something that is aesthetically
pleasing to our community. Thank you.
MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess it's all in the eyes of the
beholder, though, isn't it.
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Amen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll call for the vote. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
Page 77
May 15,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you.
Now it's 11 :00 and we have learned from the past that if we don't
take a break at lunch and have lunch that it's not a good thing. I'm not
sure how long this next one will take, but I want to forewarn
everybody that if it goes -- getting by about 11 :45, if it doesn't look
like we're going to wrap it up, we will be taking a lunch break and
coming back after lunch.
Item #9C
PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR-9143. STANDING OAKS. L.L.c.
So with that, the next petition is PUDZ-2006-AR-9143. It's the
Standing Oaks, LLC at 6473 Standing Oaks Lane and 6400 and 6565
14th Avenue NW.
All those wishing to participate in this hearing, please rise and be
sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the planning
commission?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich on the
phone the other day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and Mr.
Mulhere, had a meeting with them over issues I'll go over issues today
with. Talked to the president of the civic association, Karl Fry. And
then -- okay, Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I had a discussion with Mr.
Y ovanovich also.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As did 1. I had a discussion
Page 78
May 15, 2008
with Mr. Y ovanovich on some questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard, since you have an
incomplete packet, do you want to continue or -- do you want to
continue to another meeting or do you want to go on today?
You don't have any black bear management plan in your packet
and we were just told that we have to find those in all the packets, so
COMMISSIONER CARON: Scared him to death.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll go forward, if that's okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll try to get through it here today.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about the manatee?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we do have one of those, don't we?
Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of
the applicant. With me today are a whole host of people who can
answer any questions you may have.
But hopefully I will go over it briefly and hoping your staff
report answers most of your questions. I have Chris Allen, who is one
of the members of the LLC.
And Mr. Strain, you asked me if there were any others when we
met. And yes, his wife Carolyn Allen is also a member of the LLC.
They are the two owners of the LLC.
Bob Mulhere from RW A, Dwight Nadeau from RW A and
Emilio Robau from RW A to answer any planning or engineering
related questions. Jason Hunt from Passarella and Associates to
answer any environmental questions. And Reed Jarvi to answer any--
from Vannasse and Daylor to answer any transportation related
questions.
On the visualizer is the location map for the 41-acre site that
we're requesting to rezone from agricultural to a residential PUD. As
you can see, on the right-hand side 41 acres is just south of the Malibu
Lakes PUD, which is a mixed use PUD of both residential and
commercial. The density on that is five units per acre.
Page 79
May 15,2008
To the east ofthe project is the Oakes residential community.
And you can see Oakes Boulevard on the visualizer on the right. To
the south of the shaded area, a portion of that, right here, that 12 acres
was part of the original request, and that's been deleted. It's been sold
to FDOT for the I-75 improvements. So that's basically a lake that will
be to our south.
And then across I-75 to the west is Wilshire Lakes.
We're requesting 164 units on the 41 acres. That's a density of
four units per acre. I'll put up the master plan.
I just want to point out a few things on the master plan. There
are two points of access to the site. And this is Shady Oaks Lane. And
this is Standing Oaks Lane that come off of, basically, Oakes
Boulevard. And internally, as you can see, there's a loop road.
While I have the master plan up there, I'll point out a couple of
other things.
We worked extensively with the Oaks community, Mr. Fry, Bob
Walker and Noah Standridge in particular, to design the site and
include improvements that they thought were necessary to benefit the
neighborhood.
You can see a shaded area on the master plan that's 140 feet
wide, and that -- in that area we have agreed to limit the building
heights to two stories not to exceed 35 feet zoned height. And I
believe it's 50 feet or 45 feet actual, actual height. So that's on the
master plan as you can see right there.
We have our preserve to the north that's about eight-and-a-half
acres. It abuts the Malibu Lakes preserve, so we worked with your
environmental staff to arrive at that location.
We've also agreed to a six to eight-foot wall/berm combination
along our southern boundary, which is here. And our eastern boundary
-- try and make sure I got my directions -- here, the PUD actually
allows for a deviation to go to nine feet. So that nine-foot wall will
actually be greater than what was requested by the Oaks community.
Page 80
May 15,2008
And all that's in your PUD document.
We were also asked to address traffic concerns that the
community had on Oakes Boulevard. All of this is in your
information, but I've highlighted the intersections that we've agreed to
improve. We were obviously required to improve Shady Oaks and
Standing Oaks because those are the accesses to our property.
We were asked to also improve the three other intersections you
see there on the map. And that is Burr Oaks Lane, Hidden Oaks Lane
and Golden Oaks Lane. We will be doing some additional
improvements and median improvements and deflections in the
roadway as you're traveling south, with the goal of slowing traffic as it
uses Oakes Boulevard.
So those are traffic calming devices that are occurring through
our project. And that's all listed in your exhibits in your PUD
document.
And they'll be landscaped in accordance with, you know, the
input of the Oaks community, as well as your transportation
department when it comes time to actually construct those
improvements.
We further agreed -- and let me stick with Oaks for a second.
We've been told by Bob Walker and others that since Logan has
opened there's been a decrease in traffic on Oakes already. So that's
been one positive impact of Logan.
I believe with the removal of the traffic light at Immokalee
Road, that will probably further reduce the cut-through traffic on
Oakes. So that in combination of the traffic calming improvements
we've agreed to, that should greatly improve the neighborhood and
more than offset the impact of our project in the area.
We have further agreed for -- with your transportation
department, and I'm sure that Mr. Strain will be happy that this has
already been resolved, is we've agreed to no Certificates of Occupancy
until a couple of transportation improvements are completed.
Page 81
May 15,2008
One is the substantial completion of the six-Ianing of Vanderbilt
Beach Road. And the second is the substantial completion of the I-75
interchange at Immokalee and I-75. So there will be no CO's until
those improvements are substantially complete.
What I'd ask is just to confirm, because I believe this to be true,
but I want it on the record in the minutes, and since that is something
that's a requirement of our PUD, that is a government regulation for
purposes of when the sunset clock starts, so that our five-year sunset
period doesn't start until the governmental agencies complete their
road improvements. Because those could be a year or two out and we
would hate to lose two of our five years for the sunsetting related to
that. And I just want to confirm that that's still the rules and
regulations since the sunset provision has been modified in the Land
Development Code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the -- ifI understand the question
correctly, you're saying the time clock doesn't start because of
government inaction for road improvements?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the PUD will limit when we can
actually get our COs, and it's tying it to two road projects. I just want
to make sure that our five years doesn't start now because I really can't
do any CO's until the road is done, and that probably will decide when
we start our site improvements and work related to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't it be more applicable if it was
contingent upon not when the COs were held up due to whatever
length of time it was for the roads to be completed.
Because let's say you start now with your project but the roads
wouldn't be completed for three years but your project gets done in
one year. You have a two-year window in which you're not going to
be able to do anything because the roads are not completed. So you'd
have a two-year stay on your sunsetting provision. But the one year
you gain from the actual on-site work isn't part of that stay period.
Page 82
May 15,2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, if we elect to do -- I would
understand if we elect to do site work prior to completion of the road.
Then perhaps we should factor than in. But we may wait because who
knows, as you've pointed out, Mr. Strain, on other occasions, when the
improvements will be done.
We're more comfortable with Vanderbilt Beach Road. But the
I-75 interchange, we may wait. I'd hate to wait until it's completed and
then all of a sudden we've factored in, well, you could have potentially
started sooner with your site work. So I'd like to tie it to that event.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, zoning manager
with zoning and land development review.
And it's my opinion that the proposed language would fly in the
face of the purpose of the creation of the sunset provisions in that we
want to take a look at projects at the end ofthe five-year period to see
ifthere's going to be consistency or concurrency problems with the
transportation element, for example. And that's the purpose of
restricting the COs in the first place.
I don't think the purpose of deviations is not to deviate from a
process that's already established in the Land Development Code, and
those criteria and provisions in the LDC cannot be deviated from. Like
a development standard such as road right-of-way width. I don't know
if we have the ability to deviate from the sunset provisions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the county attorney's perspective,
if you've got a project that's moving forward and you can't get its final
approval due to a government inaction, there is a provision in our code
that stays the time period for that government inaction interfering with
that project.
I think the difference here is the project could be started but not
occupied --
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- due to government inaction, would it
still apply. And if it does, then we don't seem to have a problem. But
Page 83
May 15,2008
he needs acknowledgement of that on the record. Is that a fair
statement?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, it's the government regula --
nobody's going to build a house today knowing that it may be three
years before he can occupy it. And we should -- I mean, why be
subjected -- I'm not asking for a deviation, I'm asking for confirmation
that the PUD is the government regulation that is tolling the start of
the five-year clock. That's all I'm asking for.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'd make that request probably before the
Board of County Commissioners than this body, quite frankly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what this body could do is,
depending on how the whole thing comes down today, if there's a
recommendation of approval, it could be with the -- to forward it on
with that consideration to the BCC and let them, because they're the
body that actually makes the law here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. But it's been brought forward
before in front ofthe planning commission and you have always said
that makes sense. So if that's the proper approach, that's fine with us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go forward and we will see with
where that comes out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's one recommendation from the
Parks and Recs department. I talked to Mr. Smith and -- about our
providing a child playground, and we don't want to make that a PUD
condition. We think that that should be a condition of whatever the
developer decides is the appropriate amenities to provide for the
residents that will live there.
I think Mr. Smith was saying that was just a recommendation
and just because you didn't follow it didn't mean that staff was now
recommending denial. But you can confirm that with Mr. Smith when
you have a chance.
I believe we've addressed all of the concerns of the neighbors.
We appreciate the time and efforts of Mr. Walker, Mr. Fry and Mr.
Page 84
May 15,2008
Standridge to work with us in addressing their concerns.
I think Mr. Standridge is here to speak on behalf of the
community, but they've already written the letter saying as long as
everything that's in their letter is in the PUD they're okay. And the
PUD to my knowledge includes all their concerns.
When I was speaking to Commissioner Caron, she had one
question about the wall on I -75. We had asked for a deviation to get to
12 feet in height on that wall, and she asked me would we be willing
to construct it as a sound attenuation wall. And the answer to that
question is yes, we would be willing to construct that so it has -- so it's
constructed like a sound attenuation wall.
But I want you to understand that to be a true sound attenuation
wall that wall would need to be, a bermed wall combination would
need to be somewhere between 18 to 20 feet in height.
We asked for the deviation of 12 feet because we thought that's
probably what we could get through the process. We would be willing
to go to the 18 to 20 feet to do the true sound attenuation wall, if that's
something that the planning commission believes is appropriate. But
we don't want to delay our process.
I didn't know the answer your question about the height until we
talked about it. And that's why for the first time I recognized it's 18 to
20 feet to get to the -- because it's got to get you above I-75, and I-75
is six feet above our site. So you really need to be 13 to 14 feet of
height above the crown of the road to be a true sound attenuation wall,
as far as FDOT and the other agencies are concerned.
The EAC recommended approval of the project. Your staff is
recommending approval of the project. We don't know of any
objections to the project, and will hope that the planning commission
can also forward our petition to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation of approval as well.
And I and anybody else on the team is here to answer any
questions you may have regarding the overall project.
Page 85
May 15,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, back to the sound
attenuation wall. My concern is that these buildings, and they will
probably be the multi-family buildings that end up against 75, and
they are to be 40 feet high, and they'll be not much more than 35 feet
away from 75 -- from your property line, which then gets --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: From the property line.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, from your property line,
excuse me -- then whatever property is there on the edge of 75. But
this is a road that's going to end up being at some point 10 lanes. And
my concern was for the people who live there. I just wanted to make
sure that they got as much protection as possible. And the petitioner is
obviously willing to do whatever it takes to make it right for the
people who are going to live there, so I think we should take him up
on it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. There is some discussion
in the report about possible impact on the Vineyards Elementary
School. Do you have any comments relative to that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll have to address those concerns
when it comes time for the permitting of the project. But I also believe
the report said that a new school was going to be opening up, or
redistricting was going to occur to relieve some of that concern with
the Vineyards.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So the project would not go
ahead if the corrections are not made?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll be subject to whatever the
concurrency requirements are in effect when we pull our building
permits. Did I say that right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, you've got a golden moment to
confer here, if you'd like.
MR. GREENWOOD: The understanding of the situation,
Page 86
May 15,2008
exactly correct. Concurrency has not been adopted or implemented
and we do have a rezoning with the new Mike Davis Elementary that
will create extra class use at the existing Vineyards school.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just heard the name. That's very nice. I
didn't know that we were planning that. Mike Davis Elementary.
Good, that's a good name.
Okay, Mr. Kolflat, is that all you had, sir?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, I had a couple more
questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: To the south is vacant land; is
that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir, that's going to be a pond for
FDOT. It's already there. The pond's already been built as part of the
widening.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: There will be no residential
units built there then.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, on the Table 1 in the report
there, under multi-family, it indicates that the maximum building
height will be four stories or 50 feet. But in the neighborhood
information meeting it said the maximum will be three stories and 40
feet. What is the discrepancy, and why is there a discrepancy?
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere.
Mr. Kolflat, that was discussed at the neighborhood information
meeting. But in several subsequent meetings and negotiations that we
had with the neighborhood as it related to limiting height within the
first 140 feet, what we have proposed is acceptable to the
neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So the neighborhood
information meeting notes in the report are not correct?
Page 87
May 15,2008
MR. MULHERE: No, they're correct. It was discussed that way
but there were subsequent meetings and subsequent discussions.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There was a request that we reduce the
height within the 140 feet. And the neighborhood representative said
in exchange for that we would go from three stories as we got further
away to four stories.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, neighborhood informational
meetings, how binding are the comments and commitments made at
those meetings?
MR. BELLOWS: We have traditionally referred projects back if
changes were made after the neighborhood information meeting. But
if they have follow-up meetings that staff has documented then and
find acceptable, then we note that for the record for the planning
commISSIon.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, you've had testimony that
something was settled after the meeting, so we know that the
compromise that Mr. Y ovanovich is talking about was after the
meeting.
We don't know if the same people that were in attendance at the
neighborhood information meeting were all privy and part of the
confirmation of this change that occurred after the meeting.
So now, based on that criteria, and I'm wondering how much
latitude and where the ambiguities exist by staff deciding whether or
not something is binding or not binding that's done before and after a
neighborhood informational meeting. And maybe we need legal
counsel on that, but --
MR. KLATZKOW: The purpose of the neighborhood
information meeting is so that the surrounding neighborhood is aware
of the scope of the project. If that scope of the project changes, I
would think we would want to go back to the public and advise them.
Now, whether that's a substantial change or insubstantial change
I think would differ. But if you're going to substantially change your
Page 88
May 15,2008
product or your development, I would think you would want to go
back. But that's a staff issue.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we've worked in good faith with
the representatives of the neighborhood, spent a lot of time with them.
And they went back to their membership and said here is the final
product, it could be -- this is what we got, this is the product that's
going to be built there.
I would hate to think that we spent all this time in vain and are
going to get continued, have to go back and hold another
neighborhood information meeting when we've met with the
representatives of the neighborhood to reach this agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will note, Richard, that representatives
of the neighborhood, the Oaks Advisory Board, do not represent the
entire neighborhood. And there are people out there that have separate
positions on this possibly than what the Oaks Advisory group may
have. I was told that point blank.
And I'm not disputing whether or not your thing is correct to ask
for or not, I'm just wanting to make sure that there's full disclosure to
the public and it was done appropriately.
And I guess now the county attorney says it's staffs discretion to
determine that. Of course, it's our discretion to limit it and then let the
BCC expand it through a public hearing if they want to.
Go ahead.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I did talk to Nancy Gundlach, who is the principal planner
assigned to this, and it was our staffs opinion that there was adequate
follow-up meetings with the homeowners association representatives
that staff did not require a second NIM to be held.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We will go on from there. We
can always decide what to do during discussion of our position with
this board.
Okay, Mr. Kolflat, did you have any more?
Page 89
May 15,2008
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was a good catch, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Attachment four is a letter from
Oakes Estates Advisory, Incorporated, and it indicates certain
requirements that they wanted in writing and recorded as part of the
PUD document. Are you familiar with that letter?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Are you concurring with all of
the statements that they have made and that they will be provided?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're all in the PUD already.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. That's all I had,
Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray, I think you were
next.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just really out of curiosity, is
Vanderbilt Beach Road the road that's being projected to go way out
east? Is that the road?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Eventually.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Eventually. And you're willing
to wait until that's substantially completed before you begin this
project?
Because my question is to where do you want the road to end
substantially complete?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just that small piece where it connects
with Oakes. But we meant it in the segment that's under construction
right now.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that needs to be stated,
otherwise you might fall right into a little bit of a snapper here.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarification, are we talking about
the piece between Immokalee Road and 951 -- not Immokalee Road--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it would be Livingston Road and
951, wouldn't it?
Page 90
May 15,2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think the answer to that question
is it does run that far. I don't know how they broke it up, to be quite
honest with you. It's the --Airport to 951 ? That's fine. Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is all being done at the same
time.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What will this project be doing
for affordable housing in the county?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't have any special commitments
to affordable housing. We will be governed by the county's existing
and future regulations that apply to affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Would you be willing to make a
voluntary contribution as in the past projects have been doing?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If it's truly voluntary, sure. We'd be
happy to go back, think about what we think is an appropriate way to
address affordable housing, and we'll do it outside of the county and
deal with it that way.
My understanding is there's been concern expressed from the
county itself about what is the appropriate way to address affordable
housing. So I think the county has left that to the private developer to
deal with that side of the PUD process.
Am I correct, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: And I think at this point in time, whatever
ordinance or resolution comes out of this will not refer to any
voluntary commitment. It's either voluntary or it's not.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But you're not willing to make a
commitment now?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Mr. Midney, the issue is this: IfI
voluntarily commit, like everybody else, what I'm being told is the
Page 91
May 15, 2008
new law that comes out says I get no credit against for voluntary
commitment against any required fee that may come about.
That is, all the previous voluntary commitments, and I've been
involved in very many of them, have said that whatever we pay is a
credit against whatever is adopted.
And I think what I'm hearing is there's no guarantee that that's
what the law is going to say, so we need to take a step back, I think
that's what the commission has basically said, take a step back and
let's work this through an ordinance or resolution that's formally
adopted by the government to say this is how we're going to deal with
affordable housing.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And whether or not Mr. Y ovanovich makes
that commitment is of no bearing. If they do it, they do it, if they don't,
they don't.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When will the new law or
ordinance be developed?
MR. KLATZKOW: There is none that's presently scheduled to
go before the board.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So now everything is just sort of
in a gray area and we don't know how long it's going to last?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, there's no gray area. At this point in
time the county does not have an affordable housing -- a required
affordable housing commitment.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And if we have nothing that's
committed, why then have we said that every prior agreement will not
be given a credit towards what eventually does become ordinance?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think the bottom line, sir, is that the
economy changed on us. And that what happened two years ago when
home prices were half a million and 600,000 and even more than that
is a different reality from what is happening today when homes are
under foreclosure and affordable housing at this point in time in many
people's eyes is no longer a pressing issue.
Page 92
- .._-----~-~,_._----_.,-----~-"_.._._'_.~--_. -.
May 15,2008
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: As I said in another hearing, I
think that it's more of a pressing issue now than it was before, simply
because people's ability to borrow and people's earning power is less.
So I would make that just -- statement on the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of
the app -- Mr. Schiffer, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, my concern really is on
I-75. Obviously the best image, when you're on 75 -- and Donna's
right, on the property line there's a problem too, is the vegetation.
Malibu Lakes did a good job. I think they put their preserve along 75.
We're not doing that. We're actually putting a 20 feet buffer and then
we're sliding the residential up against it, probably the multi-family.
Donna's right. So there could be four stories, 20 feet right up against
75.
And I have two problems with that: One, because it looks bad.
Two -- I mean, I'm not going to talk that long, you don't have to sit --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think I know your question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He was watching earlier, Brad.
(Laughter. )
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, just to cut to the
chase, whenever sound walls are put up, that used to be a way to
mitigate a problem that a neighborhood had because the road got too
close. So here we're jumping right to the problem and designing our
buildings right up against the road.
So I guess my first question is why was the preserve not run
down 75? And I think the image of these projects along 75 to 75 is an
important part of it.
And could we limit the multi-family on that western boundary? I
know you've limited it on the eastern. Maybe -- and again, it goes
back -- you know, we start all these off, PUDs are creative, we start
these off honoring the community character plan. But we're not doing
anything creative or honoring any community character plan.
Page 93
May 15,2008
So maybe -- you know, there's nothing wrong with the density
that I have, but it's just that the fear is if you could put a building up
against that road, we have limitation on the length of the building.
You want to put them 12- foot together, so I think fire department
access is going to limit your building, whether you like it or not. But
essentially we could have a 900-foot, four-story, you know -- I don't
want to use Fort Dix again, because this will be worse than that.
So can you describe what we could do to the edges on 75?
And Donna's right, if you're a kid in the bedroom on the fourth
floor of that, you're going to hear noise constantly.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, unfortunately on this site there
wasn't much native vegetation, it was all on the north part of the
property, so I didn't have the luxury of Malibu Lakes to configure the
preserve area to use it as a buffer for I -7 5. So we kind of have the site
the way we have the site, from -- and which, you know, addresses how
we would ultimately lay it out because of the preserve area being
where the preserve area is.
We're going to have to factor in and look at, from a market
standpoint at some point, what product will be there. This is -- if we
can't build a marketable four-story building over there, then we'll have
to look at maybe reducing the height there from a market standpoint.
But right now the site's -- the site is what the site is. And to be
able to do that, you know, possibly -- you know, three stories for a
distance back instead of four stories. Would that -- would that assist,
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think the problem -- first
of all, you want a deviation so you can build the wall and protect --
and your justification is protect yourself from the sound. So why don't
we do this naturally.
In other words, the statement you introduced is, you're right, this
site is somewhat neutered from any natural vegetation, so it's up to us
to put it back wherever we want it. So if we did put it back along 75,
Page 94
May 15,2008
benefit number one is it looks better from 75.
Benefit number two is it starts to really break the sound up.
Vegetation breaks the sound up better than any wall is going to do it.
So the point is that -- and you're making it sound like this is a
fait accompli, the design of this. But, you know, this is a creative
process. People could design this site a lot of different ways, and they
don't have to have units smack up against that property line.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we have a couple of issues. The
one that comes to mind immediately is your comprehensive plan. I've
got to meet the preserve requirements of your comprehensive plan. So
I can't -- if I were to replant, which I think is prohibitively expensive
to make it go back to the way it was, but even if I could, I think I've
got a compo plan issue because I no longer am preserving the native
vegetation that's required under the comprehensive plan.
And I frankly don't want to deal with that issue, going back
through your staff review, going back to the EAC and having to deal
with all of that because of that issue of monkeying with the preserves
that the comprehensive plan says I've got to do, and your LDC.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess I'll talk to Barbara when
she comes up. I mean, if there is things that we're trying to preserve on
this site, that would make sense, maybe. But to me I really think that --
first of all, that's a natural way to protect your residents, so why you
would run from that idea, I don't know.
And secondly, even throughout Lee County, I can see they're
pushing multi-family stuff away. There would be nothing worse than
to have the back of a high-rise building up against this highway.
MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to add -- for the record, Bob
Mulhere.
If you look on the visualizer, Malibu Lakes is right here. I'm
familiar -- we all are, we drive I-75 pretty regularly. I don't recall if
there's a wall there. I don't think there is. I do know that you can see
through that vegetation, and that vegetation is fairly sparse between
Page 95
May 15,2008
Malibu Lakes and I - 7 5.
I know I was out there on-site several times. I don't believe
there's any sound attenuation on Malibu Lakes, okay.
We're proposing, in accordance with Commissioner Caron's
suggestion, to do some sound attenuation. But given the configuration
of the site, I don't believe there's any flexibility relative to that native
vegetation. It's in place where staff really wanted it to because there's
a preserve, I believe, on the south side of Malibu Lakes and the compo
plan wants preservation to be, you know, adjacent to other
preservation areas.
And so we really have limitations. The one, I think, option that
we could reasonably commit to has already been put on the record,
which is the sound attenuation wall, if we can get the height, coupled
with a reduced height adjacent to I-75 to three stories.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My opinion is, when you see a
community with sound attenuation walls, that's their retreat, that's a
failure that the development is too close to the highway.
So for us to go right there is bizarre. We have the ability now to
lay this out in such a way that we don't need a sound attenuation wall.
There is walls within the -- and I think even Malibu Lakes, within
their preserve area.
The other thing too is Malibu Lakes isn't four stories. Malibu
Lakes, we're seeing roof lines within the vegetation.
Anyway, my concern is, and I think we should discuss it, is up
against the edge of 75. I can move on to the development table.
MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to add one more item. This is an
actual document from HDR's design for I-75.
And I will have to say that I don't know exactly where they're
installing sound attenuation walls, but within the improvement that is
currently under construction there will be several sound attenuation
walls based on federal and state requirements.
So, you know, we're going to have them.
Page 96
May 15,2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's sad. You're making
that sound like a good thing, but that's a bad thing.
MR. MULHERE: I'm not making it sound good or bad. We're
trying to address the concerns that are here. And, you know, I-75 is
going to be a six-lane and 10-lane -- maybe eventually a lO-lane
roadway within the existing road right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we move on then too or --
yeah, I'll be quick, Mark, then maybe let's go to break time.
Rich, on the charts, you know I'm going to want to try to push
for 20 feet between the buildings. The reason is that that still allows
fire department access. You cut that down to 12 feet, which you want
to do, that means that the type of construction you build is going to
have to be increased for the size of your buildings. The fire
department would then not have access to the back -- well, it doesn't
matter anyway, especially on 75, you won't be able to go down it. But
would you like to rethink that greater of 12?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Brad, if the applicants keep coming
forward wanting less feet between buildings, and they're willing to
build the better buildings to get there, why do we care? Why don't we
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not better, it's an unsafe
situation for firefighting. You're right, they will have to increase the
type of construction to offset this problem.
But first of all, our building department isn't exactly scoring 100
percent on the review of plans with this problem.
Anyway, that's fine. You know, they can joyously take, put two
multi-family buildings 12 feet apart, that's their decision.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Remember, that's a minimum. We have
the option to do exactly what you're saying when we go through the
actual site development plan.
And I would assume, if that -- the builder says you know what, I
-- the tradeoff of the type of construction being more than 20 feet apart
Page 97
May 15,2008
for buildings is better for the builder than the type of construction to
have them a little bit closer, they'll be able to do that and still take
advantage of the savings you're talking about.
This table doesn't say it has to be 12 feet. It says it can't be less
than 12 feet. And unless there's --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, here's what I'm trying to
prevent. Make it simple. You can do it. I'm not going to push it on this
one. But it's that what happens is these things are being built, I get a
phone call because the fire department noticed something that the
building department didn't notice, and the building -- and it's a
nightmare that these buildings get into because the designer of the site
plan is going to put his building 12 feet off of the other building as he
goes, because he's not going to know the building code requirements.
So I'm just trying to steer people clear of the rocks but, you
know --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron I think had one question.
And after her question, we need to talk about lunch.
Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: What is your requirement for
landscaping and berming and such along the 75 corridor?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe that -- I can't read that small
anymore, but I believe it's 20 feet -- I believe it -- I think it's 20 feet
landscape -- minimum width landscape buffer is 20 feet.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And the wall that we're talking
about would be to the outside of that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would be within that 20 feet, on top of
a berm. So that's how we would achieve the 12 feet or whatever
number we settle on as the height of the wall. With landscaping,
obviously, on the exterior and interior of the wall.
Page 98
May 15,2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're not going to get through
this by noon --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's do lunch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I don't know how much longer it will
take, so we probably need to take a lunch. Does that work with
everybody here?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can beat the crowd if we
leave now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifwe leave now we'll be back at
12:40. So why don't we take a lunch break and come back here at
12:40. Thank you.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from our
lunchtime, lunch break. Hopefully we'll wrap this up soon.
And before we left, we were being entertained by Richard, and
we'll just continue with that.
Does anybody have any further questions of the applicant?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm certain you do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have plenty of questions. I'm waiting
for everybody else to finish. So anybody else before I start?
Okay, Richard, we need to --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. On the issue of the park,
this project is intended to -- where's the sale point going to,
60-year-olds, 30-year-olds?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't know at this point what
marketing will be for the project as far as who mayor may not be
residents of the community.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you think a neighborhood
park is appropriate.
Page 99
May 15,2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We think that should be a decision for us
when we ultimately design the product and market to whomever we
decide to market to. We don't think it should be something mandated
by the county. We have a county impact fee for parks that we pay to
and the neighborhood parks like these are something that we should
decide to do if we want it as an amenity or not.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just checking with you for
consistency. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: When you got the
recommendation from the parks and recreation, was there any
qualification or relationship to age in this recommendation, age of the
residents?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, this is a pretty standard response
we're seeing from Parks and Rec over the last several years.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So they would have made that
for an elderly community as well as a lower --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think they've not made that
recommendation on the independent living facilities that we've
recently brought through. But for projects like this where there's no
age specified, they have not included that kind of recommendation.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. Ray, is this mic on?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, let's -- Richard, why
don't we go to my favorite, Table 1, development standards table.
Let's take a look at your patio homes and villas. You have a
minimum lot width of 25 feet, yet you have side yards of three or nine
feet, three on one side, nine on the other, so you have 12 feet. That
leaves you a 13-foot wide product. Are you really going to build a
13- foot wide -- is that what your intentions are?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think the better number should have
Page 100
May 15, 2008
been 35 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So minimum lot width would have been
35 feet. That would make a lot more sense.
Under the front yard setbacks, you had 20 feet, just like the
previous one. You want to add a footnote that it's 23 feet clear
sidewalks ifthere's a front entry garage?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can do that. That's code anyway but
we'll add that footnote to the table.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, is it? Ray, did that actually get in
the code?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought it was.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it is in the code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they have it in the PUD as 20 feet,
doesn't that then replace the code?
MR. BELLOWS: That would be. But it would have to be
presented as a deviation, otherwise I think we could call it a
scrivener's error.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just opened up another Pandora's
box. I'd rather we never get into a position where we've got a series of
scrivener's errors we have to go back and correct.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I agree. I think it would make more sense
to add it as a footnote so there's no ambiguity there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We talked about earlier under the
multi-family maximum building height, three stories and 40 feet. Do
you have any objection to that? Since that's what you provided at the
neighborhood information meeting.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Throughout the entire? Yeah. The issue I
have is what did we -- okay, that doesn't change the two-story one, 40.
I just wanted to make sure.
I hope with that compromise, hopefully that will address some of
the sound wall or sound attenuation issues with I-75. So yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll discuss the sound more as we go
Page 101
May 15,2008
on. But towards the bottom of that same page, you have maximum
building height for the accessories and actual and zoned, and that
happens to be the same as the regular.
What are you going to do on a single-family house with a
45-foot high accessory structure?
I mean, do you really -- what is the point of having them at the
same heights as your main structures? I haven't seen that before --
MR. MULHERE: Actually, I believe in the LDC when you look
at the accessory structure under building height, it says same as
principal structure in most cases. So I think it is that way. Like an
attached, screened enclosure, an accessory structure could be higher
than the principal structure and often is, in a single-family or a villa.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You say that's pursuant to the Land
Development Code?
MR. MULHERE: I believe it is, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know then why we need those
last two lines?
MR. MULHERE: Because they're always asked for. We
wouldn't be standing before you today if we didn't put those in there.
You'll see that it is different when you get to multi-family.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yes, the multi-family, yeah, I see
that.
MR. MULHERE: I'm just saying under those single, usually it's
typically single-story type products that the accessory structure -- the
one example that I think illustrates it is like a screened enclosure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you have a zoned height for a
screened enclosure versus an actual?
MR. MULHERE: You don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you do.
MR. MULHERE: Well, we wouldn't be standing before you if
we didn't put actual and zoned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But no, no, the zoning is for the
Page 102
May 15,2008
residential structure. How do you have zoning for a screen structure?
MR. MULHERE: I would agree, we could --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just say maximum
building height --
MR. MULHERE: We could eliminate the actual entirely and just
say maximum height, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. MULHERE: I would absolutely agree with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have a problem with that?
Ray, these changes to this page, you're making note slips so we
don't have to itemize them during a stipulation?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And staff is also taking notes. We may
want a clarification on it. I think I also want clarification on what
we're trying to accomplish here with --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With what?
MR. BELLOWS: With the maximum building height. We don't
want to list it for accessory structures?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, accessory structure doesn't
have -- let's open the conversation up again. Does an accessory
structure, assuming this is zoned residential, which it is, does the pool
then have a zoned height to it? And if it does, then does it have an
actual height or is it just what it is, since the zoning is not for a pool,
it's for a residential structure?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so do we need -- go ahead, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: There are some other examples, you know,
where obviously an accessory structure would have a height element
to it. Pool doesn't, but a --
MR. BELLOWS: A shed.
MR. MULHERE: -- a shed or storage, Chickee, you know,
something like that. It seems to me that -- but I agree with you that the
zoned and actuals really shouldn't apply, that the accessory structure
Page 103
May 15,2008
should in no case be higher than the zoned height of the principal
structure, okay, the zoned height--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand.
MR. MULHERE: -- which is lower of the two. So I think that it's
not necessary to have a maximum zoned and actual height for
accessory structures, but just to say that either it's the same as the
zoned height for principal structures or less than that in the case of --
MR. BELLOWS: I think I'm comfortable with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there really isn't a zoned height
for an accessory structure. It is what you're allowed to go to because
you're not zoning for an accessory structure, you're zoning for the
residential use. So the space between the ceilings of the residential use
or whatever we measure to is really what the zoning, I think, would
attribute itself to.
MR. BELLOWS: I think for an enclosure that's a valid
statement, but for separate and detached garages or sheds, a maximum
height could come into play for an accessory structure.
We could just leave as statements the LDC currently requires for
accessory structures and leave it blank in the PUD.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, you could do that if you could refer to
that. There's a section in the code that does provide for -- I'd want to
look at that and make sure it actually -- but we could do that.
My suggestion, I think you've made the right suggestion, is just
to put one measurable maximum height for accessory structures across
the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe label it maximum overall building
height, wouldn't that cover it then?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, it would.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that sound good to everybody?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Or you just footnote what you just
said, that nothing can be higher than the principal structure.
MR. MULHERE: Zoned height. That works, too. That works if
Page 104
May 15,2008
you don't mind doing that for multi-family where we actually limit it
more than that because those are taller buildings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think in that case if we leave this one
just for simplicity, drop the last line, take the word zoned off the one
above it and then just put maximum overall building height and then
leave the numbers.
MR. MULHERE: That works.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- I have another one and it's
about the preserve setback. You're asking it to be 10 feet. The way the
code reads, first of all, on your plot you should have a minimum of
25-foot setback from the boundary of such protected preserve area in
which no principal structure may be constructed.
Then it goes on and says no alteration, including the accessory
structures, fill placement, grading, plant alteration or removal or
similar activities shall be permitted within such setback areas without
the prior written consent of the county manager or his designee,
provided in no event should these activities be permitted in such
setback area within 10 feet of the protected preserve area boundary.
Now, as far as the prior written consent of the county manager or
his designee, is that what's accomplished by this being in the PUD? Is
that what you're getting to? So there's no deviation then needed to
section 10.02.04.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, there's no deviation?
MR. MULHERE: There's no deviation. IfI could, Mr. Strain, it
requires just one -- I'm sorry, because traditionally what you've raised
has sort of just surfaced to the top as an issue as to how that section is
applicable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I don't want to make another
mistake on another project.
MR. MULHERE: Right, and I understand that. And I can tell
you that staff has always, for at least three or four years, always
required 10- foot for accessory structures, 25 for principal for a
Page 105
May 15,2008
preserve setback.
The way that you read that, there is only -- the only way you can
get an exception from the 25- foot under the platting provisions of,
what is it, 10.0 --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 10.02.04.
MR. MULHERE: 10.02.04, is through written authorization of
the county manager or his designee.
And my position, somebody else can argue with me or take a
different position. My position would be that, yes, you are
accomplishing that through this process. And staff has no objection to
that application as we suggested.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does staff agree with that
conclusion so I know we're on the right path and we don't need
deviations?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifwe go to the notes to your
table, notes are always fun. First of all, note four and six are -- seem,
and I believe you concurred with me previously, those are identical, or
they say the same thing, so one of them can be dropped. You want to
drop four?
MR. MULHERE: (Nods.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you explain number two? I
know you can't, Richard, but maybe --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I could, but I'd confuse you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm already confused by trying to read it
many times and I can't figure out what you're trying to say there.
MR. MULHERE: Well, you know, it seems somewhat to me to
state the obvious, it says there's no side yards when the buildings are
attached.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Do you need to say that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is the one that came up with the
townhomes. If you have an attached single-family product, if you
Page 106
May 15,2008
don't say there's no setback, we've gotten the interpretation before that
you've got to meet the building setback.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So would you say you have zero
setback?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have zero for that, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you look on the table under minimum
side yard for single-family attached and townhouse, it says zero feet or
six feet.
Now, the way I would read that, it would be zero on one side,
and six on the other.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But if you have three together--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, zero--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- it would be zero, zero -- keep going
zero, zero, zero, zero until you get to the end of the building, and then
it would be the six feet.
MR. MULHERE: And this occurs all the time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine.
MR. BELLOWS: That's why we also are now requiring the
typical layouts, and the applicant has provided some excellent
examples of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll get into that too.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We're talking about attached
product, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. If you were doing a townhome
product with four townhomes in one building, the zero over six doesn't
really work. You have to get to the end before you can get to the six.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, number three, I was trying to
look at the Figure 1 you have on that page, and basically what you're
saying is in order for you to retain the setback of a single story, if you
have a two-story, it's got to be at least 15 feet back into the building; is
that correct?
Page 107
May 15,2008
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hard to see, but I understand it.
And this will move to your -- on your figure, says Figure 2. Bob,
I don't know who does the scaling in your office. You're an
engineering firm.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, these -- I mean, part of the problem,
Mr. Strain, these were not done to scale and they should have been
noted that way. But I don't think that doesn't address your whole
concern, as I understand it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, what I wanted to comment on, for
example, look on the top on Figure 2, it says 10 feet and it shows to
the accessory structure, and the 10 feet is somewhat less than the 25
feet.
MR. MULHERE: Right, right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you look at the one below, the 10
feet is as much as the 25 feet above, and it just -- I don't mean -- I
don't expect these to be to scale, but they might want to reflect a little
closer that dimension is not the same when it says 10 and 25 feet.
MR. MULHERE: I agree with you 100 percent. And we actually
went back and made some revisions. We didn't change anything
substantive, but we did -- I need this mike, I'm sorry -- but we did go
ahead and make some notations and change the lengths of those lines
so that where it says lO-foot, the line is proportional to the 25-foot.
And we also labeled them as accessory to preserve setback and
principal to preserve setback.
So we're going to get with staff probably right after this meeting,
tomorrow or Monday and make sure that they're comfortable with the
changes we've made. But I think those are consistent with what
concerns you raised.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yup, that covers -- really, that's the
same situation I had on most of the pages, so that covers them all.
Ifwe turn to your Exhibit C. And there's a reference further in
Page 108
May 15,2008
this document about this in the text, but I want to bring it up as, first of
all, starting with the exhibit.
Along the Standing Oaks Lane entrance to your tract you have a
little note, it says proposed 40-foot by 50-foot county well easement.
Do you have any objection if that's only provided as long as there's
impact fee credits issued to you? Is that a hard one to come up to
accept?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Take some time.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What has happened as we've been
evolving on this and since the planning commission has started to
raise this concern, I believe the utilities department has -- you don't
have any argument from me, but you might from your utilities
department.
I think they have acquiesced to that we need to be paid either
through impact fee credits or cash the fair market value of the
easement area.
So I think that kind of a revision, should you want to put that in
your motion, would be okay with the utilities department. It's certainly
okay with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then I would suggest that we
include also that if parks and recreation insists or there happens -- is a
park required to be provided, that the same impact fees would be
credited as well.
On the other hand, if you want to put one in on your own, that's
a whole different story. But if it's a requirement, I think that
government ought to step up to the plate and pay for it, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on page F-7.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, I just thought of something
with the -- if they force us to do one and then give us impact fee
credits, I can no longer have my gates. Because if I'm giving impact
Page 109
May 15,2008
fee credits would that not mean that now become a public
neighborhood park?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You could always make the option of
not accepting impact fee credits.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I don't want to be where they're in a
position of forcing me to do this in lieu of it being our decision.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure we can do--
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It's still a
condition staffs going to carry forward and it's up to the board to
decide whether it's going to be provided or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think you can give impact fee credits
for this anyway because the impact fees -- this is not going to be a
regional park or community park. This is a -- I don't know if you can
call it park quite frankly. I don't think you can use impact fees for this
sort of thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about paying the appraised value
of the property if it's required. Because unfortunately what happens is
we go around making everybody put these in but then we do the
AUIR each year, we don't count them as parks, so now the taxpayers
are paying for additional parks. It just doesn't make any sense the
methodology used to exact these.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think the Board of County Commissioners
has a policy decision to make here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At this point one's not in, so I don't
mind dropping the request for impact fee credits.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it's my understanding, Mr. Strain,
this is not a requirement, this is a recommendation from Parks and
Recs. So they're basically saying we think you ought to have one but
if you choose not to have one, that's okay, too. But you can check with
your parks and rec.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the environmental section, Item
Page 110
May 15,2008
C, it seems like the EAC wants a brief report, including photographic
evidence that generally describes the activity of a gopher tortoise
inhabiting the preserve tract -- of the gopher tortoise.
So someone has to go out there and watch this turtle walk
around, write down what he does, take a picture of him and send it to
the chairman of the EAC. Is that a provision in our Land Development
Code? Do you know what purpose it was supposed to serve?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know it's not a provision of your Land
Development Code. I think the purpose from the chairman's
perspective was to maybe study what the impact of site clearing might
be on the activities of gopher tortoises.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And do you know if the chairman of the
EAC has expertise in gopher tortoise habitat studies and items like
that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and it's not part of the LDC that I
know of.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not that I'm aware of either. But you can
check with staff when you're done --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I might want to pass that by. Thank you.
That's the ones I have for now, Richard.
Yes, sir, Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, going to Table 1 again. The
minimum rear yard setback is 15 feet. Would that be 15 feet away
from the 20- foot high sound attenuation wall?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we have a landscape buffer of 20
feet, and the wall will be within that 20-foot buffer, I imagine on a
berm, so it would be somewhere towards the center of that 20 feet, I'm
guessing. Am I right, Mul? So let's just call it the center for purposes
of our discussion.
So that would be about 10 feet plus 15 feet. So that wall would
be about 25 feet from the structure.
Page 111
May 15,2008
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It seems if you're having a
20-foot high wall 25 feet away from the back wall of your house, it
would be kind of dark, unattractive.
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, what height did you say for the
wall ?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Weren't we talking 20 feet?
MR. MULHERE: It won't have -- it won't actually be -- because
it's going to be a berm. So the wall itself is not going to be 20 feet, I
mean, we haven't designed what in combination. The wall itself may
actually be less. It's the wall and berm in combination. So if you did a
six-foot berm, you would have a 14-foot wall. That would achieve
your 20 feet of sound attenuation.
Now, you could put a 20-foot wall in there, but I doubt that that's
going to -- I think it's going to be a wall and berm combination. And
again, we haven't designed it yet. And that's a minimum. If you look at
the site plan --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's 20 feet tall, regardless, is his
comment. And he believes that that may make it a little dark in the
backyard. At a certain point of the day it will, you know, when the sun
gets below a certain level there's going to be shade in the backyard.
MR. MULHERE: But what I wanted to point out is that that's
only in this location here, really. Everywhere else you actually have
more than that. Because this is the 20-foot landscape buffer right here.
And you can see you actually have more depth in here. So really the
only point that's actually that close is right there.
So that may have to be an issue that we deal with during design.
Fifteen is a minimum. It may need to be more there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, one question. When you
answered Paul, you said that you would measure that setback from the
buffer. Wouldn't you measure it from the property line?
For example, that sketch that you had up there and it shows
Page 112
May 15,2008
Tract A, would the back -- would the perimeter of Tract A be a
property line?
MR. MULHERE: Property line would be right here. You would
measure --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go into the center of the bow
with that.
MR. MULHERE: You would measure the setback from right
here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that will be a platted line.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will be a hard line. You won't have a
dashed landscape buffer easement within the lot, that was your
question, right?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So what is that area
between the buffer and the thing, that will be common property?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page B-5, in the multi-family
you show a screened porch. Would that be essentially if you built a
mid-rise building and you had, you know, porches on the back of them
and screening, you would be measuring then to the face of the porch.
In other words, the accessory building makes sense in the
single-family because it tends to be a -- it's more obvious. But in most
multi-story buildings you would have a porch on the back of it or --
MR. MULHERE: A screened lanai. Typically that doesn't
extend out beyond the principal portion. It's the lanai that is within the
square box. But other portions of that square box are principals.
Typically you end up measuring the principal setback from that point.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the outside of that patio in a
multi-family would tend to be the principal structure, it's not to be
confused here with the screened porch.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, would staff catch that. In
other words --
Page 113
May 15,2008
MR. BELLOWS: We've been working with the applicant to
clarify that and we'll continue to work on that. But the purpose of
requiring these typicals is to help permitting staff figure out the
development standards.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But again, you heard what he
said about where he's going to be measuring the setbacks from the
outside face of the screened patio, which will not be considered an
accessory building.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that won't be a problem.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is on the
berm sketches, you have something there that's called improved grade
on the right hand sketch on option two. What is that versus existing
grade?
Is this site going to have to be raised before buildings can be
built on it or is it at a -- that may be --
MR. MULHERE: Yes. The site will need to be filled three, four
feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so on option two what
you're saying is that essentially the first floor will be at that improved
grade.
MR. MULHERE: Well, whatever the code requirement above
finished grade is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what's going to happen on
option one then?
MR. MULHERE: Well, option -- either way -- wait a minute, let
me just show you something. This would be the improved grade as far
as with fill. And so would this here. This term improved grade simply
is referring to the berm improved grade which is going to be on top of
the filled elevation of the site.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the term existing grade
means the final improved grade.
MR. MULHERE: Improved grade, yes.
Page 114
May 15,2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any other questions
of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we leave the deviation on the
wall, let's resolve what height and what wall we're talking about so
there's no question. I've heard a lot of different numbers spoken about.
There was a suggestion to do a sound attenuation wall. You didn't
seem to object to that. Is that in agreement with you guys?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're okay with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up to what height?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What I'm told, it needs to be in the range
of 18 to 20 feet, depending upon what the final elevation ofI -7 5 is.
You want to basically be 13 to 14 feet above the final elevation of
I-75. We think it's six feet above us. So you would need to be 20 feet
total as you measure it from the existing grade on our site. And that
would be a berm wall combination to that height.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, in deviation number two, you're
asking for a deviation to the fence language along I-75. Now you
really want to change that. You're going to be asking for a sound
attenuation wall up to 20 feet in height.
MR. MULHERE: Correct. This exhibit here where you see these
dimensions, this would --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand how those work--
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we just replace those with whatever
dimensions you approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure the language is
right. So deviation number two would change it's reference to fences
and heights to a sound attenuation wall not to exceed 20 feet in height.
MR. MULHERE: That's sound attenuation wall and earthen
berm in combination, or in combination with an earthen berm. So you
can either build a wall or you could build a wall with a berm. And if
Page 115
May 15,2008
you go with a berm it's not going to be as high as if you build it with a
wall -- is that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand. A combination
earthen berm and wall up to 20 feet in height.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are we just guessing here?
Does anybody know what we're talking about with the acoustics of
these walls?
First of all, here we're going to do 20 feet off of the property
line, easily visible from 75. We're going to put this 20-foot high wall,
essentially admitting defeat that we don't know how to design
otherwise to acoustically protect the people beyond the wall. That's a
horribly ugly wall. Now we're doing what people do in the inner city
to try to protect the road from -- the noise from a roadway.
MR. MULHERE: I can only add a couple things. One, yes, we
do know what we're talking about. In fact, we had some conversation
with our client, Chris Allen who's in the concrete business, who has
knowledge of what needs to occur to create sound attenuation of the
product.
As far as the height goes, we are basing it on the design
drawings for I-75, where they are putting in sound attenuation walls. It
could be less under this scenario. This is a maximum you're providing
us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I did it that way.
MR. MULHERE: And the other thing I would say is it's not
20-foot from the property line, it's a 20-foot landscape buffer. And I
think we can commit to you to put the wall, if it makes you feel better
about it, no closer than ten foot to the property line, which guarantees
you at least a 25- foot setback at a minimum from the structure to the
wall. And we could commit to landscape.
The other thing I wanted to add is, if you drive up and down I -75
Page 116
May 15, 2008
in Collier County, you're going to see numerous examples of berms
and walls with landscaping on the I-75 side. And we can certainly
commit to put the required landscaping on the I-75 side and then we
would be responsible for any supplemental landscaping that we want
to put on our project side to make it attractive for future residents.
So rather than splitting it up half and half, we can commit to put
all the landscaping on the outside of the wall and landscape our inside
in whatever way we deem is appropriate to make it marketable.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does anybody, and Ray, maybe
would staff, has anybody studied the wall? There is a lot of different
versions of walls up and down 75. Fortunately most of them are buried
within a wooded area and you really don't see a lot them of them.
Some of them are pretty drastic like Tuscany's, you know, Inca mound
I think is what's there. But do these things work?
What I'm saying, are we guessing on the wall? Are we doing the
best thing we can do to protect, first of all, the vision from 75 and also
the sound from people who will leave in this thing?
MR. BELLOWS: That's a good question. When the plans come
in and they're distributed to the various jurisdictional review staff,
they're looking at these standards and applying them to whatever
codes are in effect.
And I assume that the same way with the FDOT sound wall, that
they have some standards to compare it to and are approving it based
on those standards. And maybe Reed has some more information on
that, or transportation.
But my understanding is they review what's proposed in the
PUD document and make recommendations whether it should be
altered or not.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is we haven't gone
around and said, you know, the Tuscany works great, the--
MR. BELLOWS: Individually walls, I don't know of any study.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Reed, where are they putting
Page 117
May 15,2008
the other walls on 75 in the current design? Do you know where these
walls Bob's referring to are going to go?
MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi for the record. No, I don't exactly. You
mean what particular locations or where are they in relation to the
right-of-way?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where in town do the
communities need these walls?
MR. JARVI: The DOT, as part of the FHW A requirements, will
be doing studies or have done studies that will determine what places
need walls from data that is gathered in the field and then calculated.
And there are certain thresholds that they need to meet, and they'll do
the walls accordingly.
The designs typically are, as Rich said, 12, 14 feet above the
driving surface, in this case I-75. That's typical. They need to be of a
certain mass. Typically they're done in concrete. There have been
many ones done around the world trying alternative materials. But the
massiveness of concrete has been what's used mostly.
They can be a berm like Tuscany Reserve did. But as you can
imagine, that eats up an awful lot of land. And I suspect if you did the
berm of Tuscany Reserve, it would probably be about the time it hit
the land it would be at the canal that's to the east of us. So I suspect
that doesn't work in this case.
But they need to be at height because the sound travels, and what
happens with sound is as it hits any kind of barrier it actually deflects
down. So they need to be high enough to do that. And that's why they
need to be as high as they are.
They also typically will have some kind of roughness or
indentations on the outsides, because that's scatters the sound. So it
reflects some, absorbs some and then scatters it. So you don't want to
have a hard surface because that just reflects it and then you get a
canyon effect. You don't want to do that either.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Reed, since it is a traffic
Page 118
May 15,2008
accessory, do you have -- have you read studies or publications that
have had, you know, the studies of these? I mean, are you basing what
you're saying on any kind of an educational process?
MR. JARVI: Yes, I've read some documentation about them. I'm
not by any means an expert. You'd need to have an acoustical
engineer. I've actually talked to Michael Greene, who's in the back,
who has more experience than I in it. But from our discussions, I think
I've pretty much said -- he's not in the back, he's in back of me. I've
pretty much said what he said. He may have some more to add. I'll
defer to him.
MR. GREENE: Michael Greene, transportation planning.
Just the law of acoustics, to block out sound, it's mass. That's
what's going to keep the sound from getting from the roadside to the
residents.
Typically FDOT has noise walls in the ten to 16- foot range
above the travel way or above the roadway. So because they put their
noise walls to the outside of the right-of-way, you're seeing walls that
are 24 to 30 feet tall because they're down in swales.
It does need to be a variegated finish or hidden behind
landscaping to diffuse the noise so it's not reflected.
But Collier County follows the same sort of guidelines as FDOT
when we research whether a noise level is warranted or not, and that is
it must reduce the noise to the receptor site by five decibels or more
and it needs to be $42,000 per impacted receptor site or it doesn't meet
warrants and they won't put it up.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So how would you -- these are
multi-family buildings, essentially half, maybe more than half sticking
up above the wall. How would the wall help that?
MR. GREENE: You take the building and you count every
single unit that's in that building that faces the road, and that's
considered a receptor.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thank you, I'm
Page 119
May 15,2008
done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Mike.
Anybody else have any questions of the applicant before we go
to staff report?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, staff report, please. Mr. Richard,
you're here a lot but you're not staff.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just getting my stuff out of their way.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy
Gundlach, principal planner with zoning and land development
reView.
And staff is recommending approval of this PUD rezone AR No.
9143, Standing Oaks residential PUD.
And we are making a recommendation for approval with a
recommendation number one and a stipulation number two. And they
read as follows:
This first one is a recommendation number one, that the
developer will provide a 50-foot by 50-foot minimum CPSC and
ASTM certified commercial playground within the common area. The
playground will be operational before the issuance of any Certificate
for Occupancy for any residential units. The developer shall provide
documentation to the PUD file that the playground meets these
requirements.
And the second stipulation is a stipulation of approval, not a
recommendation. And no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued
until the completion ofFDOT's improvement ofImmokalee Road and
I-75 interchange and the completion of Vanderbilt Beach Road.
And I'm available for questions, should you have any.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think you're probably going to
have to modify that Vanderbilt Beach Road thing that we spoke about
earlier.
Page 120
May 15,2008
But I have an issue on the staff report Page 6 where you talk
about objective seven and you, quote, in an effort to support the
Dover-Kohl publication, and you use that as a basis to comment
further.
IfI'm not mistaken, the Dover-Kohl report was received but
never accepted and approved. I'm just wondering, these policies that
you're referencing here, because you're kind of using it as a segue, I
have no major objection against, but I'm just wondering, it struck me, I
don't recall that that was actually ever approved by the County
Commissioners. So I'm wondering how it became policy as such the
way you've connected it.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
These policies are adopted in the Growth Management Plan and
referenced in the staff report. I don't know if the entire Dover-Kohl
study was adopted, but certainly the Growth Management Plan has
been amended to reflect it and that's what you're seeing today.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay. And I don't have a
problem with that. But my issue was that it was connected to the
Dover-Kohl. I think you may run into a snag in front of the
commissioners. One of the commissioners may question that very
thing, because I know that that had not been approved.
MR. BELLOWS: But the GMP amendments then included it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then that's fine. And I had
another item that I wanted to relate to.
On the emergency management review, and I know that we
initiated -- we initiated that, asking that that be given to us, I wanted to
be sure, I mean, it's Category 4, which is -- let's hope we don't get any
of those, but the last line says while there's currently no impact
mitigation required for this, it should be noted that approval of this
PUD increases the evacuation and sheltering requirements for the
county .
Well, that's a great phrase, but what are we doing with that?
Page 121
May 15,2008
What does that mean to us? Are we accumulating this information in a
grand book so that we have an action plan associated with it? Where is
it going?
The sentence says it's just explanatory but it says ultimately not
much.
MS. GUNDLACH: As far as I know, I don't know what's being
done with the information. Ray, I don't know if you've heard
anything?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this originated a while back from
the planning commission's inquiry into the fact that the emergency
services department was not reviewing these or was not commenting
on the projects, yet on the AUIR we would hear -- or at different times
we heard issues about hurricane evacuation.
Bob's exactly right. By leaving a sentence in there that just says
it should be noted that it's going to increase evacuation and sheltering
requirements does nothing to provide guidance to this board or the
BCC on what needs to be done then in regards to the concern raised
by that department.
And I think that to provide a comment, it should come with a
recommendation as well. If they think there's a contribution needed to
build a -- shelter should be -- a hurricane shelter on-site in regards to
making the community center as much or something like that, those
are things I think would be more positive for us to receive than just a
statement like that. Because I know where this is going to go.
A couple of years, a hurricane comes by and all this stuff blows
down and someone is going to stand in the audience and say, see, we
told you boards that this was an issue. Well, fine, you did, now tell us
how to fix it.
So I think if you could ask them to provide that kind of
information in these reports, it would be much better used. Is that --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I couldn't have said it better.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one thing. Because I
Page 122
May 15,2008
brought that up in the past. And from the LMS committee it is a
concern. What we do know is that 3 percent of this population is
special needs. And remember I tried to get the 500 bucks per
population and it essentially went down the same as trying to get
money for affordable housing.
We do know that 3 percent of the population will need
equipment at the shelter, let alone the shelter itself. So is it appropriate
to ask for that? I don't think it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be more appropriate if
the emergency services director in his response says that until Collier
County can institute some kind of revenue stream to provide for these,
we need to look at other sources and provide suggestions. But just to
leave it blank is real hollow.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're not leaving it blank,
they tell you that they need help with this. And how do we help them
is the problem, not the blank statement, I think.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: I was thinking maybe what we could do is
pose this as an item for the board to consider policy towards maybe
creating some kind of mechanism where emergency services can have
a mechanism to require funds or whatever policy or procedure to need
to implement and ensure safety.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that was our intent all
along was to try to motivate that to come to the top, as it were.
MR. BELLOWS: I think that's -- I remember the discussion with
emergency services several months ago, and I don't recall whatever
came out of that. But I'll follow up with them.
And certainly for this petition we can pose it to the board in that
manner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, could you look at
attachment one, Page 3 of 3, Item 13. This is the rezone findings. And
Page 123
May 15,2008
Item 13 asks the questions whether there are substantial reasons why
the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning.
Can you answer that yes or no, please?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, it can be used in accordance with its
existing ago zoning.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The answer is yes?
MS. GUNDLACH: Uh-uh.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It would be helpful on these
findings if you would come and answer the question, kind of back
where Chairman Strain started to mention this morning about these
questions. They sometimes have answers that don't explain the basic
question.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Yes, I agree, I
got the message and we're going to work on that.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, while we're on that page, Nancy,
number 17, that's where you probably could address the hurricane
evacuation issue more thoroughly, if we can get a way to address it.
So it might be a good avenue to use it as a way to enter the issue.
So anyway. Had you -- you hadn't finished your presentation, or
had you finished it?
MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, I finished it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that's fine. Are there
anymore questions, because I had a couple dealing -- any more
questions of Nancy while she's up there?
Nancy, on your attachment to the PUD findings, Page 2 of2.
Number six talks about the sequencing of the development and for the
adequacy of improvements and facilities both public and private.
Since the applicant has accepted not to move forward until the
road systems are substantially complete, the two particular areas that
he's talking about, wouldn't that be a good place to put such a
comment, because you can be assured then that if you're going to have
Page 124
May 15,2008
six lanes on Vanderbilt between 951 and Airport completed, and if
you're going to have the overpass or the interchange at I - 7 5 and
Immokalee Road completed, it certainly would help with meeting the
commitments on number six.
MS. GUNDLACH: So just mention there that he's made a
commitment today to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would help clarify it.
Number eight, it says on the end, on the last line, he's not seeking any
deviations, yet there are two requests in our packet for deviations. So I
think eight needs to be corrected.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah, that's my mistake. Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem.
Okay, are there any other questions of Nancy?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, were you at the
neighborhood meeting?
MS. GUNDLACH: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who was?
MS. GUNDLACH: Carolina Valera was the planner that time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we don't know how
important that three-story was to the neighbors?
MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, Noah, were you there?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We already took it out. I found it. Three
stories and 40 feet, that's already been done.
You're not trying to raise it back up again, are you?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in swapping for
something else, maybe. I just wanted to know -- the question was, I
wanted to know --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's make a deal.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wanted to know how
important it was. But ifthere's no way to know, there's no way to
Page 125
May 15,2008
know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff or the
applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, Ray, could we have
public speakers.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry, I thought Barbara was
going to come up. Barbara, could you come up for a second then.
While you're coming up, the question is the location of the
preserve and its application, was that driven by the natural conditions
ofthe site? Because you heard me earlier, I would much rather see the
preserve going down alongside 75.
MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson,
environmental services manager.
It is driven by the Growth Management Plan requirements and
the Land Development Code requirements. This is the area that the
preserve needs to be in order to be in compliance with both the GMP
and the LDC.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's because it's
contiguous somewhere with Malibu Lakes?
MS. BURGESON: There's a number of issues. One is the GMP
requires that the preserve be the largest area with the least amount of
impact -- edge effect impact. So this particular shape of the preserve is
-- it fulfils that GMP commitment. If you were going to have a strip of
preserve along I - 7 5, that would not qualify for that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you look at Malibu
Lakes, doesn't it appear that their preserves surround their project?
MS. BURGESON: Right. And I believe Malibu Lakes went into
effect prior to these GMP restrictions and regulations, which I know
we just changed that language within the past year.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're saying that our -- best
of your knowledge, our regulations would not allow the preserve to be
Page 126
May 15,2008
placed along 75.
MS. BURGESON: That's correct.
And I would like to answer one other question that came up
earlier regarding the monitoring. The Land Development Code under
the preserve management plans identifies that where there are wildlife
habitat management plans on the site, where protected species are
identified, management strategies shall be developed and implemented
in accordance with section 3.04.00, which is the listed species section
of the code.
And under the listed species section of the code it identifies that
when listed species are observed on-site, management plans shall
contain a monitoring program for developments greater than 10 acres.
So it is a requirement for them to have the monitoring program. And
the chairman of the EAC just wanted to get copied on that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And that is also in their PUD
currently; is that correct?
MS. BURGESON: It doesn't have to be in their PUD because it
is a commitment of the LDC, and it would not be a deviation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, then there's no reason we
can't strike it from the PUD. And if the chairman wants it, he could
simply ask staff to provide it to him like we have many times
informally with this board rather than put it into a stipulation and
ordinance that's going into the document. That's where I was coming
from.
MS. BURGESON: That's true.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So thank you.
Are there any other questions of applicant or staff before we go
to public comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, could you call the public
speakers.
MR. BELLOWS: The only speaker is Noah Standridge.
Page 127
May 15,2008
MR. STANDRIDGE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and fellow
commissioners. My name is Noah Standridge. I'm a resident of the
Oakes Boulevard community.
The letter that you have in your packets today is from the Oaks
Advisory, Incorporated. This is letter represents a culmination of
efforts over the past two years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that your phone, Noah? Whoever has
that phone, would you please turn it off. That is distracting.
The desk now has a phone? You don't want to interrupt the
phone under the desk, I don't think. That's not good at all.
Go ahead. I'm sorry, Noah.
MR. STANDRIDGE: Thank you. The letter that you've received
from Karl Fry, Oaks Advisory president, represents a culmination of
efforts between the Oaks Advisory, Incorporated community group
and the developers of the Standing Oaks project.
The -- I'll tell you a little bit about the Oaks Advisory group. It's
a community advocacy groups that serves residents within our
neighborhood. And although we cannot claim to represent the views
of all residents within our neighborhood, we seek to provide a unified
voice on all issues that impact our residents' quality of life.
Two major concerns that are addressed in the letter are
specifically from two populations within our community. One is
specific requests from adjacent property owners that are really
receiving the -- had the most concern about a development on the rear
of their properties. And through negotiations, the developer and the
consultants have agreed to provide adequate buffering that alleviated
some of the concerns ofthose adjacent property owners.
The second thing is more general in nature and this affects our
whole community. People were concerned about traffic impacts. And
we felt it appropriate to ask the developer to suggest ways which they
could mitigate impacts to our neighborhood on traffic volume.
And the letter that you have before you, we -- expresses our
Page 128
May 15,2008
conditional support based on those conditions that are in the letter and
the two specific concerns that are within our community.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. STANDRIDGE: You're very welcome. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if there's no other public
speakers, Richard, do you have any last comments?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Other than I think we've done a good job
of addressing the concerns of our neighbors and working with the site
the best we can. I think that the changes that have been discussed so
far through the revisions as far as the sound attenuation wall and the
other changes do a good job of protecting both the off-site residents
and the on-site residents.
And we hope the planning commission can forward this petition
to the BCC with a recommendation of approval.
And if you do, I would offer that -- I know we have a consent
agenda process and we'll come back related to the deviation of the
wall. If I could just add this. I think we need to break that into two
separate deviations, one or for the wall on I-75, and the other for the
wall that's on the south boundary and the east boundary. I don't want it
to be confused that we could somehow build a 20- foot wall on the
south and the east boundary. So let's make sure that that can't be
greater than nine feet cumulative height. We need to address that
because that's really what the neighbors' concerns were.
That's the only additional comment I had for clarification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And relative to that, that was an
issue I wanted to raise -- the deviation of it too. We talked about a
fence. So we didn't talk about walls or a fence. I thought we were
talking about a wall, correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it was going to be -- that
terminology has kind of been used interchangeably, concrete fences
Page 129
May 15,2008
and concrete walls. That was the intent.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But the higher you go, the less
likely you are to use a fence, I would imagine.
I'm not just making a semantical argument here. I'm thinking
about what we've approved as fences. Concrete fences I think are
appropriate, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. That was the intent.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: The gauge is not terribly wide if
you use that term.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You understand what I'm driving
at?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- wall, concrete fence, that was the
intent.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. So maybe the staff
report has to reflect same. I'm not sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the
applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And Ray, we'll close
the public hearing but we'll have a discussion before we go into a
motion. How's that, Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know you like discussion first.
In this case it certainly would be better to get through some of the
confusion. I've made notes. If you all want, I can read them. We can
discuss them, make sure they're complete.
It's an assumption that there's a -- we would be going forward
with a recommendation of approval. And here are the stipulations that
I've suggested as we've gone through this.
Number one, that the roads in question in regards to being
substantially complete before COs are attained are the I-75 and
Page 130
May 15, 2008
Immokalee Road interchange and the Vanderbilt Beach Road section
from 951 to Airport Road.
Number two, that the sunsetting provisions will be tolled till
those roads per the PUD are completed, meaning substantially
complete.
Number three, development -- deviation number two will change
to reflect a sound attenuation wall and/or berm combination along I-75
up to 20 feet in height, and the landscaping that's required will be
placed on the I-75 side of the wall.
Number four, will limit the multi-family to three stories zoned
height of a maximum of 40 feet and 50 feet actual height.
And then, Ray, pursuant to all the other minor changes we made
to the table. I'm not going to reiterate those.
Number five would be if the wellfield easement is required,
there will be impact fee credits provided for.
Number six is we'll be removing Number C under the
environmental for the gopher tortoise report as that's already part of
the LDC.
Number seven, we would not accept staff recommendation
number one for the parks, for the required park contribution.
Those are the notes that I have. Does anybody have any
comments, suggestions? Did I miss anything?
Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You didn't mention the
landscaping on the east side of the wall there on I-75. You said on the
west side. That was to be landscaped on both sides, as I recall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only landscaping that I was
addressing was that the required landscaping would be on the I - 7 5 side
of the wall. Whatever they put on the inside of the wall would be up to
them to, for their -- that's what they've got to sell.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: They would determine that
rather than we stipulate that?
Page 131
May 15,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what they're marketing is going
to dictate. As long as we have protected the public on the outside of
the wall, that seems to be relevant.
Ms. Caron, did you have a comment on that regard?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just how would then staff judge
what they present to them on the inside?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They don't have present anything. If all
the required material --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Wouldn't that come during the
whole SDP process?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The landscape plan would reflect it
during SDP, sure. But if they didn't want to put anything there, they'd
-- the required landscaping we're saying needs to face the public side
of the wall. What goes on the inside of the wall is up to the individual,
I think, property owner, developer, wouldn't you think?
We have not developed into site landscaping, other than what's
required by the code.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I thought they made a
stipulation they would provide that, that's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they stipulated you'd put the
landscaping on the outside of the wall; is that right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, what we had proposed was all the
required code landscaping would be placed on the I-75 side of the
wall, and we would do what we deemed appropriate on the residents'
side of the wall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And obviously we're going to need to do
something to sell those units. And we need to leave that decision to be
later is what we would stipulate, correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I had thought.
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, one other item too was
Page 132
May 15,2008
that hurricane evacuation that we're going to call to the board's
consideration, that option.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think Ray, if you could, as one
of the stipulations, that the comment by the emergency services
division be highlighted to the Board of County Commissioners as a
note that we need to have more definitive direction in regards to such
statements. Not that I think you need to add to the PUD, but just
something that I think needs to go with this to the BCC for comment.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to be clear on the one
item on the impact fee credits. I thought that there was a concern on
the part of the petitioner on that well site -- the impact fee?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was for the park.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, the park. Thank you, that
was it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, did you say three stories not
to exceed 40 feet on the height?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't hear the three stories. I just want
to make sure that was part of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't say ten, three.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I wasn't sure if I heard it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other clean-up or
clarifications to those stipulations?
Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you need to reference the 23 feet
from --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was one of the clean-up items on
that table. We didn't get into all the little stuff that you guys are going
to do. It's going to come back through on consent. If something's
missing, I'm sure we can pick it up. Those are minor details.
Mr. Vigliotti?
Page 133
May 15,2008
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I was going to mention also the
35-foot side yard setback, that they're going to kick it up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty-five feet setback?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, no, that was 35-foot width, lot
width.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll vote for that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd rather do the bear management plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody else have any
clean-up items, any concerns? If not, is there a motion based on those
stipulations?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve based on the
stipulations as noted?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein.
Comment, Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm going to be voting in
favor of this, but I'm disappointed in the development community of
the county. I think you're out of touch with reality. There is not
enough affordable housing in Collier County. There are more
homeless people than there were when we had the $500,000 homes
that everybody was so concerned about. There are more people
doubled and tripled up.
And the voluntary contribution was not excessive ever. And I
think that it's a disappointment to me that you're not even willing to
voluntarily consider something like this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to say remember,
here's what we're voting on. The right-of-way of75, 10 feet off of that
is a 20- foot high wall. And Rich, nod if I'm wrong.
Page 134
May 15,2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can't -- I don't know where the -- do we
know where the outside lane of I -75 is in relation to our property line?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know. I said
right-of-way of75.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. But I think what you just said is
that our wall was going to be 10 feet from --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The right-of-way.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, but it sounds like the travel lanes,
which it's not. I mean --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The right-of-way is not the
travel lane. All the lands owned by 75, 10 feet away from that's a wall.
Ten feet away from that can be a forty-story (sic) building. I know you
say three story but -- I meant 40 feet. I know you said three, but you
know, with mezzanines and stuff you could essentially have what
appears to be a four-story building. And I mean, I think that's
something you see in Newark, that's not something you see in Collier.
But anyway, that's my opinion. I'm actually still going to vote in
favor of it, I don't think that's the fatal part of it. But I do think that we
could start doing much better designs than we're doing with properties
like this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All
those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Page 135
May 15,2008
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries eight to zero. Thank you.
That has finished up our formal agenda for today.
Item #10
OLD BUSINESS
We have nothing listed under old business. Anybody have
anything?
(No response.)
Item # 11
NEW BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have nothing listed under new
business. Anybody have anything?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about monkey business?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Monkey business, yeah.
Item #12
PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
There's no public comment.
Item #14
ADJOURN
Page 136
May 15,2008
Then is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made. Seconded? I'll second it.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're adjourned.
Thank you.
*****
Page 13 7
May 15,2008
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :44 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
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 138