Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/20/2000 RJanuary 20, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 20, 2000 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: Russell A. Budd Ken Abernathy Michael J. Bruet Michael Pedone Russell A. Priddy Joyceanna J. Rautio Sam Saadeh Karen Urbanik Gary Wrage ALSO PRESENT: Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page I AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2000 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTFED 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 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITI~EN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITFED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ROLL CALL BY CLERK ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MI31UTES: December 1, 1999, December 2, 1999 & December 16, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: BCC REPORT CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BD-99-26, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Andreu and ~lune Vails, requesting a boat dock extension of 15 feet beyond the permitted 5 feet for waterways under 100 feet for a total protrusion of 20 feet into the waterways for property located at 215 Dolphin Cove Court, further described as Lot 4, Dolphin Cove, in Section 5, Tow~_shi_p 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) Bo Co Eo Ge BD-99-27, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Thomas C. Wasnert, requesting a boat house and docking facility for property located at 425 Germain Avenue, further described as Lot 16, Block P Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) V-99-29, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc. representing Larry J. and Marcy A. Gode, requesting a 3-foot variance from the required 13-foot side yard setback to 10 feet on the eastern side and a 10-foot variance from the required 13-foot side yard setback to 3 feet on the western side, for property located at 109th Avenue North, further described as Lot 9, Block 2, Naples Park Unit 1, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to OSP-99-03) (Continued Indefinitely) (Coordinator: Don Mm'ray) OSP-99-03, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning, representing Larry and Marcy Gode, requesting approval of Off-Site Parking at 109th Avenue North on Lot 10, Block 2, Naples Park Unit 1, to serve a proposed office building to be located on 109th Avenue North, Lot 9, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to V-99-29) (Continued Indefinitely) (Coordinator: Don Murray) PUD-99-13, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc., representing Relleum, Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Balmoral PUD for a maximum of 154 residential dwelling units for property located on the east side of the future Livingston Road, north of Golden Gate Parkway (C.R. 886) and south of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896), in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 39.58+ acres. (Coordinator: Don Murray) PUD-99-14, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc., representing Marian H. Geraee and Wallace L. Lewis, Jr., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Livingston Village for a maximum of 540 residential dwelling units for property located east of the proposed Livingston Road, north of Wyndemere PUD, in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 148.98:l: acres. (Coordinator: Susan Murray) PUD-99-15, Michael Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc., representing Dean Huff, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Alexandria PUD for a maximum of 72 single-family dwelling units for property located on the east side of the future Livingston Road Extension, south of Pine Ridge Road (C.1L 896) and north of Golden Gate Parkway (C.R. 886) in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 19.58+ acres. (Coordinator: Susan Murray) PUD-99-16, Kevin McVicker, P.E., of Phoenix Planning and Engineering, Inc., representing Gulf Sun Development Corporation, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Whippoorwill Pines PUD for a maximum of 210 residential units for property located on the south side of Night Hawk Drive between Whippoorwill Lane and Dog Ranch Road, ¼ mile south of Pine Ridge Road, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 29.54:1: acres. (Coordinator: Don Murray) ~ 2 o 9. 10. I1. 12. Me PUD-99-22, Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., representing James D. Vogel, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture and "A-ST" Rural Agriculture with special treatment overlay to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as San Marino PUD, a residential development and golf course with a maximum of 353 multi-family residential units, for property located on the east side of C.R. 951 approximately 1.5 miles south of Davis Boulevard, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 235.33+ acres. (Coordinator: Don Murray) PUD-86-12(4), Blair A. Foley, P.E., of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Transeastern Properties, Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Bretonne Park PUD revising the PUD document having the effect of increasing the building height of the multi-family condominium buildings in Tract J from three stories to four stories, for property located on Davis Boulevard (S.R. 84), in Section 5, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 16.85+ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) CU-99-22, David Carter of Downing-Frye Realty, Inc., representing William J. Fognini, requesting Conditional Use "1" of the "A/MHO" zoning district for earthmining per Section 2.2.2.3 for property located on Platt Road in Section 25, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 20+ acres. (Fred Reischl) CU-99-27, David H. Farmer of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Keystone Custom Homes, requesting Conditional Use "5" of the "RSF-3" zoning district for 157cjuster housing units per Section 2.2.4.3 for property located approximately ½ mile north of Immokalee Road and one mile east of U.S. 41, in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 86.67+ acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) CU-99-33, William Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning, representing Richard and Jean Yahl and Teresa Yahl Fillmore, requesting Conditional Use "2" of the "A" zoning district for a sawmill, per Section 2.2.2.3, for property lo~ated on the south side of Washburn Avenue S.W. in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 15.56+ acres. (Coordinator: Susan Murray) OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ADJOURN 1/20/2000 AGEND/R_N/im January 20, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we're going to call this meeting of the Planning Commission to order. I'd like to start with our roll call of the commissioners. Commissioner Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Urbanik? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Budd is here. Wrage? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Bruet? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Saadeh? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I would just like to comment to members of the public, if you wish to have testimony on any of the items coming before us today, there are sign-up slips out in the hall. I know that they were late in arriving. So some of you that may wish to speak didn't see the sign-up slip, but they are out there now, so you can go sign up and then turn them over to Mr. Ron Nino, and we will get your opportunity to speak with when your agenda comes up. Any addenda to the agenda? I understand we have a couple more continuances. Item C, what is B-99-29, was noted in the agenda as continued. Item D, OSP-99-03 is continued. Mr. Nino has told me that Item E, PUD-99-13 is continued. And Item F, PUD-99-14 is continued. Are there any other changes, addendas to the agenda today? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So moved. Page 2 January 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Agenda is modified. Approval the minutes. We have three different packets for your review and approval. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I make a motion we approve all three of them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion to approve all three by Commissioner Wrage. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Commissioner Bruet. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. The minutes of December 1st do not account for Mr. Bruet or Mr. Priddy one way or the other on the cover, and the minutes of December 16th don't account for Mr. Saadeh one way or the other. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Were they -- dealing with December 1st, were you here or not? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I was not here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, so the lack of notation should be a recorded absence. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes, for myself also. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Commissioner Saadeh, in your case was that an absence that you're not accounted for? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I was present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: You were present. Okay. Then we will record you as present for that meeting. Any other clarifications to the minutes? There being none, all those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Minutes are approved. Any anticipated Planning Commission absences in the near future? Looks like everybody's showing up for work. That's fine. Board of County Commissioners' report, Mr. Nino? Page 3 January 20, 2000 MR. NINO: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the last meeting of the board, January the 11th, the -- there was a considerable discussion of the sign issue, proposed sign regulations. The board has directed us to make certain amendments to the sign ordinance that are to a large extent consistent with the original sign amendment recommendations. That will go to the board on January the 25th, and we expect January 25th will be the final adoptions of Land Development Code amendments. Relative to the Whippoorwill issue, the board directed staff and directed basically the Planning Commission to impose upon all of the Whippoorwill impacting development petitions a requirement that the Whippoorwill Lane, with an east-west leg along or near the section line, would become a public road, and that adequate right-of-way 80 feet be provided for that right-of-way. And if necessary, the board directed that eminent domain be used to acquire the right-of-way where that is not forthcoming in a timely manner. They also agreed with the proportionate sharing of costs for the acquisition of land for the right-of-way, and for the construction of the right-of-way, proportionate sharing of cost, to be determined by -- in all cases, I suspect they will be structuring a developer's agreement with respect to the road issue, sanitary sewers, stormwater management, all of those issues in which there may be a cost above and what is normally associated with the development itself. We think -- from staff's perspective we're very excited about that, because it's the first time we've really tried to look at an area in a holistic basis and tried to anticipate its needs, and we quite frankly appreciate the fact that the board agreed with us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ron, Item H today is a Whippoorwill Pines. It's in that area. MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that going to be affected by any of these new board directives? MR. NINO: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that picked up in your staff report? Page 4 January 20, 2000 MR. NINO: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Ron, the executive summary that was written, which is part of E, is that where all of that comes from, what you've just described? All the conditions in those other six stipulations that -- MR. NINO: No, unfortunately I used a bad example. I'm glad that one is being continued, because we'll have a chance to correct that staff report. But Susan's staff report on the next item accurately reflects that situation. COMMISSIONER BRUET: On the next item -- MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- on Item F? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: See, Mr. Nino, I told you there were ways of getting things from developers in exchange for things they wanted. MR. NINO: You did, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We will move on to the advertised public hearings. We will start with BD-99-26. All those that wish to testify on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: For our Planning Commissioners, do we have any disclosures on this item? There being none, Ross? MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 15-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 90 feet -- excuse me, 20 feet into a 92-foot waterway. The property is located at 215 Dolphin Cove and contains about 90 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a boat dock and Page 5 January 20, 2000 boat lift. Seven similar extensions for facilities ranging from 17 to 22 feet have been approved for this waterway. No objections to this project have been received. The proposed facility meets all criteria, and staff recommends approval. Questions? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? There being none, does the petitioner have anything to add? MR. SCOFIELD: Not unless you have any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any questions for the petitioner? There are none. Is there anyone from the public to address the item? There being none, we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend this board approve BD-99-26, subject to staff stipulations. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Bruet, second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Item B, BD-99-27. Any disclosures on this item? There being none, all those that wish to testify, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting approval of a boathouse which would be constructed on a dock not protruding beyond the 20 feet allowed by the code. Property is located at 425 Germain Avenue in Vanderbilt Beach. It contains about 75 feet of water frontage on a 100-foot wide canal. The project consists of the removal of an existing dock and Page 6 January 20, 2000 its replacement by a smaller dock with a boat lift and boathouse. The new facility will consist of less deck area than the existing dock. The proposed boathouse would not cover the entire dock, and the height would be about three feet under the maximum allowed by the code. Although the facility would have some impact on the view from adjacent lot 17 to the east, no objections to this project have so far been received. Aside from this, the proposed facility meets all criteria, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any queStions for Mr. Gochenaur? There being none, any comments from the petitioner? MR. SCOFIELD: Miles $cofield, representing the applicant. I don't -- unless you have any questions, I don't have anything to say at this time. If there's anybody here to speak -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? MR. SCOFIELD: -- against it, I'd like to reserve to respond after that. Okay? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'd like to compliment Mr. $cofield on the extreme clarity of your drawings on both of these petitions. Much superior to some of the other boat extensions we've seen. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anyone from the public that wishes to testify on this item? There being none, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I move we approve DB-99-27. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Urbanik, second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Mr. Scofield, very appropriate and concise testimony. MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: As we already noted, Items C, D, E and F are continued. We will come to Item G, which is PUD-99-15. Any Page 7 January 20, 2000 disclosures on this item? There are none. All those in the public that wish to provide testimony or public or expert testimony, please stand, raise your right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.} CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a staff presentation? MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm sorry, I lost you in my -- off to the side. MS. MURRAY: I won't make this too long, because you've already heard this petition. This is the second time it's been before you. This is basically is to approve a PUD on 19.5 acres for 72 dwelling units at a density of 3.67 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the maximum allowable density of four dwelling units per acre, per the density rating system. I don't want to you panic. I did hand out some revised staff stipulations. The staff report that was written and handed to you was prior to the board's decision. However, the stipulations you had in your original staff report were very similar to the ones that were presented to the board, which they approved. The ones I've handed out to you today are just simply a fine tuning of what the board has originally approved, so there really isn't anything outstandingly different. It's just very tailored to this PUD and to what the board's direction was. I just wanted to clarify a little bit on the PUD master plan, if you weren't aware, there are will be a shared access between the subject property and the proposed Balmoral PUD, which is to the south. Staff is also recommending through the Balmoral PUD that the Alexandria PUD be allowed unrestrained access through the Balmoral PUD to the east-west extension of Whippoorwill Lane. We're not really dealing with that now. We will deal with that when it comes to the Balmoral PUD. But I just wanted to make you aware that that is our intention. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? Mr. Bruet? Page 8 January 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yeah, quick assumption. Obviously these 10 stipulations supersede the 10 in the document? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BRUET: What's really the difference, without reading all 107 MS. MURRAY: Honestly, there really is not a significant difference. They were -- it's more a fine tuning of what was presented to the board. The board's stipulations were relative to all seven projects in this area. As we get down to the very specific PUD's and needs of the specific PUD's, they've just kind of been fine tuned. Which of which, for example, we discussed in the original board stipulation was the proportionate sharing of costs for the acquisition of the right-of-way. I've just simply fine tuned the stipulations here to describe how that will be accomplished. That's probably the most significant change. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions? Mr. Fernandez. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Fernandez, before you get into your presentation, I think we have some unfinished business from mid December. This item was on the agenda, it was called, you were not present. We have never heard why you weren't present. I'd like an explanation of the circumstances, and as a courtesy to this board, an apology, if that's appropriate. MS. MURRAY: May I respond to that? Because I think I can clarify that. I -- unfortunately I did receive a fax. It was faxed to our office at 6:00 p.m., the evening before the hearing, and a lot of times because this meeting starts so early, staff just comes directly here rather than going to the office or checking E-mail. So they did request a continuance. Unfortunately I did not receive that fax in time to read it to present that to you at the meeting. I just wanted to let you know that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Is that in relationship to the December meeting or to the January meeting? I think that's the January meeting. In December-- Page 9 January 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What happened in December? MR. FERNANDEZ: In December I was actually here and we discussed Alexandria. At that time, during that discussion, we continued that one and the other two as well, because they were the same pertinent -- it was the same pertinent dialogue. Those are the only two hearings that we've had on this project. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't think that's right. There was a meeting where everybody was looking around for you, and you were nowhere to be seen. MS. MURRAY: That was the last meeting. That's correct. MR. FERNANDEZ: That was in January. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's the December -- that's the January COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY'- That's the one where you faxed for a continuance. MR. FERNANDEZ: Our attorney, John Passidomo, actually faxed that to staff, and he was asked to make those arrangements. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I want a point of clarification on that. Did you say that the fax came after 6:00? MS. MURRAY: It came about 6:00 that Wednesday evening. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And that would be after working hours. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So it would be rather difficult for you to get that information. MS. MURRAY: Yes. Generally I try to encourage people to call me to also to tell me they're going to fax a letter, and then we need to have an official letter in writing. And I did speak with Mr. Fernandez's secretary about the continuance of Livingston Village, so I was aware of that. But -- and that was the fax that I had received from Passidomo. But I actually received the fax regarding Alexandria from his office at 6:00 p.m. Wednesday evening. So I apologize for that. It's what happened. Page 10 January 20, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Regarding the Alexandria PUD, my understanding of what occurred with the Board of County Commissioners in regards to the Whippoorwill issue is that they instructed staff to holistically assess these properties for their appropriate contribution to infrastructure. What we are doing here today of course is looking at a singular development parcel. This parcel is -- we're calling it the Alexandria PUD is located right here, as you can see on this diagram. The route that was selected by staff as their first choice and approved by the Board of County Commissioners is the route that I'm showing you here in blue, which goes, as they said, on this section line. You will note that the distance between Alexandria and that line to the east is about a quarter mile. And the distance between Alexandria to the south is about 660 feet. We do not abut Whippoorwill Lane. Our project does not propose to proceed until Livingston Road provides the access that we're looking for to receiving. Livingston -- there is already water in place that runs along our western property line. Livingston Road will also bring sewer service into our property. Therefore, our property is not dependent in any way, shape or form on access or to infrastructure that will be brought down Whippoorwill Lane to serve those properties that are landlocked at this time. Additionally, if the -- our water management requirements, if -- have historically gone southward. And we've received an easement for that purpose. So our water is being accepted by the landowners of Balmoral PUD. Our water management will not go eastward and will not be incorporated into the overall master drainage system or area-wide drainage system that is being referenced in the document. Therefore, what we're asking you to do is approve this PUD without stipulations that would encumber this property relative to Whippoorwill. My understanding further is that Whippoorwill Lane is a Page 11 January 20, 2000 public road. And the board -- will be a public road. And the Board of County Commissioners have authorized the staff, it indicates in their material, for impact fee credits, should any one developer wish to proceed ahead of time and develop the property. Otherwise, I will assume that it will eventually be put on the work program, and staff says that they're going to proceed with, and it will be developed by the county. But this project again has no relationship to that infrastructure any more than any other individual or any other community anywhere in Collier County. Because it will be a public road accessed by the public. This project will of course be assessed its appropriate share of impact fees for the project, and it will be assessed its appropriate share for water service, sewer service, et cetera. If we're -- we view the stipulations specifically, it talks about the value of the land for -- of acquisition for Whippoorwill Lane. Again, we're not part of that equation, in our mind. We don't abut, we don't access it any more than any other individual or community in Collier County. And the same goes for Item 2. Again, we don't need to see that built or even go into a development agreement to see it built, because our project doesn't access that -- those improvements. Number 3 has to do with a statement that the county is going to pursue something, so it shouldn't be incorporated into our document either. Item No. 4, I previously addressed. We had specific water management rights that go to the south and will not be a part of that area water management system. Sanitary sewer collection system, No. 5, again, we will not receive any access to infrastructure to the east from any of the Whippoorwill improvements that are proposed. Item No. 6, we have no problem incorporating within our development, so we are amenable to Item No. 6. Item No. 7, my understanding that that's going to be amended. Rather than get into the specifics of development, I would tell you that we're amenable to Item No. 7, subject to its Page 12 January 20, 2000 revision. Our understanding is that the design that's being done for the roadway now is going to remove the requirement altogether of that 30-foot right-of-way that they're requesting. They're going to pipe the drainage. And they will require an easement, which we will be happy to provide at no cost to the county. And my understanding is that that revision will be coming from public works between now and when we go before the board. Item No. 8 is a clarification of tax we have no problem incorporating. Number 9, again, we've made the commitment. It's on our PUD map. It says that the entry drive shall be shared with Balmoral. That will happen regardless of whether or not Balmoral proceeds. Our access originally came directly through the center of the property. You can see now it's brought to the southern where it will enjoy a shared common property line. And then it goes into the site 200 feet. That is the -- an advantageous depth away before it breaks out going to the north and to the south. To the north it accesses our project, Alexandria. To the south it will access Balmoral. Number 9, though, further says -- it talks about no gating. I've conferred with Susan, and she says she does not have a problem, and she's confirmed this, with a gate on our side, because there is no purpose to be served to not having a gate of access to our community. Our community does not access anybody else. Should Balmoral not put a gate, that's their prerogative. And I guess the public at large could go through it, just like we could. So we would ask that on No. 9, the no gating provision be stricken. And again, as Susan indicated, she will address the issue of access through Balmoral in the Balmoral PUD. And finally, Item No. 10, the -- it's asking us to clarify on the PUD master plan that our access will be simply a right-in, right-out. Mr. Kant's here. My understanding, based on our distance away from, that we'll be eligible for a directional median cut, subject of course to their final design and approval Page 13 January 20, 2000 of Livingston Road. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have one quick question. MR. FERNANDEZ: Certainly. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You were talking about gating. And gating is in my staff report. I don't see gating in the hand-out. Do you have this new document that we're all trying to follow? MS. MR. MS. MR. MS. MR. MURRAY: I'm sorry, he probably doesn't. I changed it -- FERNANDEZ: After we talked. MURRAY: -- after we talked. FERNANDEZ: All right, she's already taken care of that. MURRAY: Yeah, and he's correct, we did agree. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, we did agree. MS. MURRAY: You all have the correct version. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Those are the stipulations that were forwarded to us. I haven't seen -- I don't know if there's anything else, Susan, that's in there, if there's any change. But those are the stipulations. We would ask to you remove those stipulations that we would suggest to you do not impact our project and we should not be required to address. And the others, as I said, we're amenable to. If you have any further questions, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for Mr. Fernandez? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: No, but I have one for staff. Susan, the project just north of this project, and I'm kind of having to guess from this distance, Horse Farm? Is that the name of that project? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's not a project, it's -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, it's actually a single-family home where they have horses -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Acreage. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- acreage right now. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The future scenario of that wanting to turn into a development, which it looks like it's the same size as this project and could very well do that, would they Page 14 January 20, 2000 too be thrown into this fair share costing of -- MS. MURRAY: Generally what was presented to the board was these seven projects being developed as a unified sharing of infrastructure. So I would have to say no at this point, unless Mr. Nino has some other-- MR. NINO: When the -- understand there's a large parcel of land which there's not a subdivision -- there's currently not an application, it would be called the Arlington. We'll be looking at an interconnect from the Arlington to that remaining vacant property. The point is that we're trying to achieve interconnectivity amongst all the project -- between all the projects. So we'll be looking at the interconnectivity possibilities with that A parcel, Commissioner Priddy. And by that vehicle, it will be integrated into the Whippoorwill Lane influence, the same as I'm sure Susan's going to now tell you that Alexandria will have an impact on Whippoorwill Lane as a result of the interconnectivity requirement. MS. MURRAY'- Correct. And that's exactly what we're trying to achieve with requiring an interconnection between Alexandria and Balmoral and why it is important that and I urge you to adopt all of these conditions. The truck circulation element encourages interconnectivity between projects. Mr. Fernandez is correct, he does not need to interconnect to access his property, because he will have access off Livingston Road, via shared access with Balmoral. However, our goal is to encourage and get as much traffic as we can onto the east-west connector road that wants to go north; thus further reducing the impacts on the intersection at Pine Ridge and Livingston Road. So we're not -- you know, we're not doing anything unusual here by requesting interconnectivity between projects, because the Balmoral PUD will connect with Whippoorwill Lane and/or its east-west corridor. And thus, if you encourage interconnectivity with Alexandria, then they will have access to that road, too, regardless of whether they abutted or not. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: It was my understanding that at Page 15 January 20, 2000 least in part why some of these projects were put off from back and November and December was that there was a new traffic study being done at the Pine Ridge intersection? And I'm not seeing any results of that. MS. MURRAY: Correct. I'll go ahead and let Mr. Kant talk to that, because it's-- MR. NINO: Let me add, however, the petitioner's concern that they don't impact Whippoorwill Lane and they don't impact the water management concerns and the possibility that sanitary sewers may be up to size greater to take care of the entire area is a legitimate one in part. However, he assumes that that degree of proportion -- that degree of cost sharing is going to be the same as the cost sharing that would be incurred by a project that fronts directly on Whippoorwill Lane, i.e., Whippoorwill Lakes, Whippoorwill Wood. The developers' agreement, the developer contribution agreement, will take into account the degree of impact in terms of all of these services. And so in other words, Alexandria will not be paying the same proportion, in all likelihood, as a project that impacts those services to the same extent. But that will be the subject of a developer's agreement. Having them in this PUD doesn't mean that they're going to go share on a one-to-one basis. It provides us with the opportunity to come up with that formula and assess the appropriate impacts. MR. FERNANDEZ: If I could ask Mr. Nino, to the best of my knowledge, unless staff could tell me different, there won't be any water connection or sewer connection from this project to Whippoorwill. Our water and sewer, as designed and proposed in our PUD, will go to Livingston Road. Our access goes to Livingston Road. Water management goes down. We don't have that connection. If it says -- what the text is saying here is are there any benefit to us. There's no benefit for the water and sewer, there's no benefit for the drainage, and there's no benefit for transportation, any more than anybody else in our community. In fact, if I was living in Alexandria and I wanted to go north, I Page 16 January 20, 2000 certainly would go out my front door and go north to Pine Ridge. I wouldn't go south, that's against human nature, and then take the long way around. And the same thing, if I'm going off the interstate, I'm going to take the shortest route, and it's going to be the most pleasant and easily serviced route. Alexandria doesn't have a physical or a need connection to these facilities. It is disassociated with those. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: What happens to your water management? You say it goes into Balmoral. But once it gets to Balmoral, what happens to their water management? I mean, it's got to cross that road. What happens there? MR. NINO: I think the point is that if there is -- if this project doesn't need any of the capacity that we build in for a greater area in terms of water, then there won't be any assessment to them. But the provision is there to allow us to study that to see that in the final as-built condition there is that degree of separateness. I mean, that they don't need -- they won't benefit by any increased water pipes in the area. And the same applies to the water management issues. We don't know at this -- today we don't know and he doesn't know whether or not proper engineering application to the development of these lands will not -- will prove that they can stand alone or that they will benefit from the capacity that's built into the sewer and water system, or the water management system that is the ultimate design for this area. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Gentlemen, you make a good case that you probably won't be affected. In my mind, Mr. Nino is making a better case that absent traffic studies, absent engineering studies, absent these other studies, they just want the opportunity to consider it. He's making testimony right now that it will be adequately and -- but hold on, we're going to hear from Mr. Kant. He's going to talk to us about the road impacts. MR. KANT: Good morning, gentlemen, ladies. Edward Kant, transportation services director. I'm just getting over what everybody else has had, so I can't speak very loudly. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can you speak up, please? Page 17 January 20, 2000 MR. KANT: You're getting about the best you're going to get, Mr. Abernathy. Mr. Priddy raised a question about traffic studies. At one point there was a traffic study that was commissioned by Mr. Fernandez and reviewed by the county, but we found that there were a number of flaws in that traffic study in that not all of the projects were included, not all of the intersections which would have been affected were included. It was -- it started out with -- as a good idea, but unfortunately because we never had an opportunity to review the scope of services before they turned to their consultant, what we got we found wanting. The issue of whether or not the Alexandria PUD will have any benefit from any of the infrastructure that is developed on the so-called Whippoorwill corridor is really not one that I think you can answer specifically at this time. I think that the point that Mr. Fernandez is making may very well be the case. We haven't seen any final designs for either the Whippoorwill corridor or his project. The only thing that's approaching any degree of finality is the Livingston Road project. Because of the interconnect, I think that the issue that Mr. Nino brought up is where staff is coming from. And that is because of the interconnect, there may be some rational nexus there for a proportionate share. As we stand here in front of you, we can't tell today. But we don't want to slam that door. We would like to have a flexibility, as these projects come in, to try to evaluate them. They still have to go through a site development plan review. And I think once we look at that site development plan in relationship to the other projects and to the infrastructure, we'll be able to make a better determination. I think it's premature at this point to try to stick a dollar figure on it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Rautio, you had some questions an hour ago that -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I sure did. I think we started out by saying this is really the first opportunity to do a holistic approach to a rather large area in Collier County. I've been around here for almost 19 years, and I thought we'd been doing Page 18 January 20, 2000 this in general, taking holistic approaches. But then the petitioner mentioned that he felt that this was an individual property and there were certain considerations. And I think you stated, Mr. Fernandez, that there really was no relationship to the infrastructure we were talking about in the first couple of stipulations here. I have a problem with that, that you're suddenly saying that there's only certain things that are happening with your individual PUD, when we don't have some of the information to determine if indeed there are impacts. It would appear that your share of costs might be pretty limited. But sitting on this board, I would have difficulty allowing you to go forward without any cost sharing, like the staff is presenting here in the stipulations, because we're not the final decision. The County Commission is. And it's very clear to me that the County Commission is looking at the whole picture. And it would be nice, with all our growth in Collier County, that we look at the whole picture, and that traffic is one of those. It's an element that I'm real concerned about with this whole area of development. So I can't support making any changes to what the staff is saying here that the petitioner is asking, particularly with traffic, drainage. Because we don't know right now. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, Commissioner, if I may address that. One thing that Russell and you're bringing forth, we don't have anything to show for it, we've done a water management plan that shows where our water goes. We've put in our PUD. We know what our water mana -- what our maximum impacts are for water and sewer. We know that the capacity that is being provided for on Livingston Road is more than adequate to serve those needs. We know that we physically don't connect to those other facilities that are going to be put on. What the other -- the other point I would tell you, when you look at these texts, the text that's being proposed, developers can't go forward and agree to items that there's no boundaries to. For instance, it talks about proportional cost sharing. We don't know if any of these projects will go forward. We don't Page 19 January 20, 2000 know if one project goes forward and another one doesn't. We won't know what the build-out is. We don't know the number of units. It is -- there's not a mechanism for that to be formulated. And I would also suggest to you again that the impact fees that we pay as developers have already attenuated those public impacts. Now, historically the way this works, and my understanding is, if it's site-related impacts, you don't get credit for it. If it's public impacts -- if its impacts are covered by the impact fees, you do. That's the way things are assessed. But for us to make open-ended commitments or be forced into open-ended commitments, not knowing what the costs are, not knowing what all the other parameters are, and quite frankly, I don't know how staff would be able to come up with an assessment of it, in talking to staff, they don't have a mechanism to do so. They don't know the number of units that are going to be built, they don't know the timing of these projeCts. They may never concur. They may modify completely. So you can't even put a number on it. So that would be my point. MR. KANT: If I may make a couple of comments, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a couple comments, too. MR. KANT: There is one obvious solution, and that is that nothing goes forward until -- because this -- the board --just last Tuesday is when we got our direction as to how to proceed with this. So one obvious solution is nothing goes forward until staff has an opportunity to come up with a good cost estimate, an idea what the cross-section of the roadway would look like, and a much better handle on the infrastructure needs of the area. And of course if all of those property owners are willing to wait until that happens, and that could be six months to a year, then we'll have some real good numbers and we'll be able to do a proportionate share of computation. I think in the real world that's probably not going to go happen. As far as the issue of we don't know what's going to happen out there, I would take a strong disagreement to that. We have seven applications. We can count like anybody else can count. There's 2,448 units which are proposed for those seven Page 20 January 20, 2000 developments. I could stand here in front of you and say okay, my proposal today is that we simply take each one. In the case of Alexandria, it's 72/2448's, and that's their share, or we go to the next one and so forth. So Mr. Fernandez is not incorrect in saying staff hasn't made a determination, because there's probably half a dozen ways we could divvy it up. I think that the issue that you're being asked to look at is not how much should they pay. That's premature. I think the issue that you're being asked to look at and the issue that you're being asked to incorporate into any approvals you give to this project is to provide the county, the public, with the flexibility, if we find that it is appropriate to go back to this developer and incorporate whatever a fair share would be into the overall infrastructure development of that area. The issue of impact fee credits -- and I think that I can speak with some authority on this subject -- is a very touchy subject, because it's very easy to say well, we're going to generate four million dollars in impact fees out of 2,400 and -- it's four million and whatever. Out of 2,400 and change units. And if the project's only going to be a million, two million dollar project, that's a no-brainer. We're going to get more impact fees, so we have plenty of money to pay for it. Unless the board makes a specific designation as to where those impact fees are to be used, those impact fees are used within the district in which they're collected. If we say that we're going to designate those impact fees for this project; this project being the Whippoorwill -- what I call the Whippoorwill corridor -- if we say that we're going to designate that, we've effectively taken those monies out of the revenue stream for all of the projects within that district. As you're well aware, there is not sufficient money available, given the revenue sources we have today, to fulfill our transportation needs program. So, therefore, I would caution you that we can enter in a developer contribution agreement, we can allocate road impact fees, but what we're doing is merely moving money around and taking some projects and putting them out of Page 21 January 20, 2000 order with other projects. We may find that in order to make this work we will have to enter into a developer contribution agreement which says that if you want to build a road today, go ahead and do it, spend the money, we will reimburse you with road impact fees. But because those road impact fees or that project may not have come on line until fiscal year 2003, you won't get any money back until fiscal year 2003. We've done that on several occasions with some significant projects, because the development community recognizes that they have to have a front door or a back door to their project, they recognize the need for the infrastructure, they're willing to put the money up, and by the same token, they have to be willing to wait until the money is available till we can pay them back. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Kant, you've confused me a little bit. I understood Mr. Fernandez to say that the Whippoorwill Lane money, since it's development specific, would not be set off against their impact fees. Is that incorrect? MR. KANT: That's incorrect in that any of the work for Whippoorwill Lane and the so-called east-west connector, once it shows up on the transportation network as a collector, would become eligible for road impact fee credits under developer agreement. The only thing that would not be eligible would be site specific improvements, like turn lanes, the entrance road into the development, that type of thing. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it seems like there's an awful lot of complaining over an awful little if it's all creditable anyway. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Abernathy, the reason for that is because it's also tied to our ability to get building permits down the road. We see this whole area and what's happening to it as probably a quagmire of permitting and processing. We see it all being interrelated and dependent. That, you know, developers could -- because one development does not go forward, the others are held hostage. Those kind of things could happen. We look at ourselves and this project, and we just -- we've asked staff, and we would ask you to ask this yourself of staff Page 22 January 20, 2000 and of yourself, does this project have a nexus? I mean, if the water and sewer, it doesn't connect to that infrastructure, doesn't connect to water management, does not connect to transportation, we shouldn't be confined or integrated into these other projects. We would tell you that -- and we would ask for that consideration. But, you know, I think we've discussed this enough. And you got those -- I would ask to you go through there. I would ask you that in your findings, that you make an assessment of why, if you do approve any one of those stipulation having to do that, do Thank we or do we not have that access. Where's the nexus? you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any further questions for staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah, I have a question for Mr. Fernandez. I'm trying to figure out who the players are in this. Who is Dean Huff the trustee for? Is it Mr. Neiswander? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. KANT: Before I lay this to rest, and I don't want to get into a back and forth and a buttal and rebuttal with Mr. Fernandez or with members of this commission, but I think it's important to address one statement that Mr. Fernandez just made, and that has to do with -- and he may be correct with respect to water, sewer, stormwater, I don't know. But I would submit to you that if the Alexandria PUD is interconnected with the Balmoral PUD, which has frontage and will be connected to the Whippoorwill corridor, then I would submit that there is a reasonable conclusion could be reached that there may be some benefit there to the Alexandria PUD by reason of that connection. And that's one of the reasons why we're asking that the stipulations be made part of the Alexandria PUD without saying okay, you're going to go pay 'X" dollars, or you're going to pay 'X' percent. We believe that the rational nexus does exist. MR. NINO: Let me tell you why Mr. Fernandez is incorrect when he says they don't need our sewer, they don't need our Page 23 January 20, 2000 water. He's not building a sewage treatment plant on his property. The county's transmission lines are going to treat his sewage. Water's going to get to his project by county water mains. And we're saying that if it's necessary to provide larger pipes through a project in order to provide for the area-wide water needs or sewer needs, that there be a mechanism to share those costs; otherwise, each developer would have to pick up the cost of oversizing pipes that transcend the service needs of their property. The other alternative here would have been to say we're going to set up an MSTU and we're going to do all of this in advance, and you guys wait three years until we complete that MSTU process. In my opinion what we're doing here is giving them a comfort level and letting them know that they at least have the zoning in place. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Bruet, I think you had a question. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I just had one question. Water management-wise, you said you're going to discharge to the south. Obviously you're not permitted just yet, right, Mike? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. Water management has agreed with us that we have historical and we do have an easement for that purpose. COMMISSIONER BRUET: And where .- I think you mentioned it and I missed it. Where does the water pass once it reaches Balmoral? MR. FERNANDEZ: Balmoral has an existing ditch on it now, the Kensington Canal. It's an existing facility. It's on their property as part of the granting of the easement, the Kensington for consideration. That ditch is already permitted, it extends all the way to 1-75, and it has been designed with the capacity of that project. These -- the landowner of Balmoral used to be a comPonent owner of Kensington, and that was all set in motion way -- many years ago. So that's been already accounted for. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Answer your question, Mike? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes, thank you. Page 24 January 20, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Rautio, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just wanted -- two comments that we slid around here. Mr. Kant mentioned in particular about the flexibility and that the dollars aren't identified, and I have a strong feeling that we need to put the stipulations in this project. And that my other thought immediately was, as Mr. Kant pointed out, we could put it all on hold for the time being until we work out all the details of the holistic approach. That's an option that this board has. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for staff or petitioner? Is there anyone from the public that wishes to provide testimony on this item? There being none, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah, I'll make a motion that we forward PUD-99-15, the Alexandria PUD, to the county Board of County Commissioners for approval, subject to all stipulations of staff. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Pedone, second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, I -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I can go along with I guess supporting that with one comment. I think it would be very unfair to hold this project to a one-to-one or to the same cost allocation as those folks that, you know, will have direct access onto Whippoorwill. And, you know, with that, if that gets passed along in the process, and -- because I think it's very unfair to hold them hostage, if you will, to the same degree that the other folks are. So with that, I can support the motion. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Well, I was under the impression that it would be prorated as to their actual use. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But then there was also thrown out that, you know, the simple math would be to take the 2,400 Page 25 January 20, 2000 units -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: No, this would be for proration, okay, for the intended use. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Bruet? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes, Commissioner Pedone, did you believe the water management should be part of this? There could be some costs involved in that. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Right now they don't have a site development plan, I believe, correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I would say that since there is no cost to them or no effect, that they the wouldn't be charged for anything. So I think you really have to wait till there's a site development plan. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Wrage, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Just I share with Mr. Fernandez's frustration on the item of cost, but I am going to support the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other comments or questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a comment. Actually, I could support the motion the way it's put together here, with the inclusions of the stipulations, but I think I would vote no because I want to put all these projects on hold. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other comments? Okay, all those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. We'll move on to agenda Item H. That's PUD-99-16, the Whippoorwill Pines PUD. Do we have any disclosures on this item? There are none. All those that wish to testify on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. Do we have a petitioner that wishes to be sworn in? (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. NINO: I don't see the petitioner here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a petitioner?. Page 26 January 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No petitioner? MR. NINO: Petitioner is not here. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: He's already given up. MR. KANT: He may have thought it would be later. MR. NINO: Can we continue this? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I move we continue it till the next meeting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's exactly what I'm looking for. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' We have a motion by Commissioner Priddy, Second by Commissioner Rautio. Discussion? All those in favor to continue this item to the last item on the agenda, say aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That wasn't the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm sorry, I'm sorry, what was your motion? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The last item on next meeting's agenda would be okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But not this agenda. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But not this agenda. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, my-- I misstated it. I understood and said it wrong. Motion to continue. All those in favor, say aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: It carries. We will go to Item I. That is PUD-99-22. All those that wish to testify on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have any disclosures on this item? There being none, Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: This petition is a rezone from 'A' rural agricultural and 'A' with an ST overlay, special treatment overlay, to PUD. Page 27 January 20, 2000 The PUD is known as San Marino PUD. It's located approximately 1.25 miles south of Radio Road and the interchange at 1-75 on the east side of County Road 951. The PUD is 235 acres in size, and if approved will have 352 multi-family units cjustered on a 22.62-acre residential tract. It will also have an 18-1hole golf course on 196 acres, with driving range and clubhouse. Most of that will be here. It will also retain 60 percent of the open space, have 99.1 acres of preservation area, 155 acres of wetlands, a three-acre lake, and play fields, boat docks and walking paths. This site is located within the urban residential fringe subdistrict of the Growth Management Plan, which allows up to 1.5 units per acre. That's why it's all cjustered in this residential tract. Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with the Growth Management Plan and compatibility with surrounding development. We found it is consistent and compatible. Therefore, staff recommends approval with the one stipulation listed in staff's report. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any questions for staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. Mr. Murray, you don't have any problem finding a multi-family housing project compatible with a rock quarry? MR. MURRAY: Well-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I wouldn't want to live next door to one, I don't think. Don't they make little rocks out of big ones? MR. MURRAY: I would find -- from what I understood, the rock quarry is -- the blasting, so forth, is further away, when they do it. I don't know what the schedule is for that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How much away is further away? MR. MURRAY: Well, I couldn't tell you that exactly. But the applicant is here and he can respond to those questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We will hear from the petitioner to explain that issue. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Before you move, Commissioner. Page 28 January 20, 2000 Don, we've got a stipulation. Isn't that part of all the PUD process anyway, the stipulation number one here about the transportation services? MR. MURRAY: What was the question about the stipulation? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: You've got a stipulation, all access, transportation facilities will be subject to review and approved by transportation. Isn't that anyway? Why is that a special stipulation? MR. MURRAY: Well, the applicant chose that they were going to put two access points off of County Road 951 here and here. And staff had recommended just the one access point. But at the time that this petition went forward, it was too late to change that on the master plan. So we recommended this, giving Ed and his staff full review of that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Murray? If we could hear from the petitioner, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich, representing Mr. Vogel, who's the trustee for Mr. John Jassey, in case that question comes up. This is a petition I'm sure you've never seen before, a residential golf course community, so I think you're familiar with the issues involving that. One point of clarification I wanted to make is that in actuality, what Mr. Murray described as how it ultimately will be developed is one of the scenarios with the cjustering. The PUD provides us the flexibility to do a more standard residential golf course community as well. And I just wanted to point that out to the board. I don't think there -- we had a recommendation of approval from the EAC. I don't believe there are any traffic issues. I have Emilio Robau here, who's the engineer for the project, and Bill Hoover here as well, the planner for the project, if you have any specific questions. But other than that, if you don't have any specific questions, staff report was -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How far is the rock quarry? MR. ROBAU: I'm getting there. Page 29 January 20, 2000 MR. YOVANOVICH: We're scaling it off. I think it's more of an issue for whether or not our -- we'll be able to sell our project, not necessarily our being offensive to the rock quarry. It will be a question of whether or not we find a -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: My question would be, how much longer is the rock quarry going to be in operation? Because that's probably a -- MR. ROBAU: We are -- for the record, Emilio Robau, RWA, Incorporated, civil engineering. We're 2,400, if I just scaled it correctly, from current operations. The rock quarry is shown there on the south end. Let me just point out where the residential component of this is going to be on both the PUD master plan, as well the aerial here, so we can see what we're dealing with. This is the residential component here shown on the aerial. What you're seeing underneath here is FLUCCS mapping. This is one of our environmental studies maps. So it's going to go right here. Here's the residential component over here. We have a preserve area that's an immediate buffer right here. That's essentially a jurisdictional wetlands that we're going to enhance. And then over here is the beginning of the rock quarry. You see on the south side over here, they've already completed the lake bank. They're probably going to go back and reshape some. As typical when they're nearing completion of the entire quarry, they go around and spruce up the lake banks. I don't know if that's going to take blasting or not. Typically it doesn't. They just kind of follow the contour that they work with. Same thing along this side over here. Right here their current operations, as I stated earlier, if I scaled correctly, it's 2,400 feet. I don't know what's going to happen right here, quite frankly. I haven't -- I don't have the Bonness pits (phonetic) master plan with me right now to answer that. So we're a good 2,400 feet from the currently processing rock. And, you know, ultimately this will be built out and that noise consideration will go away. But, you know, there is a valid concern there. I understand that. Page 30 January 20, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do you have a balance of presentation? MR. YOVANOVICH: Unless you have specific questions regarding the project. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I just have a comment. Just as I looked at the last project, as we look holistically, that 951 corridor, I tend to look at that holistically, too. Just keep in mind, as this goes forward, the other developments that have gone in prior to yours have taken great care to have that roadway almost stay at a very nice-looking, pristine parkway look. If you would just kind of file that in the back of your minds as you go forward with this. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other comments or questions? Do we have anyone from the public that wishes to address this item? MR. NINO.' No, we don't. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we forward for approval -- recommendation of approval PUD-99-22, with the staff stipulations. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Wrage, second by Commissioner Bruet. Discussion? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY-' Yes. I would just ask the developer to please take every precaution to forewarn your potential clients that there may be blasting going on in the back, so that that doesn't adversely affect the quarry down the road. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Realtors always do that, don't they? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Page 31 January 20, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, moving on to our next agenda item, Item J. This is PUD-86-12(4). Do we have any disclosures on this item? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yes. I'd like to recuse myself from this, as I'm a subcontractor to Transeastern Properties. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other disclosures? There being none, all those that wish to testify on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. MR. NINO: Excuse me, there are a number of speakers that signed up. CHAIRMAN BUDD: This is the Bretonne Park PUD, increasing the height of multi-family condominium buildings from three stories to four stories, for property located an Davis Boulevard. If that sounds more familiar. I understand the PUD number can be nondescriptive. All those that wish to testify, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: There's not enough people standing. MEMBER FROM AUDIENCE: Use the word Glen Eagle. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. This is the Glen Eagle development, country club project. All those that wish to testify on this item, if you'll stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. That's as good as it's going to get. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of current planning staff. Petitioner is Blair Foley, representing Transeastern Properties, and requesting to amend the Bretonne Park PUD to allow for an increase in the maximum building height of a multi-family condominium structures from three stories to four stories on Tract J only. As you can see on the location map on the visualizer, the PUD is located on the north side of Davis Boulevard and the south side of Radio Road. Tract J is highlighted in yellow, and Page 32 January 20, 2000 it's in the north central part of the PUD. The petition is consistent with the Growth Management Plan which allows for multi-family residential. Growth Management Plan criteria don't deal with the height of structures so, therefore, this petition is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. It will have no impact on traffic circulation. They're not adding additional dwelling units to the improved PUD. The master plan. As you can see, Tract J is located adjacent to a golf course facility, golf course tracts and lakes. The site does not immediately abut against existing residential tracts. They're separated by golf course and some preserve areas and buffering and lakes and open space areas. Staff, in reviewing this petition for compatibility, looked at other developments that have four-story buildings. There are not many of them, but there are few. Naples Heritage is one that has four-story condominiums. This planning commission also approved a 50-story (sic) building within the Bretonne Park last year as part of the ALF. The ALF side is located right here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: 50? MR. BELLOWS: 55 feet, excuse me. It will allow for four stories, though, within this development. Matter of compatibility. I went to look at the existing structures on-site, and I took some photographs. Here's an example of a two-story condominium structure. We also took pictures of the larger two-story structures. As you can see, they're all pretty much interweaved around the golf course facilities, as there's golf cart paths, landscaping throughout the whole development. Here's a picture of the three-story buildings. There's not much difference from a distance between the two and three-story. And if you add one more story to the three-story, would be up around there, approximately 10 feet. The petitioner's here with some renderings to show you what the project will look like. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff? Mr. Bruet. Page 33 January 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER BRUET: Obviously, I don't see any mention about density change. We're just talking about building height only; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: On tract J only. I'd also like to point out, I have received 10 letters in opposition from residents. MR. NINO: Ray, the question, though, is this going to go add any more units -- MR. BELLOWS: No, I said no. The PUD has a set approvement (sic) of a total number of units. They can be interspersed between the different tracts as the development occurs. Different types of development. Either single-family or multi-family homes within this development. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But it is true to say that we are shifting units from somewhere else in the project to this? MR. BELLOWS: Not necessarily. This petition is not requesting that. You could do it with three stories; you could do the same thing with four stories. We're only looking at height here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for staff? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Just one moment here. On tract J, is there going to be more units than exist today? Obviously there's -- the answer is yes. MR. BELLOWS: Not necessarily. MR. NINO: No. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Okay. MR. NINO: You can't make that determination, because there's no spatial commitment to the total number of units approved in Bretonne Park. It's a function of the design. The four stories may end up with achieving larger units rather than more units. COMMISSIONER BRUET: The density is spread over the project. MR. BELLOWS: You could have a shorter, wider building -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: I understand. MR. BELLOWS: -- taller, thinner. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But you said that there's Page 34 January 20, 2000 going to be a smaller footprint. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The~information I received, some of the building footprints make a taller, thinner building, versus a wider, lower building. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No more units. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Wrage? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Just back to your letters. What was the general objection? MR. BELLOWS: Most of them felt the four stories would connotate more of a lower income type structure that would not be compatible with their development. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for staff? If we could hear from petitioner, please. MR. FOLEY: Good morning. For the record, Blair Foley, representing the petitioner. I just have a few things to add to staff's report. As far as density goes, we're in a position today, and the developer is here also to restrict the density and to go ahead. This is one of the last tracts to be developed in Glen Eagle. And he will commit to less density than that which is permitted in the PUD. The intent here with this particular site plan that we show over here is simply four four-story buildings in tract J, which would be in its entirety in the subdivision. The balance of the units that you see here are two-story condominiums and coach homes. So I think with the intent, Mr. Abernathy, was that if we went with these four four-story buildings, the balance of the units would be basically two-story buildings. What could go on this piece of property right now is a whole host of three-story buildings, if they would want, which would have a lot more density. So I think that's probably the intent and how the staff report was written. Just a couple of items that I'd like to mention. With the four-story, it's going only going to be, as Mr. Bellows said, an additional 10 feet, not that obtrusive, and we hope to provide some more open space on the property as well when we do this. Page 35 January 20, 2000 And I do have Mr. Roy Ramsey here, who is with Transeastern, who has some renderings, and we can commit these into the record as well. I'm here to answer any specific engineering questions or any planning issues that you may have, and we'd also like an opportunity to rebut any public comment, please. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. If we could hear from Mr. -- or any questions for Mr. Foley first? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Would it be fair to say that like on the beach, the higher up you go, the more you pay? If we go to a four-story here, do you charge people more to be up higher? MR. FOLEY: I'm going to have to let the developer answer that question. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Because that -- it would seem that that might take care of the Iow income question. MR. FOLEY: Yeah, I'm not sure that's a strong argument, the Iow income issue. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for Mr. Foley? We'll hear from Mr. Ramsey, please. MR. RAMSEY: For the record, I'm Roy Ramsey, vice president of Transeastern Properties, Incorporated. The overall intent of getting the height restriction changed on Pod J is to reduce the overall density of the Glen Eagle project from what is currently a maximum of 1,380 units. If permitted, we will reduce that to 1,234 overall units, no more to be developed and added. Because this is the last undeveloped tract in Glen Eagle. The purpose of using the four-story footprint is very simple, that we have a smaller footprint and, therefore, more open space. And it allows us to get a reasonable number of units inside the pod, but also allows us to have a mix of product, the two-story condominium as well as the coach home. I have met with many of the residents and resident groups to try to give them the facts as they really are, rather than some of the rumors and innuendo that go around. One of the objections that came up was increased traffic. Well, there's not going to be an increase in traffic. There's in Page 36 January 20, 2000 actuality a decrease in traffic overall for the community, as well as for this particular PUD. The buildings were placed strategically so it has -- the four-story buildings have the least amount of impact on any other existing residential in the area. It is -- there is a golf course between it and the closest other residential areas as well. They have expressed a concern about landscaping, and I brought a rendering of the front and the rear of the building, and the landscaping will exceed county standards and be compatible with the kind of community that we're building. In respect to lower prices, I would submit to you that the lowest price of any of these particular units in the mid-rise building will be in the $130,000 and up range. And your assumption is correct, we do charge more as we'd go up and, therefore, the fourth floor of this building is going to be priced much higher than the third floor of a three-story building would be if we were to build those. Frankly, we don't want to build anymore three-story buildings, because you have a very long plain that is visible from the golf course and we think is less attractive than if you have a higher, smaller footprint and, therefore, the more open space. And it enables us to introduce different product inside the community. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have, and then I would like the opportunity, in case any other things come up, have the opportunity to address those. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? Mr. Bruet. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes. Roy, also the commitment is to only four buildings? MR. RAMSEY: Only four four-story buildings. COMMISSIONER BRUET: And previously, you could have planned -- MR. RAMSEY: Up to 300 units of three-story buildings. Probably 320 units in that particular pod, if we did a complete layout -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Which would calculate to five or Page 37 January 20, 2000 six buildings, or roughly-- MR. RAMSEY: Probably more like 10 or 12. COMMISSIONER BRUET: 10 or 12. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: I have on the visualizer one of the original plans for the three-story buildings on Tract J. And as you can see, there are numerous buildings either attached along the -- MR. RAMSEY: I think that's 11, if I'm not -- that's a similar project. That's across from the proposed project. There we go. That's the Pod J tract. But you can see that each four-story building is 180 feet. And if you do three-story buildings and you do six units to the floor, then it would be 240 linear feet. And then we would just take the linear feet of that pod and line up as many of them as we could, addressing the setbacks that are required for three-story buildings. And it does come out to 10 or 11 buildings. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You said if you do three-story buildings you'd have up to 320 units, I think? MR. RAMSEY: Well, that's how many units are left to develop in the PUD, okay-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay, per PUD. MR. RAMSEY: And for -- well, in the overall PUD. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Whole PUD. MR. RAMSEY: And so that rather than develop Pod J into a maximum number of units, we want to have the mixed use. And this allows us to get the economic viability because of the increased value in those upper units. That enables us not to have to build out all the units. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How many units will there be in those four buildings? MR. RAMSEY: There's 96. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: 96. MR. RAMSEY: 96 units. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions? Okay, Mr. Nino, we have some registered public speakers? MR. NINO: Yes, we do. Carolyn Hale, Ann Gallagher, Terry McConnell, Michael Frimpter and Dwight McGraw. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And if you would come forward and the Page 38 January 20, 2000 first speaker would please come to the microphone and state your name for the record. And the subsequent speakers, if you could work your way up to the front so that we can move along as quickly as possible. If the subsequent speakers who have registered would also come forward, please. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if staff can put on the visualizer the new floor plan of the four buildings, the footprint of the four buildings, if they have it. That would be helpful. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do you have that, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have the new one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: While they're doing that, ma'am, if you would state your name for the record and you can provide your testimony. MS. McCONNELL.' Yes, my name is Terry M¢Connell. I didn't want to be first, but here I am. CHAIRMAN BUDD: It's your lucky day. MS. McCONNELL: Actually, I have more questions based on the testimony just given, but -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ma'am, in order just to help you out a little bit, if you would just go through your questions, we'll keep track of them, along with the petitioner, and they'll address them in total. Because one of the things we don't want to do is this is not a forum for a dialogue, it's a forum for testimony. So just read through your list, and then they'll provide some response. MS. McCONNELL: Thank you. First just a couple of observations. I have to say that Transeastern has done an excellent job in terms of the common property and the golf course and maintaining it and making it look very beautiful. However, I think both Transeastern and the county has done a little less than excellent job in communicating with some of the property owners. I'm a relative new property owner; just slightly more than a year and a half, and this is my first experience with all this. The mail that we receive consistently shows site and project developments pointing to a spot on Radio Road. That Page 39 January 20, 2000 was for a meeting that you had in November. The same map was used for this meeting. I think it was very -- kind of misrepresents the issues involved. And I don't think I'm the only one who felt that way. The other thing is that I'm concerned about the ability for builders and contractors to advertise what they're going to do prior to getting approval for it. That kind of puts us in a rather unfortunate position that as everybody seems to say around here, well, it's a done deed. I've heard that a thousand times in the past month, it's a done deed. I would hope that isn't the case with this board, that it's not a done deed. I don't think they should advertise with a large billboard showing a four-story building when we have no four-story buildings in our PUD. I also don't understand the exact difference between a PUD and a PUD planned unit. And is this what that means is just going from three to four stories? I doubt it. I think it means something else. And I'd like to know what the other possible options are by changing this from a PUD to a planned unit PUD, and what that would mean to all of the property owners. I'm nowhere near this projected four-story building, so it isn't because I feel I'm personally impacted, but I do think that it would affect the integrity of our entire common property. I also think that there's some concern, and I don't really understand how this all fits in, because we keep talking about Bretonne Park. But I'm under the impression there's another whole section that was Whittenberg that somehow had been annexed, and is that part of this whole PUD planned unit thing? If so, when was that annexation approved? Because I was under the impression that only an access road was approved. So where does that fit into this whole picture in terms of the density? And I also think -- there's also a petition I think coming up about setbacks in that Whittenberg area. I'm a little uncomfortable getting these things in piecemeal, because each thing in and of itself seems to be like it's not such a big deal. But you start putting the pieces together and the whole project is Page 40 January 20, 2000 what I'd like to see. What is it that is on the property right now, on the PUD, and what would be the affect of the change? For example, if there is an annexation of the Whittenberg property, what would the common land there -- how much additional common property would there be to the whole thing? What would be the potential revenues from that piece to offset any additional expenses for maintaining those broader based common properties from our overall management fee? I think that's all part of the whole project. And the last point I'm going to make is that -- and this is probably true all over town, I don't know. But because builders have more votes, because they have only unbuilt votes, I find it very unfortunate. I'm not sure this board is the place to address that. But how do we find out how we can get our position put forward without being automatically voted down and told something already been approved simply because they have the most votes. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Just to provide some comments, and also orienting the other speakers and the audience, the issue before us today is the planning commission, and we are an advisory board that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. The issue before us today is the maximum building height. There are a lot of other personally relevant issues in terms of density, the Whittenberg parcel, the road access and a lot of other things, advertising, as this lady just mentioned. And unfortunately, it is totally off our plate and nothing we can consider and irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is a building height issue. That is the only thing that we can take relevant testimony on, and it's the only thing we're going to take action on. Anything else -- and ma'am, you brought up a lot of good points, and if I lived in your neighborhood, I'd have those questions, and they're certainly very valid. But I wanted to point out, it's beyond our purview, we cannot make any comments, we have no authority. We're looking at a building height issue. Mr. Nino, or Ray Bellows, if you could just comment. The lady thought that we were changing the status from a PUD to a Page 41 January 20, 2000 planned unit PUD. Can you provide some clarification there? MR. BELLOWS: I think that's just a little problem with terminology. As you can see on the visualizer, I can point out what the PUD is. PUD is shown here in black. It's the Bretonne Park PUD, and that's short for planned unit development. That's a set of regulations regulating setbacks, heights, landscaping, water management, engineering, traffic, all incorporated in one document that has been approved, including the number of units and density. That can't be changed once it's adopted, unless you come back for another public hearing such as we are today. This PUD is adjacent to other PUD's that have their own separate documents regulating density, heights, setback, architectural standards. There was an amendment to this PUD and the Whittenberg Estates PUD not too long ago, a few months ago, to provide an interconnection. That interconnection is somewhere about there connecting the two PUD's together. That was approved to allow for these PUD's to have an interconnection of access so residents can travel between the two projects. A PUD is just a name. It doesn't have any particular change. We're not changing the name of the PUD, the planned unit PUD is the same as a PUD. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So just in clarification for the lady, there's no legal status change in this. MR. BELLOWS: That's right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And the other items like Whittenberg are just not before us today for consideration. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If we could hear the next speaker, please. Sir, if you would state your name for the record. MR. McGRAW: My name is Dwight McGraw. I have seen quite a few things here today of which I had absolutely no information. And one of our constituents living over on St. James Way talked to Mr. Bellows awhile. But we've heard a lot of new things. The Exhibit A that we saw, which was up here earlier, Page 42 January 20, 2000 showed about possible 270 units with 90 building units on it. And so we had no idea that you were talking about four, not all of those or anything like that. So I just say we've been -- there's been quite a few ground things changed to us. But I would like to comment that the four-story units that presently increase -- yeah, it's 10 to 12 feet. It's almost 30 percent, compared to a three-story unit. Three stories are all that are currently allowed. They were all that was allowed when they bought this place. They knew that. And the planning could go accordingly. I do appreciate the concept that it would be less density as a whole. However, four-story units are somewhat out of character with the surrounding developments, as well as the Glen Eagle development. And we feel that it could downgrade the residential character, not only of this area, but other areas around it. And starting out to say well, in a three-story area now you can put four stories, this could become a precedent in the area and end up, well, everything else that's going to be built maybe in East Naples automatically will have four stories. Well, I sense a baloney slicing technique that this lady that spoke before talked about, all these little things. But I can see even the stories being a baloney slicing technique. You know, cut off a little bit and a little bit, well, that's all right. Suddenly you don't have anything left. So I think that it is important for us to stop and say is this proper? Is this aesthetic? Does this fit into the residential character? Not only this, but in a holistic view, all of the developments in the area and those that will be developed in the area. I think it is not desirable under those circumstances. Now, specifically, the only thing I saw was asking a change to the PUD to change from three -- change the maximum three stories to four stories, period. There are other areas in the PUD that apparently were not addressed. There are things like the maximum space between buildings. There's nothing in there now that says anything at all about a maximum space once you have four stories. Should not that be Page 43 January 20, 2000 addressed as well? At the moment it says there has to be at least 20 feet between two-story buildings, and has to be at least 30 feet between three-story buildings, but there's no changing on that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You're talking about minimum space, not maximum. MR. McGRAW: These are minimum spaces, yes, between buildings. If you just approve it as is, this thing's hanging out in there, in nowhere. We don't have the minimum space for that size. So that type of thing I think should be in there, too. Mentioned the density. We did try to inquire a bit about the density rating system and whether or not this had been calculated and is this still within the density or not. I did not get that answer. But, you know, suppose they say well, we want to put four-story buildings on Tract J. Well, what about Tract K, which hasn't been built yet? They're cleared out for it. Just as another example. Or other areas. So we feel that in order to maintain the residential character in general, that three stories should be sufficient. Certainly is not going to have any more units anyway. So we urge that you turn this down. And I think that this board even ought to try to say -- adopt a general position that we're just not going to put four-story units in areas where all around there there's no more than three stories anyway. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please? MS. HALE: My name is Carolyn Hale. I'm an owner at Glen Eagle. I would like to comment on the number of the units, that it's being lessened, but I think that that should be shown somewhere in the master association docs, so later on we don't go back up to the 1,300 plus. I'm just concerned that will slip through the cracks. And we -- second point, we feel that when we get letters about changes in our development, that the maps are kind of misleading. They seem to look the same all the time. And sometimes it's hard to figure out what exactly is being talked Page 44 January 20, 2000 about. And I just wanted to ask, too, that Transeastern, you said you had met with some of the groups. But we'd like to have meetings with the whole community, perhaps, if we weren't involved in any of these meetings. I think it would just help us to have more information about projects like this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: I'd just like to point out, since that question's come up a few times, this is an example of the maps the residents have received. It shows the PUD locations. The PUD is what is being amended. That's why we're showing the entire PUD boundary. That's why the map is always the same when they get it, because it's the same PUD that's being amended. We don't show particular tracts, or we can't -- it's not feasible to send every single plan or item or piece of paper in a mailing. That's why we encourage residents to call the county and we can set up meetings to go over and explain the details what the petition is all about. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And just as a comment, Mr. Bellows, while I'm sure it's legal and appropriate, I have to concede to the residents, it is probably confusing. Next speaker, please. MR. FRIMPTER: Hi. My name is Mike Frimpter. I live over in Countryside and St. James Way, and would have ample view of the structures. And I deferred to Mr. Dwight McGraw to speak for me and for a number of my neighbors. And I just wanted to let you know that there are other people here from that neighborhood that he represented when he spoke. It's just not one person, but representing many of us. Perhaps people from the neighborhood would raise their hands so you could see what we're talking about. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this item? Yes, sir. Page 45 January 20, 2000 MR. BERRINGER: My name is Len Berringer, and I too am a resident of Glen Eagle. I had spoken with Mr. Ramsey the other day and made some suggestions, but first let me address this: We had circulated a petition and had a great number of people sign that. I submitted those to Mr. Bellows yesterday, so he has them. In addition to which, as you can see by the show of hands here, there are a large number of people here. So it's a fairly important issue, even to the people in Countryside, which came as a surprise to me. We have a feeling that we simply don't want a four-story building in Glen Eagle, because we feel that it devalues the property. How does it do that? It's a very difficult point to make, very different. And we understand that. We just feel it has the effect of cheapening the properties. They're going to sell them at higher prices, fine. That means that they're not going to get speculators in who are going to buy the properties and then rent them. So that's a very valid argument. They said that they're only going to go up perhaps another 10 feet. I doubt that. If you build a tall building, you have to build the roof a little higher than you would on a three-story building. You've got to build a roof on a four-story building. They're probably going to be up 15 or 18 feet more, but that's even a small point. The other point that was addressed here is that -- or at least in my discussion with Mr. Ramsey, is the density. They now propose to have 1,234 units in the entire Bretonne Park developed PUD. Quite frankly, the only unit -- the only pod that's left is Pod J. Everything else has been planned. And the section up on Radio Road which I think is called K, but I'm not sure, is the -- the infrastructure is already in. They put in a new road, they changed some things there. But they were within their rights in order to do this. Now, Pod J is the only thing that's left. If they were to take all of the units that they are legally able to build and put it into Page 46 January 20, 2000 Pod J, they could have all these three-story buildings, it would be great, and they could build those buildings. The only thing is, they couldn't provide one and a half parking spaces for those. They would have to put in a three-story parking garage in order to have parking for those buildings. So it really is impractical for them to say that that's what they would do. I had made some suggestions to Mr. Ramsey, which probably aren't even pertinent here, but I will mention them, and that is that there are some thoughts on building buildings -- building still four buildings rather than -- I had originally proposed five to them, but I could see that didn't make sense, a lot of additional cost. But I've now proposed that he build units which are -- I mean build buildings which are eight units wide, as opposed to six units wide. I went so far as to draw these up to scale and I submitted this to him, and I showed him where he could have the exact same number of units that he currently plans. He doesn't lose anything. He's got to do a little bit of shifting, but it isn't any big deal. This was all done to scale. And his rely to me was well, we can't do that, because we've got a quarter of a million dollars in plans. Well, it seems to me if you don't even have approval on your plot, I don't know why you're drawing plans for buildings. Maybe that's the way you do it. I don't know enough about it. And I do have a picture here to show you something. I think this is -- yeah, this is a picture of a sign which is at the entrance to Saratoga Circle, and -- or Saratoga Colony. Yeah, Saratoga Colony. That's the section which is just adjacent to this. And these people would have a lot of -- Saratoga would have this directly in their view. They object to it. Which is, as I say, why we did the petition. This picture, as you see, shows a four-story building. Well, this is a fait accompli. This is a done deal, as far as they're concerned. I didn't think it was a done deal. I thought you people had the ability to either approve or reject this. And if I'm incorrect in this, then, you know, please correct me. So I think those are the points that I wanted to make. They Page 47 January 20, 2000 can build three-story buildings and get the same density, the same number of units that they have in there. I even worked it out in terms of dollars, using their $130,000 price and an additional $5,000 for the second floor, an additional 5,000 for the third floor, an additional 5,000 for end units. I worked it out. The difference in price, the way I worked it out, and believe me, they don't have to accept anything I do, was about $70,000. Now, on a project that we're talking in terms of 12, 13 million dollars, 70,000 bucks is just a drop in the bucket. I don't think it's a factor at all. They would end up with nice buildings, which we would be happy with, which they are currently approved to build, three-story buildings. There would be no question at this point. So I simply feel that the board should reject this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Ms. Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Sir, you mentioned a petition? MR. BERRINGER: Yes. Mr. Bellows has the petition. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: He has the petition. I'm not -- I must have missed it when he was giving his outline, how many people signed that petition and really what the language of it was. I'm curious, because we often are handed these beforehand. MR. NINO: Yeah, I'm sorry. MR. BELLOWS: Like -- is it Mr. -- MR. BERRINGER: Berringer. MR. BELLOWS: -- Mr. Berringer mentioned, I just got it late yesterday. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: And the questions came up prior to my completing my presentation. I do have, as Mr. Berringer said, 124 names signed on a petition objecting to the four stories. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And it's basically the language is just objecting to the four stories? MR. BELLOWS: I'll read it to you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: If you would be so kind. Page 48 January 20, 2000 MR. BELLOWS: "We, the undersigned property owners of Glen Eagle Golf and Country Club respectfully request the planning commission deny Transeastern Properties' request to rezone Tract J of Bretonne Park PUD to permit the construction of condominium buildings four stories in height rather than three-story buildings already approved. Our objection is based on the contention that such an increase would reduce our property values because of the excessive height of the buildings and the ability of Transeastern to sell those condos at a far below comparable units in the area." COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. BERRINGER: And the price issue at this point -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, sir, you need to come -- if you're going to provide testimony, you need to come to this lectern. MR. BERRINGER: This -- as I say, this was done about a week or so ago. Since talking to Mr. Ramsey, I found the price issue really is not a factor. I doubt that people can buy in there and rent and, you know, get a reasonable return on their money. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this item? Please come forward and state your name. Were you sworn in, ma'am? MS. GALLAGHER: Yes, I was. I just couldn't stand because of my leg. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's quite all right. Just state your name for the court reporter. MS. GALLAGHER: My name is Ann Gallagher, and I'm a resident of the area now known as Glen Eagle since 1991. That is not in terms of the rest of you a very long time, but the changes that I have seen are enormous. The residents of Chatham II where I live and Chatham I were not given the opportunity to sign the petition, and I'd like you to know that, because we would have signed it on mass, had we been able to do so. And I simply want to say that a four-story building within the Page 49 January 20, 2000 confines of our community is not environmentally compatible with the kind of an area that we choose to live in. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this item? There being none, does the petitioner have any responses to any of the comments made? You made that reservation. MR. RAMSEY: Yes. Thank you very much. I would like to say that I did meet with every resident or every resident group that requested information either from me or any of the staff that worked there, and the same information that you're being given today was given to them in those meetings. Let me address the issue of petition. There are over 1,000 residents in Glen Eagle today. Less than 125 people signed that petition. And then they did sign it based on economic devaluation of the property. MEMBERS FROM AUDIENCE: No. MR. RAMSEY: Well, the -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Go ahead. MR. RAMSEY: -- petition as it's signed right now says they don't want a four-story building because it would lead to economic devaluation of the property. And I would submit to you that since we have been the developer at Transeastern and taken over from the prior developer, we have had approximately 30 to 40 percent price increase in all our product. We are currently selling product in there at a Iow of about $135,000, up to over $275,000 on single-family homes at this point in time. So if anything, we have improved and increased the overall value of that community, based not only on the home prices but also the quality of the maintenance and other improvements that we've made there. I'll try to address the issues one by one as they either came up or as they come to mind, and I'll try to be as brief as possible. Anyway, we do have over 1,000 residents and only 120 people signed the petition. I did get word yesterday from the president's council, who are the people that I meet with on a monthly or bimonthly basis that are supposed to help me Page 50 January 20, 2000 communicate to the residents and the residents communicate to me that they in a body did not support the signature of that particular petition either. Once they had the facts and the true facts, they were happy to just let the thing be. I think you addressed the problem with the maps that are sent out by the county. I do want to make it a point to the residents at Glen Eagle that the developer does not send out the maps to them, and it's -- the maps that are sent are what are required by law and that you've filled the legal obligation to do that. The Regent Lake, or Whittenberg annexation came up. That is not an annexation. It is -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: And it's also not relevant to the item before us. MR. RAMSEY: So I will drop that issue very quickly. I can take a hint. Another gentleman addressed Tract K. Tract K is a part of Glen Eagle's, and it is a platted single-family subdivision, so it cannot in any way be amended to have any more units than what it is. So that's where that issue lies. There has been the implication that by virtue of the fact that I put a sign up as a preconstruction sales technique, that this was a done deal. We're very aware that this is not a done deal, and it is the developer's risk to start pre-marketing, because this is our season, and it also helps to let people know that that was coming in their neighborhood. And certainly that started the ball rolling partially to let people know that they need to ask the questions about what the PUD changes were coming. In respect to building separations, that is addressed in the Collier County Building Code, and we have to abide by that code, if I'm not mistaken; is that correct, Mr. Bellows? Or Land Development Code. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And any setbacks in the PUD document, but also the building code. And fire code requires separation between structures. That would be reviewed at the time of site development plan. MR. RAMSEY: So that would -- that is definitive and, Page 51 January 20, 2000 therefore, not left out there. It's just not a part of this particular height variance amendment. Do you have any further questions of me that came up as a part of the -- CHAIRMAN BUDD'- Any questions for the petitioner? No, we have none. MR. RAMSEY: Let me make one more comment. There is a four-story building at the front entrance of Glen Eagle Boulevard now, which is approved. That is an ACLF. There are four-story buildings in numerous communities throughout East Naples, and in Heritage, as one in particular. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak regarding this item? Please come forward and state your name. MS. GALLAGHER: May I speak again? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am, if you have new relevant testimony. Just keep in mind that it's not a dialogue, it's testimony. MS. GALLAGHER: My name is Ann Gallagher. Sitting here listening to the issues that came before you, before we discuss Glen Eagle, I heard the word holistically. And as a resident of Glen Eagle, I would urge Transeastern to approach the development holistically. And they did meet with people who are immediately impacted, like Saratoga, but the rest of us were in the dark. And what we listened to is hearsay. And I suggest to them that they make more information available to us in enough time for us to properly address you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this item? Again, sir, this needs to be new relevant testimony regarding the height issue. MR. BERRINGER: This is rebuttal to the rebuttal. Just one second. Len Berringer. The point is very plain and simple, with all of the dialogue that's going on here. The residents of Glen Eagle simply do not want a four-story building. It's as easy as that. The people are Page 52 January 20, 2000 sitting here, they came to the meeting, they signed the petition. Quite frankly, the petition could have had more names on it. We just weren't very diligent. We could have probably had three times that many signature. But the basic point is we don't want Thank a four-story building in the place, for whatever reason. you, CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Anyone else from the public to address this item? There being none, we will close the public hearing. Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do have a question of Ms. Student. The -- it's a statement of the last gentleman, Mr. Berringer, that they simply do not want four stories. Isn't our job to make decisions based on fact? And I don't think I've heard any fact here that says that we couldn't change this. If I would choose to support the concerns of the neighbors, what basis in fact do I have to say no to this petition? MS. STUDENT: What I can advise you on is that first of all, nor the edification of the public, a rezone petition is quasi judicial in nature. It is governed by criteria that are in our Land Development Code. You have those criteria in your staff report, and that is the basis. And case law in this state is that merely desires of neighbors is not sufficient basis. In other words, there can be no applause meter zoning in the State of Florida, and others as well. And you are governed by the criteria that appear in our Land Development Code and that appear in the staff report. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And just to let you know, ma'am, I'm sorry, the public hearing is closed. We're in dialogue to come to a conclusion. Is there any follow-up or did that address your -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, I'm sympathetic to what they're discussing, but I do take my responsibility very seriously, that I don't find anything in the staff report criteria that would say that I as an individual planning commissioner could vote Page 53 January 20, 2000 against the petition. I just wanted to make sure that was clear and on the record. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other comments? Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I tend to agree with that. I've been trying to find a compatibility issue. I'm not finding one. MR. NINO: If I might add to the argument -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: -- the debate. I think the compatibility issue is the only criteria that's out there that you can bite on. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Saadeh? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: There was talk about this snowball effect, that some other communities might want to do the same and go with four stories. That wouldn't happen, because this advisory board and then the Board of County Commissioners has the ultimate word. They cannot arbitrarily go and build four stories unless it's approved. Another concern was maybe Tract K would also go to four stories. That's not really relevant here, because the issue is Tract J and not Tract K. And if they want to do something with Tract K, they'd have to come again to this board and the Board of County Commissioners. As far as the devaluing the property, really, unless we have an expert witness that can tell us that it would really devalue the property, I don't think any of us is qualified to say yes, it would, just based upon hearsay. The separation between structure issue, I think we can ask staff to put that -- although it's in the LDC and they can follow that, I think we can ask staff to include it in the PUD document. It's been included in documents before. I think the residents have a right to know exactly what that number is, because right now it's per the LDC, but they don't know the number. I too don't have any reason to deny the petition, based on what I've seen. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other comments, or do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'm ready for a motion, if you give Page 54 January 20, 2000 me a chance. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward Petition CU-99-22 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval based on -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Hold on, that's the wrong number. Okay, we're not going to approve the earth mining item until we hear it. Back up one. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Forward petition PUD-86-12(4) to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval based on staff's findings. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Priddy, a second by Commissioner Bruet. Discussion? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Can we include the separation between structures as part of the LDC -- as part of the PUD document so everybody is aware what that number is? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. MR. NINO: May I suggest we add -- we take the standard, which is one-half the sum of the heights of the building, which is a standard separation. That should have been in the PUD but -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That's agreeable. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And agreeable to the second? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: With that, I support the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. We're going to take a couple minutes break. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're going to call the meeting back to order, if everyone would please take their seats. Okay, if we can get a majority of the planning commissioners here, we'll reconvene. We have a majority of our board back at their seats and our court reporter is ready, so we will reconvene and resume where we left off. Item K, that is CU-99-22, a conditional use for earth Page 55 January 20, 2000 mining on Platt Road. Are there any disclosures on this item by any commissioners? There being none, all those that wish to testify on this item, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.} MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners, Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a conditional use for earth mining. And the location, as you see in green, is Immokalee Road. To give you probably the nearest point of reference, Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary is up here, so it's east of the north-south portion of Immokalee and south of the east-west portion of Immokalee Road. And not that this gives you any reference points here, but Immokalee -- the east-west portion of Immokalee Road is here. Friendship Lane comes north and south. Platt Road runs east and west, and it's this 20-acre parcel. And the petitioner requests this conditional use for earth mining in order to obviously use the fill material. And combined with that would be a one-acre preserve that was required. And after the excavation is complete, he proposes four homesites, since the tracts are already present. There would be no subdividing involved and, therefore, it's consistent with the administration commission's final order. Also, as you know, from the several petitions that have been before you since June 22nd of last year, earth mining is a permitted use under the final order. Petitioner also states that the duration of the excavation will be approximately two years, and that they have agreed to limit the time of the operation to daylight hours, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. There are several traffic concerns that the petitioner agreed to, such as turn lanes and improvements within the right-of-way of Friendship Lane and Platt Road. And with those stipulations, the staff recommends approval. Page 56 January 20, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any questions for staff? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Just a quick question on the improvements of Friendship Road. Specifically what are we talking about? MR. REISCHL: Just with -- Friendship and Platt are both private roads. So the improvements requested by the transportation department would just be within the Immokalee Road right-of-way. The aprons from those private roads onto the county right-of-way. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? If we could hear from the petitioner, please. MR. CARTER: Yes, Dave Carter for the petitioner, Mr. Fognini. What we have done is stayed consistent with all the regulations of Collier County as far as the earth removal. And the earth removal is actually just nothing more than a convenience for us for taking and building a lake for four single-family residents. And what we'll do is end up selling the actual material that's done after it's all finished. The homesites were done contiguous with what Collier County desires, and as well as our easements, our set-aside land. And the configuration of that land is -- approximately 60 to 65 percent of that land lying to the west is open field that has been farmed for several years in the past. It's been laying fallow right now for approximately six, seven years, I think. Six years. And the land to the east is a pine upland, pine and palmetto. We made sure that our environmental engineer went through there real carefully. There are no burrowing owls, there are no turtles, would be no tortoises at all. He couldn't find any pileated woodpeckers or any evidence thereof, so we stayed in pretty good shape. Why those woodpeckers don't like those pine trees is beyond me, but they weren't there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No scrub jays either, right? MR. CARTER: No scrub jays. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner? Is there anyone -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Just what -- I've received some Page 57 January 20, 2000 concerns from some folks as far as Friendship Lane is concerned. What are your commitments to that road during and when you're finished? MR. CARTER: Our attorney is going to submit to Mr. Reischl an exact dos and don'ts of the contractor that's going to be selected to remove this material. He will be required to water down that road. I don't know what the county suggests, but what the county suggests, if it's a biweekly or weekly interval, then that's what will be done. If there's road grading to be done -- because I've just heard concerns about the potholes that are already on Friendship Lane from truck traffic. That will be resolved. Whatever is done as a result of that earth mining will be rectified by contract to Friendship Lane. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I just like to hear you say that. MR. CARTER: I bet you do. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Is Friendship Lane paved or is it just a rock road? MR. CARTER: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Is Friendship Lane paved or-- has it been paved or just a rock road? MR. CARTER: It's a rock road, but it's in very good shape. It's to my knowledge that the individuals that live on Friendship Lane, the Goodnights and what have you, have gone through that -- taken, crushed down and put on there, and had it in pretty good shape. It goes in and out, but basically it's a very nice road. With a little scraping, it would be ready for pavement probably to county code. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any other questions for the petitioner? Mr. Kant, you have some comments? MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. Just for the record, Friendship Lane and Platt Road are, as was stated earlier, private. They are not county maintained roads. I can't say whether they're private or there may be some public interest there, but they are definitely non-county maintained roads. And in answer to I believe it was Mr. Wrage's question Page 58 January 20, 2000 earlier, typically when we have a lime rock road intersecting a county road, we -- and there's going to be new major activity, we require that an apron be paved from the edge of the traveled way out to the edge of the right-of-way. In this case they'll be doing some more extensive work, because they'll have to put a turn lane complex in, too. We're requiring both eastbound and westbound turn lanes. There's quite a bit of increased earth mining activity in this particular area that is in the south and east sides of Immokalee Road. My only question, one which I guess I should have asked sooner, was I'm curious as to about how deep they're planning to go with their total excavation. Do you know, sir? MR. CARTER: It's what the county allows without any blasting, which is 20 to 25 feet, to my knowledge. MR. KANT: Well, if he -- assuming that he doesn't hit any cap rock, and I'm not sure he's going to get down 20 to 25 feet, you just need to be aware that for a 14-acre lake, you're going to be somewhat over 20,000 cubic yards per foot of depth. So if you're only planning to go two years and work eight to six, I submit that you're not going to get 20 to 25 feet out of it. Our concern would be that if in fact we find that we have traffic problems that develop, they do develop sometimes after something's permitted, we just want to be able to go back and request of the petitioner, again under conditional use, that he be required to make any improvements that we deem necessary from a safety or operational point of view. MR. CARTER: I have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Is there anyone in the public that wishes to address this item? MR. NINO: I have a Milly and Mike Ball and a Nancy Hughes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please come forward and state your name for the record. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: May I ask a quick question of staff? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, go ahead. Page 59 January 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do you know how many people actually live on Friendship Lane and Platt Road? MR. KANT: No, I do not. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: How many -- okay. MR. KANT: Again, we could check the aerials there. It's not heavily developed, but there are certainly more than one or two. But I would say less than 40 or 50. It's -- MS. HUGHES: About 15. MR. KANT: I was going to guess probably a dozen to a dozen and a half families that I'm aware of. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. MS. HUGHES: Yes, my name is Nancy Hughes. I live on the five acres right across from the proposed site. I have basically two concerns. One is that they do not do blasting. My well is only 45 feet deep. I've been there for 16 years. I have never had problems with my well through floods, through droughts. If they blast, it will destroy my well. Then who's going to cover for the cost of sinking a new well? The second is the dirt road. It is not county maintained, even though the county garbage trucks come down it. It's maintained by the people. And it's like pulling teeth to get people to pay to put dirt on the road. It is not strictly just Friendship. He will be traveling down Platt, too. And the intersection between the two is getting very sandy. The question is, if he has to maintain it to keep it up for his trucks, a dump truck is going to be able to go through a whole lot easier than a normal car. So what are our guarantees that he's going to make it passable for us that are living on there? Also, they're digging. There's going to be water accumulating. Where is he going to store this water? Because the ground -- the water level is high. And if he's going to go down 10 feet or so, he's going to hit water. Where is the water going to be stored? Or is he just going to pump it off the property and the rest of us are going to be flooded by it? Those are just some concerns I have, since I'll be living right Page 60 Janua~ 20, 2000 across from it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you. Next speaker, please. MS. BALL: Hi, I'm Milly Ball. I live on Friendship Lane; actually on the end of Friendship Lane. I've talked to a lot of the neighbors. I did write a letter summarizing the concerns, so I'm going to go ahead and read it. This property that he wants to build on, I'm greatly concerned about the request for conditional use. This property is located on Platt Road, which joins Friendship Lane at a 90 degree angle. Neither road is county maintained and only occasionally fixed up by residents. I drive this road twice a day with the kids, picking up kids from school. Neither road -- our neighbor, Tommy Hill, currently tries to keep Friendship Lane in decent condition, bringing in dirt and rock at his own expense. Friendship Lane currently has less than 15 residences, but people use Friendship Lane to access Platt Road, rather than accessing from Immokalee Road, due to the poor condition of Platt Road. It's just dreadful. Friendship Lane cannot take the wear and tear of constant heavy truck traffic without first being brought up to code. If Collier County grants Mr. Fognini's request for earth mining business, I would expect you to ascertain that Friendship Lane not be allowed to deteriorate. Since there is only about a mile of road between Immokalee Road and Platt Road, it would not be unreasonable to expect it to be brought up to code by a business which will be its heaviest user. Maintenance should then be the responsibility of Mr. Fognini, or it could be approved for county maintenance. If the county chooses private maintenance by Mr. Fognini, the last maintenance up to code status should be accomplished one week after the last truckload of dirt is removed. I have discussed this with most of my neighbors who are concerned about the impact of the dust, noise, traffic and road deterioration of having this business in our quiet neighborhood. We have given up the convenience of living close to town to get away from the noise and traffic. We respectfully request your Page 61 January 20, 2000 attention in considering the impact of this type of business on our homes. If we cannot have our peace and quiet, could we at least get home without having to drive around huge potholes and flooded roadways due to crushed culverts? However, if a satisfactory plan is on file with the appropriate dedicated financial resources, please accept my apology for bringing up these concerns. My other concern is we have about 20 elementary kids that catch the bus every morning and they get off the bus at 3:30, roughly. That's where they -- they wait by the side of Immokalee Road, and everybody knows how busy and crazy Immokalee Road is. Especially right about there, because they've gotten up to speed leaving Immokalee, and they haven't had to slow down because of the stop lights. There's no stop lights till you get to the grade school. So, you know, those -- it's right by two deep ditches. There's really no place for those kids to stand. You know, he says they're not running until 8:00 in the morning. Now, I don't know, but there are junior high kids that catch the bus, too. It's crazy there. The road is only -- right there at the entry to Immokalee Road, it's only wide enough for two vehicles to pass side by side. That's two regular vehicles, not talking dump trucks. And somebody has to be there with the kids waiting to catch the bus in the morning. You don't -- you know, we take the responsibility to be there. That's certainly what the school district recommends is that somebody is there with the kids, because you don't want kids right by a busy road, if you can help it, without somebody to keep them in line. So there's no room. I'm glad they have put in the turning lane. That's a great idea. But again, like I said, the ditches are really deep there, and they're just dirt, so it kind of gets erosion. We have four-wheelers that run around and three-wheelers that run around and kind of erode the things further. I'm glad we're not -- so I think we're -- we've got it we're not going to do any blasting, because the blasting has further impact, because we have structural damage. We've lived near a Page 62 January 20, 2000 blasting site before, and we had structural damage to our house in Las Vegas. There's a honey factory up on Platt Road, horses, goats, 4-H hogs. My neighbor behind me has large cats. She has an exotic animals license. You know, I'm not -- there's no sidewalks on Friendship because it's a private road. My kids can't ride their bikes, you know, obviously if there's trucks running up and down the road. My six-year-old's just learned to ride her bike, so, you know that's -- but I'm just concerned. There's a lot of concerns I have that we're not just opening up a Pandora's box without really -- and like my neighbor said, you know, something's -- if they're not being -- if it's not working, how do we say whoa once we've said -- once it's been approved. Because, you know, this is -- we have nice -- they're our homes, and we really don't want it trashed because of, you know, somebody not putting -- not living by what they said they're going to do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. NINO: That's it. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Sir? MR. NINO: Oh, sorry, Mike Ball. MR. BALL: I'm Michael Ball. My concerns is he was stating that they're doing this to build four homesites. Well, I've known some people in the earth mining business now and got to know them a little bit and they're in it to make some money, make a lot of money with digging that dirt out of there. And this road, the truckers that are going up and down there now are going somewhere. There's another mining exploration or deal going on on the other side of Friendship Lane down there, and I've talked to the residents down there. And they're not maintaining that road. Nobody's making the truckers maintain the road. He had to come down and get somebody to come do something. And their road is terrible. I mean, completely -- you can't even get through it in the summertime, unless you've got a Page 63 January 20, 2000 four-wheel drive pickup truck. We've had an estimate of over 100 truckloads of dirt is what would take it to just to get it up if we're going to have constant heavy truckloads on Friendship Lane down to Platt Road, not even counting go down Platt Road. I'd much rather them just go on out Platt Road and leave our Friendship Lane alone. We've tried to maintain our own road, you know. And probably 20 residents from Platt Road coming in and out Friendship Road because Platt Road is so bad? Excuse me, I'm not used to this. He was trying to maintain that they're only trying to do this to build five house lots on a 14-acre lake, or whatever. And I beg to differ that tremendously. I think he's in to making a bunch of money, or what he can. And whether there's any houses left after this or not, or any houses go up, I'm not sure. I know that there's one just down just a quarter of a mile down the road at Big Island. Used to be orange groves. Big Island Citrus. And now they're turning that are whole thing into an earth mining, digging it up. Behind us there's like 2,000, 2,500 acres going to go up, and they're going to put in like a 600-acre lake out there. I'm beginning to think this whole area out here is going to be like Swiss cheese. If you look at it from the air, where is everybody going to live? Where are the citrus growers going to do their stuff, you know, if the earth was just so much more valuable to these people to sell it to people elsewhere? I'm sorry, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this item? Fred, or whoever from the county, what kind of assurances can we give the residents? What's required for maintaining that road? What kinds of standards do we have? MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. Because those are not county maintained, the county has no standards that we can hold private property owners to. There have been a number of occasions over the past few Page 64 January 20, 2000 years where individuals or groups of individuals living in the area have requested county assistance. I can think of one time several years ago when the board directed us to take a couple of loads of lime rock in and fill some very deep holes. They were concerned about emergency access. At one point I spoke with several people about what it would take to form a MSBU for improving the roads, getting them paved. And frankly, the response I got was that those folks weren't real happy about having to spend that kind of money to do that kind of work. The fact of the matter remains that the choice was to build in a relatively rural area with few infrastructure improvements. I think that some of the points that were made by the residents are quite germane in that heavy truck traffic is going to significantly impact the existing roadways. However, the county, unless -- and the county, I guess; I will say the transportation department -- unless directed by the Board of County Commissioners has no legal authority to go in and either make improvements to those roads or to require that those roads be brought up to some standard, other than the way they are now for the folks that choose to use them for access. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: If the county commission has to -- is the only method to require to bring up to standards or fix something, what do we legally as planning commission -- can we stipulate certain things in there? Can we stipulate lime rock being put in? I mean, what -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: We have in the past. MR. CARTER: You've got that description. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, we have in the past put those stipulations as a part of the conditional use. And the one that comes to mind is the mulching operation east of the landfill, down in Yahl -- the Yahl community that -- yeah, we put some stipulations that that had to have water on it once a week and it had to have a minimal -- MR. KANT: It actually. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' -- dust cover. Page 65 January 20, 2000 MR. KANT: Excuse me, Mr. Priddy, but it actually-- in the case that you're discussing, the owner or developer, whatever you want to call him, the user found that it was -- they were better off just paving the road, because it was less maintenance in the long run for them. Whether or not this particular developer chooses to do that, again, that's their determination. But I believe Mr. Priddy is correct, as a conditional use you can put stipulations or conditions on that use. I can't give you a legal opinion; you'll have to ask Ms. Student about that. But my understanding is that you can require certain stipulations that you might not be able to require in, say, a straight zoning or in a PUD or something like that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You weren't very forthcoming about that until Mr. Priddy brought it up. MR. KANT: I beg your pardon, sir? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' I said you weren't very forthcoming about that until Mr. Priddy brought it up. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Student, is-- MR. KANT: Well, Commissioner Abernathy, I guess I'll have to apologize for my lapse of not being so forthcoming. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Student, is it within our control to attach such a condition to the approval? MS. STUDENT: It is within your control. There's a provision in our Land Development Code that provides for conditional uses, that reasonable stipulations can be placed upon them by the Board of County Commissioners. And as planning commission, you could recommend those. The only caveat, and I don't think there's any problem with this particular situation, it has to be related, obviously, to the petition and the uses being sought. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: When you say has to be related, isn't truck traffic going back and forth over Friendship Lane and Platt -- wouldn't that be, if we required lime rock to be installed and keep the road up with the water down and the grading on a regular base, is that -- MS. STUDENT: I would say so. You're not ask -- that's not Page 66 January 20, 2000 exactly a legal opinion. But I would -- based on the facts as I understand them, I would say that that's probably -- would definitely be related to it, yes. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Let's look at just another way. Dump trucks cost 75, $100,000. Cars, 40 to 50. The trucks aren't going to come down there and haul dirt if they can't get in and out without tearing up their trucks. So the truth of the matter is, if he doesn't have a good road for them to drive on, he doesn't have good customers. That's just the -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You don't want to get the trucks stuck and then have them towed out. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's not a fun thing to do. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Pulling a truck out of a pothole is a lot more expensive than pulling a car out of a pothole, and they're not going to get stuck in sand. So the road is going to have to be brought up to probably better standards than it is today, with not dirt filled in but some base rock or lime rock filled in, or he's not going to have customers to get the dirt out. And I think it's certainly incumbent upon us to put some language in any approval that, you know, gives everybody a comfort level. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this item? Yes, sir, if you have new testimony to present relative to this issue. MR. BALL: Yes, sir. I forgot, one of my main concerns is my kids. They got the school bus stop which, you know, everybody stops there on Immokalee Road. And if they put in this turn lane, where are the kids going to stand now? You know, they're out there standing on Friendship Lane, and it's getting real dangerous. And I was wondering if there was anything they could do to make it a better place for the kids to wait for the school bus to get on and off. Just because it's -- I don't know, if you have a bus pull over in the turn lane, it turns its lights on, and I had -- there was a car today that went on by when its red lights were flashing. A little green Isuzu thing just pulled up and just kept on inching by, inching by and inching by. And if they pulled over in Page 67 January 20, 2000 the turn lane, what's to make them stop thinking that they can't just keep on going and not even have to stop? Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else from the public to address this item? Any summary comments on the part of the petitioner, or you've presented your-- MR. CARTER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. As far as the -- us willing to stay with maintaining or working with the community and a light in which we're going to minimize or impact, we've already addressed this with Mr. Reischl, and our attorney will send Mr. Reischl -- and if you do, Counselor, also to have a copy of the contract that we will have with the individuals doing the excavating, and we'll assure you that it will go in with the continuity of what you desire. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But I'd certainly like to see that. And it's not here today, so can you sort of give me a laundry list of the things that your attorney's going to put into this contract and tell the county you're going to do? MR. CARTER: I can only submit to you, Mrs. Chairman -- Mrs. Chairwoman (sic), that I have a basic laundry list, but it's not set up in a legal form, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's okay, we like them that way. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We'd like to hear what you have to say. MR. CARTER: Mr. Chairman, you can even read it. Would you like me to read it into the record? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, please. What kind of maintenance are you going to provide to the road? MR. CARTER: This is a proposed contract to be reviewed and amended by legal counsel, dated November 16th, 1999 by myself, David Carter. The project's Platt Road, 20 acres, Section 25.4727. And I have an extensive legal that follows that. Potential contracts are at this time Terry Dupres (phonetic) of Everglades Construction, J and C Drainfield, and Joe Bonness of Better Roads. It's really extensive. CHAIRMAN BUDD: What we want to know is what are you going to do as far as maintenance? We don't need to read the Page 68 January 20, 2000 legal brief. What kind of maintenance, schedule and level of service are you going to provide on this road? MR. CARTER: Timing is of the essence in the stockpiling of all possible materials per drawing (phonetic) of sale. The timing of this permit has been meticulously worked out to have the primary amount of excavation done during the dry season, thus minimizing impact on school children on the roads. Although we have had a considerably wet summer this year, at no time has there been evidence to me of standing water on any part of this 20-acre of parcel only. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Again, what are you going to do to maintain the road? MR. CARTER: Okay, we're going to retain the water by making the dikes as necessary and pumping required. I've got it in here. I don't -- I know I had it in here. I've got it in here somewhere where you have to be -- watering of the road has to be done on a weekly basis, and the grading of the road has to do on a monthly basis, or every 30 days. But that's -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you come up with some good language in short order, that would be great; otherwise, we're going to make some requirements for you. MR. CARTER: What I would draw in, Counselor, is just to have a grading done by the contractor every 30 days and a watering done of Friendship Lane every week. But I want a specific portion of Friendship Lane. What we use from Platt Road heading north out to Immokalee Road, there's another half a mile of Friendship Lane that goes to the south. We want to be responsible for what we impact. That's not what everybody else works with. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's fair. Okay, any -- yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Assuming we're getting close on the maintenance, I'd just like to go one more step. I mean, maintenance is fine and we certainly appreciate that. I'm sure the neighbors do. But their concern is about children waiting for school buses and the traffic that's on Immokalee Road. You're going to do some turn-out construction, I guess, and turn lane construction. Page 69 January 20, 2000 MR. CARTER: That's required by-- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Is there any opportunity for him to make an area for children to stand off the side of the turn lane, or is -- I realize there's right-of-way and -- MR. CARTER: State road. COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- then there's private -- excuse me, there's right-of-way and private property in there. But can we put in some language that says you -- county will work together to try to provide some type of a safe area that children can wait for the bus? I mean, I'm just talking about some grading and some fillings so the children can stand somewhere without worrying about getting hit with trucks or traffic on Immokalee Road. I think that's important. Maintaining the road to me is secondary compared to 20 children that are standing on the corner of Immokalee and Friendship Road. MR. REISCHL: So you want to put in a stipulation about a school bus shelter? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes, that would be fine. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And I disagree that grading every 30 days is going to do it. And watering, having been in underground utilities, when it's dry out there, I think you're really going to have to water it daily. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm sorry, but I've been on many construction sites, and I think you're going to have to do a lot more than weekly watering and grading every 30 days. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And that will probably be picked up on our motion. Is there anyone else from the public to address this item? Yes, ma'am, if you have new, relevant testimony. MS. BALL: Right. Milly Ball. I just wanted them to do the final -- like I put in the -- the maintenance after they're done so they repair -- they don't leave it broken up. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Yes, ma'am, we won't forget you. Any other testimony from the public? Heard from petitioner. We'll close the public hearing. Page 70 January 20, 2000 Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: I'm give it a shot, Mr. Chairman. I recommend the board send this recommendation for approval to the Board of Zoning and Appeals for CU-99-22, subject to the developer or contractor in this case agreeing to a water and grade the road weekly and provide necessary material to fill any potholes to make the road safe for the pedestrians that also use the road. And also, include some -- in the turn lane construction, a school bus shelter and appropriate access in and out for the safety of children. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Bruet, a second by Commissioner Wrage. Discussion? No discussion? We'll call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries with stipulations. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question real quickly. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Who actually monitors those stipulations that we just put on, make sure that they were -- the county staff, transportation and -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The neighbors call the county staff that -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next item is Item L. That is CU-99-27. This item is Keystone Custom Homes for a 157-unit cjuster housing in the Palm River area. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I need to recuse myself in that my employer will be involved in some consideration that relates to this project. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, Mr. Bruet. Any other disclosures relative to this item? I need to disclose that I spoke with Mr. Tony Pires regarding this item. Page 71 January 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I spoke with Mr. Pires as well. CHAIRMAN BUDD: No other disclosures? For all persons wishing to testify on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: And just as a couple matters of housekeeping, because as much fun as it's going to be, we really don't want to be here for another 12 hours. First, for all of you who would like to speak, we very much want to hear from you. Please fill out one of the forms that you can give to Mr. Nino. It will help us organize our speakers. Also, I'd like to make a comment to the public that individual speakers will be limited to five minutes on any item. Individuals selected to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes, if recognized by the Chairman. So we would request that if you have a speaker who's going to consolidate your arguments, that would be most effective. And while you certainly have the right and we're not going to cut anybody off, I would just caution you that as a practical human relations matter, if we hear the same thing time and time and time again, it really deflates the value of that argument. So if you would be concise, we're very interested in those things you have to so. If we could hear from Mr. Reischl, please. MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a conditional use and an ST or special treatment development permit on the same parcel of land. It's adjacent to the existing Palm River subdivision. You can see it here in blue. And it includes some existing lakes or parts of lakes. It's adjacent to Imperial Golf Course on the north and Collier's Reserve on the west, and of course the Palm River community on the east and south. The conditional uses for cjuster development, which is -- Page 72 January 20, 2000 probably the best way to describe it is a substitute for a PUD. Instead of rezoning, they're altering the setbacks to allow them to have a more -- what the code calls a more usable pattern of open space; cjustering the houses together so you can have a larger preserve, larger retained vegetation. In this case lakes and also recreation area. It does not allow them to increase the density. Since the underlined zoning is RSF-3, the maximum density is three units per acre. Under the proposal that petitioner has proposed, 1.8 units per acre density, so it is less than the permitted maximum. The review showed that it's consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. And it was heard by the Environmental Advisory -- oh, excuse me, before I get into that, I'll also quickly go over the ST and then Barbara Burgeson is here to give more detailed explanation of that. ST is an overlay that was put into effect approximately the early 1970's. And on this map you can see in yellow the extent of the actual ST overlay. And after our environmental staff and consultants, environmental consultant got together, the actual borderline of the actual wetland, instead of that rectangular parcel, you can see the borderline in here. That includes some encroachment into some of the proposed lots up there. So that's the actual wetland line as opposed to the ST line. But again, I'll let Barbara get into that in more detail. The Environmental Advisory Council heard this petition on January 5th. It was a long meeting and lots of information was given by the petitioner and by the public. Most of the discussions centered on relocation of gopher tortoises. And again, I'll let Barbara get into that in more detail. The planning aspect of the gopher tortoise relocation includes the proposal by the petitioner that -- first of all, most of the gopher tortoises are located in the southern portion of the parcel. The petitioner is proposing a relocation to the approximately five-acre parcel up on the north. A lot of the discussion centered on that, should this be cjustered so that the gopher tortoise preserve remains where the gopher tortoises actually are, and houses cjustered around that. Page 73 January 20, 2000 There was also a discussion of these five lots encroaching into the wetland area. And that's one of staff's recommendations, that we recommend that those five lots be removed from the conditional use. Also, another point of discussion was the fact that retained native vegetation requirement was not specifically delineated on the master plan. Staff recommended approval with that, because there was -- there is enough area on there to retain the required native vegetation; however, the EAC wanted to see that delineated specifically on the master plan. And Attorney Mr. Pires for one of the homeowners' associations spoke and brought up the language in the cjuster housing that you can see on Page 6 of the staff report talking about the cjustering. And his interpretation of that was that besides the required 60 percent open space -- and again, just to delineate here, we're going to be talking about two different things, retained native vegetation and 60 percent open space. Both of those concepts can overlap. In this case, Mr. Pires was referring to the open space requirement. And his reading of that paragraph is that by reducing the lot size and the setbacks on the lot, additional open space besides the required 60 percent is required. We sought the interpretation of Bob Mulhere, who is the planning services director, and he read it a different way, that if you continue farther down that paragraph, that the open space shall be in the area or phase of the cjustering. So he -- his interpretation was that it didn't require greater than 60 percent, but that instead of having it on the other side of the PUD where you're not -- the people in this phase are not going to enjoy it, it's going to be cjustered in that area where this development is. Since this is all one phase, we feel it met that requirement. Obviously the Board of Zoning Appeals is going to be the ultimate arbitrator of that interpretation. And after that discussion, the EAC voted 5-1 to forward to the petition with a recommendation of denial. We -- the staff originally and still forwards this petition to you with a recommendation of approval. We believe that meets Page 74 January 20, 2000 the criteria for cjuster development and ST. And Barb will give you an update on the ST. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let me ask you a couple of questions, please, Fred. On Page 4 of your report, the very last sentence, you say a portion of the proposed extension of Cypress Way East will pass through the ST area. And on the diagram, I see that that's across from Lots 55 and 56, which you're calling for the elimination of. It goes across to Lot 43, or just touches it. What about the roadway's impact there? Is it going to be a bridge or just plow through it, or what. MR. REISCHL: Basically we believe that that -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Immaterial or -- MR. REISCHL: -- causes unavoidable impact, that it's a corner of the wetland, it's not going through a larger part of it, like the lots would. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay, my other question is, this is the first cjuster development that I've come across. If you just look at this, and if a person who is expert in this sort of thing would be handed this, would he say oh, yes, this is a cjuster development? What is it that makes it a cjuster development? Looks to me like it's just a subdivision with a bunch of almost 150-foot lots. What's cjustered about it? MR. REISCHL: Well, it's the -- the cjustering is the squeezing the houses closer together, I guess if you want to put it that way. They're still meeting the 60 percent open space. MR. NINO: The RSF-3 district would otherwise require all the lots to be 10,000 square feet with 80 feet of frontage. These lots are less than that; ergo, they're more cjustered. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So if you looked at that, you would know that right away, because -- MR. NINO: Let me put it -- it qualifies for that. I don't think it represents the ideal cjustering interpretation, but it pushes it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I was curious about that. Thank you. MR. REISCHL: Thank you for pointing that out. Because I did not say something at the -- on my diagram here. The blue are the lots that meet the RFS-3 criteria. So those are not part of the Page 75 January 20, 2000 lots that qualify for cjustering. The red would be the lots that have the reduced setback, and they would qualify for cjustering. And an error in my staff report that I'd like to point out, too. I said that the owner is Keystone Custom Homes. As you read in the application, they are the contract purchaser. I passed out the Palm River Corporation, I believe it is you have there, and that's got the list of the officers in that corporation. That's the owner. Keystone Custom Homes is the contract purchaser. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you very much. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. I'm going to try to keep this brief. It will be similar to the presentation that I made to the EAC. However, if anybody wants to stop me for questions or shorten my presentation, please feel free to. The subject property covers 86 acres, which includes approximately 69 acres of uplands, 10 acres of redefined jurisdictional wetlands, and about eight acres of area that was previously dredged to create surface waters. The uplands on-site, particularly the scrub oaks, scrubby flatwoods, are high quality gopher tortoise habitat, as evidenced by the large number of burrows that were surveyed and identified on that portion. I'll give you a map here to show you those areas. The dark yellow is the highest quality gopher tortoise habitat. Adjacent to that to the north and the east is a striped yellow area which shows still habitat that had a large number of tortoises in it but not quite as high quality. A total of 165 active and inactive gopher tortoise burrows were identified on this property. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: How many did you say? MS. BURGESON: 165 active and inactive. The estimate from the petitioner's environmental consultant is that when you excavate all the active and inactive burrows on the site, that they anticipate between 41 and 55 tortoises to be relocated. They're currently on 17.62 acres, which is the dark yellow area, and the striped yellow area to the north and east is Page 76 Janua~ 20, 2000 approximately seven and a half or eight acres of adjacent habitat. The proposal is to relocate them into a five-acre preserve at the north end of the property, which is highly impacted by exotics and pine flatwoods, which is currently not a habitat for gopher tortoises, but they propose to remove exotics and enhance the area with food source, plant material, to try to accommodate the tortoises being relocated into that area. Also, I'd like to point out that adjacent on the west side of the property, adjacent to what's existing as a gopher tortoise habitat is Collier's Reserve, Tract 21. The consultant working on this petition also happens to be the consultant for that project. That area immediately adjacent to the west is part of an existing gopher tortoise preserve for Collier's Reserve. The boundary of the ST parcel on the site, as identified through the platted boundary, is approximately 20 acres. Typically what we do when we're reviewing an ST area for impact and allowing ST permits for building is we try to identify -- if the ST was identified there over a wetland, we try to redefine the officially jurisdictional wetland boundary for that and allow impacts outside of that wetland boundary. That's why we've asked that Lots 53 to 58 be deleted, because we've come down from 20 acres on the original ST boundary down to approximately 10 acres. If any of the rare unique habitat adjacent to that wetland -- for instance, if there had been some high quality gopher tortoise habitat adjacent to that, we would have requested that that be retained under the ST permitting area. But unfortunately what's adjacent immediately to that and under the original boundary is less quality habitat for tortoises. Staff is concerned about the survivability of the gopher tortoise. We're talking about relocating 41 to 55 tortoises into an area that is not -- currently does not have any tortoises in it. And we're hoping they can restore that to quality habitat for those tortoises, but that's something we'll just be working on in the future in probably the STP phase or the subdivision phase. Staff recommends approval of the petition with 10 Page 77 January 20, 2000 stipulations that were added on the EAC staff report. And I just wanted to bring to your attention that a resolution was just handed out that still hasn't been written into final form. It's in draft form. And I will be revising. But three of the stipulations there, there's just minor modifications to make sure that they are identical to match the stipulations as they were in the EAC staff report. And that's all I have to -- I should make a comment that even though the consultant did not find any additional protected species on-site except for the gopher tortoises, we do have as a matter of record a folder that was submitted with photographs taken by an adjacent property owner of bald eagles using trees on this property. And apparently they're foraging from those trees. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff? There being none, we will hear from the petitioner, please. MS. BURGESON: I'm just going to quickly put up the gopher tortoise map so you can see where those burrows are located. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. MS. BURGESON: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You're saying that we're going to -- they want to take all these gopher tortoises and move them to a five-acre tract where they -- from 17 acres to five acres, and there really are none on that five acres now? MS. BURGESON: That's right. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. You know, I've been looking for a long time to get that handbook that we used to joke about, why we wander, the gopher tortoises' behavior modification. And I don't think anybody's been able to write that handbook and teach the gopher tortoises to quit wandering around. And I've seen it on other sites and have been personally involved with those lovely little fellows. I just want to make sure it was clear that they're moving from 17 acres to five. MS. BURGESON: Right. They are proposing to obtain an Incidental Take permit from the state. What that allows is for them to take all of the habitat, they pay into a fund for that opportunity, but the county goes one step further and says that Page 78 Janua~ 20, 2000 you have to excavate all those burrows and protect the species. We would much rather prefer that they be retained in habitat on-site, but the petitioner has offered us only that area to the north for redevelopment of a proposed gopher tortoise habitat. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have another concern here. I mean, we're -- we seem to have a habitat and a preserve on one side of the line that clearly we've got users of that habitat on the other side of the line. Why wouldn't we take five acres and carve five acres out of that, and if we're going to push them into five acres, why wouldn't we push them into five acres that they're using? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's the handbook for behavior modification of gopher tortoises. MS. BURGESON: Putting them in an area within what the petitioner proposes as lots and infrastructure would allow them to be adjacent to an already existing preserve. It would be a far better idea for the gopher tortoise. Unfortunately, staff, by going through the Land Development Code does not have the ability to insist that they do that on projects. As long as they've proposed the 25 percent. I've had a great deal of feedback from petitioners, local-- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Staff doesn't have that ability, but I have the ability to find it not consistent. MS. BURGESON: Yes, you do. And we have talked about making some modifications to our code and how we proceed on these as a result of similar projects in the recent past. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for staff? If we could hear from petitioner, please. MR. GARLICK: Yes. Good morning, Mrs. Urbanik, Ms. Rautio, gentlemen. For the record, my name is Tom Garlick. I'm with the Naples office of the Annis-Mitchell Law Firm. I'm here this morning representing Keystone Custom Homes. Keystone is an independently operated Ruttenberg franchise. It's been operating for quite some time, developing quite some time in the Naples community. Some of you who may not be familiar with their Page 79 January 20, 2000 developments, they include most recently Ivy Point in Pelican Marsh, and Coon Lakes at Pelican Marsh. And Mrs. Paula Davis, who's our president, is here with us this morning, as well as our consultants on this project, David Farmer with Coastal Engineering, and Mike Myers, with Passarella & Associates, our environmental consultants. Our application is for a conditional use and the ST treatment, ST treatment/development permit. I want to initially express appreciation for the time, the responsiveness, the cooperation and understanding of Fred Reischl, Edward Kant, Barbara Burgeson, Ron Nino and members of the county staff with whom we spent much time and had many deliberations and discussions, and who have been most helpful, and we very much appreciate that. Their conclusions resulted in a recommendation to approve this development, our conditional use and our ST permit. We -- I was a little confused momentarily with the conditions that Barbara was talking about. I wasn't sure if they related just to the ST. But as I read the updated staff report, I believe there were 12 conditions. We agree with 10 of those conditions. We have a question on one of the conditions that has to do with a comment about potential off-site relocation of the tortoises, that I'll speak about later. And also, we have a question with regard to the abandonment of the five or six lots that are in the special treatment wetlands affected area. We think that -- what this is, is this is the completion of Palm River Estates. Palm River Estates has been under development for a good many years. This is the last piece of Palm River Estates. It happens to be located in a corner that if we had planned, if we could have had it our way, we would have had it at the front for easier access. But it is where it is. It's the last piece in the development. Eventually it's going to have to be developed. We think we present an affirmative, positive, careful plan for development of that piece. This is not a question of urban sprawl. This is not TwinEagles. This is what the county wants to do. This is what the county policy advocates. We want an infill. And this is a Page 80 January 20, 2000 clear and classic example of infill. The -- in our plan, we believe that the cjuster development will enhance the neighborhood, enhance Palm River Estates, and it certainly provides a very efficient and attractive plan of development. The key to all of this is our density reduction. This density and RSF-3 is for three units per acre. Our density proposed is 1.8 units per acre. This is a substantial reduction from a potential of 264 single-family residences to 157 that we've proposed. I refer to you the site plan. Now, this wasn't the first site plan. We originally looked at what you might call a more standard site plan. As it turned out to us, it became a high density site plan. And even though it represented a reduction of density under the three per acre, it came out with 178 units. Instead of having open space in lakes and recreation area such as you see here, it was one of those simple -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Garlick, if you could use the microphone, please. MR. GARLICK: As you can see -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: The hand-held microphone, while you're over there. Then the court reporter can keep track of you. MR. GARLICK: I need keeping track of sometimes, too. It was really a plan where you have parallel streets with lots on either side of parallel streets. It's really more or less, if you'll pardon the expression, jammed in, jammed together in the classic old subdivision plan you might have seen up in the Cape Coral or someplace in that area years ago. MEMBERS FROM AUDIENCE: We can't hear you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is your mike on? It's not on. MR. GARLICK: Thank you. I'm going to return to the podium. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Where it's safe. MR. GARLICK: And so that I might repeat, the alternate site plan that we considered was a dull, boring lineup of lots side-by-side, roads on either side, typical of what in earlier days we might have seen on a layout up in Cape Coral near the -- in Lee County. So we rejected it. This developer doesn't want that Page 81 January 20, 2000 type of a site plan, doesn't want any more density than we show here. On the contrary, we want a take, but the -- and, sir, you asked about cjustering. When we cjuster, we simply reduce lot sizes, we reduce required setbacks. Ours are all within the guidelines of approval in the Land Development Code. But when we do that, the reduction spaces that we utilize, reduction spaces that result, result in open space. So almost by default, when you go from three units per acre to 1.8 unit per acre, almost by default you're creating open space. The intent of that plan is to create open space. As you'll see there, in the lakes, the recreation area, the proposed preserve area to the north, that you would not see in a more intense site plan with a greater number of units. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Wouldn't you always have to have 60 percent open space anyway? MR. GARLICK: Yes. And we do require 60 percent open space. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Without cjustering? MR. GARLICK: Yes, that's right. But we -- our open space would not be lakes, would not be recreation area, would not be preserve area to the north, but rather all lots abutting one against the other. So that our lots, or people's backyards, would constitute that open space, instead of the open plan with lakes and foliage. So we do, on our plan that we've submitted, meet the -- all the requirements of the Land Development Code. I'm not going to go into them in detail except to make that statement with regard to setbacks, front, side and year. And with regard to square footage of lot and with regard to minimum square footage of homes. We need to show you for a conditional use that we made four tests. We need to show consistency. Cjuster development is recognized as an appropriate land development tool that's authorized in an RSF-3 district in both the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. We meet, as I mentioned before, the 60 percent requirement. Page 82 January 20, 2000 We understand that counsel for the homeowner says that we have to provide additional open space in addition to the 60 percent. I do not believe that's a proper interpretation of the code, and I believe the county staff agrees with our interpretation. We do meet it with this plan. On ingress and egress, we need to show that we have given due regard to traffic control, traffic flow and safety. Our access here is through Palm River Boulevard coming into the front, left onto Viking Way, over Viking Way to the parcel. The parcel then proceeds up northerly, this is up in the northwest corner, around to Cypress Way. Initially we were talking about access simply in and out through Palm River Boulevard and Viking Way. We then, after consultation with -- in Dave Farmer's study in transportation consultation with the county decided to extend Cypress Way, which is up in the north, which proceeds on easterly and then back south, back out to Immokalee Road. So we've created this circ -- a circuitous continuance route or loop that will go all the way now through Palm River and back out on Cypress Way. Certainly it will distribute the traffic more evenly throughout the Palm River subdivision, and of course it also includes -- it improves traffic circulation. We know, we well understand, that the residents, the Palm River homeowners and the civic association with whom we've met on a number of occasions, has concerns about traffic. Whenever you have development, you have concern about traffic. We have tried to do what we can to alleviate traffic. In addition to creating the circle, the horseshoe, if you will, for access in and out, we intend to do, and only if you allow cjustering, what we'd be able to do, our water management internally; that is, we will take the fill from the lakes that we dig, and we will use that fill internally. And we expect that the great high substantial percentage of our requirements for fill will be met by fill taken from the lakes. What does that mean? Well, that means to the people of Palm River that dump trucks, a significantly substantial reduced number of dump trucks with fill would be bringing in dirt than you Page 83 January 20, 2000 would have in a case where we did not have the cjuster development where we could not get fill from lakes, where we had to go outside to get our fill. Dave Farmer's done some study on that. If you'd like to talk to him more about the number of trips that are saved, it's a significant number. Also, we will ask all dump trucks that do have to come in -- and there will be some, and there are construction vehicles when there's construction -- we're going to ask the dump trucks to come in not through Palm River Boulevard and Viking, we're going to cause them to come in through Cypress Way in the east side and come around loaded on Cypress Way, dump their load and come back out through Viking and Palm River Boulevard to try to cause less wear and tear on Viking and Palm River Boulevard. They -- and actually, this is fair to homeowners, because it splits the traffic when we're using both sides, and we're using the access in across and the access out. It's fair to everybody. And one thing, you know, you really must remember is that these roads in Palm River, regardless of what we say about them today, were created as part of that development, planned at that time to serve this use. In fact, these roads were planned to serve construction of 264 homes, about 157 homes in that location. Point three, the effect on the conditional use on the neighboring property. I think it's undisputed. We do not create noise, we do not create glare, we do not create odor, economic effects. In fact, we created another attractive development within the Palm River community. Always there's a possibility of increased traffic, but staff points out that they could be anticipated with any development in accordance with RSF-3 standards. Lastly, compatibility. Our adjoining property has been identified for you. It's Imperial, it's Collier's Reserve, it's Palm River; they're golf course communities, they're single-family residential communities. We're a single-family residential community. We don't think there's an issue with compatibility. Page 84 January 20, 2000 There are, we submit, no -- we submit we meet the requirements for a conditional use and we create no adverse impacts on this community, subject to the subjective interpretation and what we all have to live with day-to-day when construction occurs. Just the short time comment on the ST overlay. Originally -- and I think it needs some explaining. Originally we had 20 acres, as was explained to you by staff. Now it's been reduced to 10. Nine of the 10, as I understand it, is approximately in that conservation area, you know, which will remain. The other area where we have an impact on the five or six lots, let me say that was a condition that we do not agree with staff on. We -- and our environmental consultant is here to give you the specifics and the details. But my understanding is we have gone to South Florida Water Management District and we have gone to court. We have applied for a permit to impact that area, use those lots. And if a conditional use is granted, we have no question that South Florida Water Management District and Corps are in agreement with our plan. This is not -- these are wetlands that have changed over the years. There's been a significant invasion and degradation due to exotics in that area. And we would respectfully submit we think supported by Corps, supported by the South Florida Water Management District, that you really can't call these, treat these, as wetlands anymore. Further, we intend to mitigate -- we will mitigate by removing exotics, certainly in the preserve area and otherwise where needed. We're going to replant vegetation. And in addition, although we're not required to do this, we're not required to mitigate for gopher tortoises, we also intend in that area north of the canal, which we offer as a preserve for the tortoises, to plant a high grass. We'll put in prickly pear, gopher apples, other native habitation to try to make that a desirable habitat for our gopher tortoises. In any event, we feel that we should be allowed to use those five or six lots, you know, for those reasons. And again, I ask you to refer questions to Mike Myers, who is here to respond to Page 85 January 20, 2000 that. In any event, we should not be precluded from using any part of it that is not directly impacted, as determined by the jurisdictional lot. Lastly, the gopher turtles. Yes, we have gopher turtles. Palm River Estates had gopher turtles. Imperial Golf Estates had gopher turtles, Collier's Reserve had gopher turtles. Many, many developments have gopher turtles. The three developments around us, seeing as how we're the last person to be developed, may have contributed to our population. Makes no difference one way or the other, but the fact of life are they're there. You've heard what the estimates and the numbers are. The only issue here is not what our relocation requirement is. What we have done and what we intend to do is we have applied for a Take Permit with the State of Florida. The State of Florida and applicable law does allow us to have a Take -- a Take Permit. It's thought -- I think generally accepted now that relocation is more of a problem than creating new preserves. They take the money, we pay money; we paid $60,000 approximately in this case to the state. The state goes and finds and purchases and acquires other habitat. It's generally I think becoming accepted as a better way to relocate gopher tortoises, to deal with them than just taking them up and relocating them off-site. Nonetheless, the county does require us to dig up the burrows and to protect the species. Of course we'll do that. We intend to dig them up to protect them. I think there, under the code, under applicable ordinances, perhaps other than protecting them the best we can during construction, our duty may end. We go beyond that. We will protect them, pen them during construction, as have many other developments. And following construction we will locate them on this five acres that we have in this designated area across from the canal, with the mitigation enhancements that we offered there. This is something we submit -- we wish to do to protect them to the greatest extent that we can, but that we're not legally or technically required to do. Page 86 January 20, 2000 This property is going to be developed. It's not going to become a county park. Nobody's going to buy it. Nobody's going to leave it forever. It's going to be sold, it's going to be sold to someone. We submit that we have the right kind of a plan, the neighborhood friendly kind of a plan, the open space type of a plan. And the plan that has considerations to mitigate to the greatest extent that we might called to do. And if not, we invite you tell us what more can we do. I know the homeowners will tell us what they want to do. We have done the best we can to have a responsible development. We think we are entitled legally for a conditional use permit and for an ST development permit. And if you have any questions, I'd be pleased to try to answer them, or refer you to our experts here with us, and thank you. GHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Priddy? GOMMI$$1ONER PRIDDY: I don't have any questions, but since you invited my input, I can't support what was sent to us in our packet. And some problems I have when I first started looking at the fact that this was a cjustering deal, I expected to see, you know, some multi-family product so that we weren't, you know, putting people on 50 foot wide lots. That was not what I was looking to see. And I cannot support that. I could support the development because, as you say, I fully expect that it is going to get developed. And I think that that's, you know, the right of the owner to do that. But for my support, I would need to see Lots I through 91 reconfigured into probably some multi-family product so that we're not using up all of that land and habitat. I'd suggest that you leave at least some preserve next to what is across the property line at Collier's Reserve so that you have some preserve abutting up to other preserves. And I suspect that I also can't support the use of Lots 53 through 58. And -- MR. GARLICK: Sir, we certainly appreciate your comments. We've spent a lot of time and effort as well on our site plan. We want to be a single-family development. We feel that has less of Page 87 January 20, 2000 impact. We don't feel that a high density or a higher density development that would be required if we did multi-family housing on an economic basis would enhance this neighborhood. But I simply answer, and we all have different -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' I don't think 50-foot wide lots next to -- is compatible with, you know, what else is built in the surrounding. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We can agree to disagree. Any other questions for the petitioner? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I had one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: On these 50 foot lots, let's say 69 through 74, you've said you have a minimum of house of 1,200 square feet, I think, on these single-family lots? MR. GARLICK: Yes, sir, that's minimum. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, are you going to build something that's, let's say, 30 by 20 and two-story it, or is it going to be 40 by 30 and single story? What do you envision there? MR. GARLICK: I would think what you envisioned there, a villa type product? MS. DAVIS: About 40 by 80. MR. GARLICK: 40 by 80. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Single-story. MS. DAVIS: Well, we have single and two-story. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Paula, if you're going to have testimony, you need to come up and identify yourself. MS. DAVIS: Paula Davis with Keystone Custom Homes. We have planned in the product for that community, both single-story and two-story homes, ranging in square footage, which we can't go that small as 1,200 square feet. They're going to be about 1,450 square feet to over 3,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I was asking specifically those houses 69 through 74 that will face larger, I take, houses that are now in Palm River. Right down here in the right-hand corner. What do you have envisioned there? MS. DAVIS: Well, that is-- Page 88 January 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is that a single-story or a two-story area? MS. DAVIS: That would be whatever the customer who wants to buy that lot wants to put on there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MS. DAVIS: You know, that fits on that lot. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I was just curious, if you could explain the original question about why does this qualify as the concept of cjustering, Mr. Garlick? What was your interpretation of-- do you pick this up and go wow, that's a cjuster development, that's great? MR. GARLICK: The code says, okay. And, you know, this is not an exact definition, but the code says the purpose of a cjuster development is to provide a unique and innovative alternative to conventional residential development in RSF-1 through 6, by creating a more varied, efficient, attractive economical residential community, consisting of a usable pattern of open space. And implement the Growth Management Plan by, among other things, encouraging contact urban growth, discouraging urban sprawl. As I said from the beginning, we think that's what this is all about. So, you know, is it more efficient than parallel roads running up and down between lots with all the lots running together and the lots themselves and the backyards consisting of open space? Or is it more efficient with a circuitous, even traffic flow plan in different directions? Is it more attractive with lakes as hope space, with backyards as open space? Is it more economical because they're smaller lots, they can allow us to put more in? Does it contain a usable pattern of open space? You know, certainly. That's what we say. We simply fall, you know, clearly specifically under the definition of the code. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It certainly has changed my perception of cjustering, but thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions for the petitioner? Is there anyone from the public that wishes to address this item? Page 89 January 20, 2000 And as Mr. Pires sprints for the microphone to be first. MR. NINO: Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: I think I normally sprint. I'm not sure if I normally walk slow. Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, my name is Anthony Pires of the law firm of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. I represent the Palm River homeowners and civic association. We represent approximately 1,600 persons who live adjacent to or in the vicinity of this proposed project. With the Chairman's indulgence, if I could be allotted 10 minutes, as I know Mr. Garlick and the petitioner probably had 20 or so minute. But if you could, and hopefully I won't go over. I do tend to talk fast and court reporters tend to throw things at me if I don't slow down, so I'll try to get it all within the allotted time. We are not here, and my clients are not here asking that there be no development of this property. They fully understand, they fully recognize that the individuals who own the property, or the people who contract to buy the property to ultimately acquire it have the right to develop it within the guidelines within the code, within the schemes of the regulations as they exist today. We're only here to say that we think this is awfully darn premature, and I think we will make various points with regards to the submittal to show that there is not enough material for this board to make a cogent decision for recommendations for approval to the county commission, sitting as the board of appeals. We also ask this board, and I think the planning commission has already indicated by its comments, to recognize the unique features of this property, and that any development needs to recognize the existing neighbors and communities and be compatible with existing, established, very stable residential areas, Also, for purposes of the record, as Barbara Burgeson mentioned at the EAC, there was a packet of photographs that were taken by the residents as recently as about three weeks ago, a photograph of a bald eagle in a snag at that tree in this approximate location. Standing there, sitting there probably Page 90 January 20, 2000 resting on the way back and forth. But there is unique wildlife in that area. And we'd like to have all those materials made part of the planning commission record. We think there are two portions of the Land Development Code that need to be reviewed and Mr. Garlick has touched upon, as well as Fred and Mr. Nino. And Mr. Reischl and Mr. Nino have been extremely helpful in this process with my clients and myself, providing information, making themselves accessible to discuss and debate the various points which we'll raise today. I've raised them with staff in the past. The conditional use criteria, as outlined within the code, requires that -- a number of aspects in the submittal. It requires a conceptual site plan and an appropriate scale showing the proposed placement of structures on the property. That's not part of this proposal. We have a table showing setbacks. I did not see any conceptual site development plan showing the proposed placement of structures on the property. It also requires -- I'm reading from Section 2.7.4.2 of the Land Development Code. The Conditional Use Application requires plans for screening and buffering with reference as to type, dimensions and character. I think the site plan says per the LDC. I don't think that complied. Four, proposed landscaping and provisions for trees protected by county regulations. I didn't see that in there, other than the stock language. Proposed signs and lighting, including type, dimensions and character. I don't recall seeing that, other than per the code. There's a note on the plan. It also says development shall identify, protect, conserve and appropriately use native vegetative communities and wildlife habitat. That's in the conditional use criteria in the application as required under the Land Development Code. I think you couple that with what's required for the cjuster development. Mr. Garlick read to you a portion of the purpose and intent of cjuster development. What he did not read to you is that part of what purpose and intent of cjuster development is, is to Page 91 January 20, 2000 encourage the conservation of environmental resources. Unfortunately in this plan, we have no preservation or conservation of resources I'm aware of. EAC recognized that although the applicant is required to preserve 25 percent of the native vegetation on-site, they were bothered, substantially bothered, by the fact that it was not identified. To this date it is not identified in any plan or submittal that I have seen. And I think Ms. Burgeson referenced that it has not yet been identified. It says we will have 17. plus or minus acres retained native vegetation. Additionally, we did have a discussion with staff, and I do defer, and this planning commission can also make its own determination, as to what's the language in the cjustering development criteria mean. If I could hand out Section 2.6.27 of the code. I have taken the liberty of highlighting various aspects and language of the code dealing with cjustering. In the language that we're talking about as far as the open space, is contained within section -- at Page LDC:200. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Slow down. MR. PIRES: LDC:200. And once it gets to Ms. Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. PIRES: 2.6.27.4.5. Common open space. Which says that all reductions in the minimum lot area, lot width and yard requirements, below that which would otherwise be required within the district in which the cjuster development is located, shall be required to provide an equal amount of common open space within the same base and general area. There's been no calculation of that. And I think what you've heard from staff today is we can take a pen and cross that out. Because all we have to do -- or all the developer has to do is comply with the 60 percent open space. And I haven't seen any calculation saying there's a 10,000 minimum square foot lot requirement in RSF-3, we the developer propose to have a minimum square foot lot of 6,000 square feet, here's where we're making up that 4,000 square feet in common open space. I haven't seen that calculation, I haven't Page 92 January 20, 2000 seen that table, I haven't seen than submittal. I don't think the staff has. Therefore, I think it's premature. I was also curious on the site plan, and I think today was -- another revised site plan was submitted, slight revision. I'll get to that in a minute. The current RSF-3 regulations require a minimum floor area. There's a phrase, and I'm not sure what it means, the table talks about minimum building area. Is there a difference? I'm not sure. It's just I'd like things to follow the code and to, you know, meet the criteria. The lot square footages aren't shown. There's a minimum. What also isn't shown I think is important to this board's consideration, as far as determination of compatibility. I've taken the liberty of an aerial photograph that's at a 200 scale. This is a site plan at a 200 scale, used handy dandy scissors, cut it out and taped it over the subject property. This is the proposed entryway. It goes north, then meanders east into the development. What this doesn't show is what's under this yellow. Under this yellow are platted single-family lots as they exist as part of the Palm River plat. There's two, four, six, eight, nine. The width of those lots is 92 to 100 feet. What we have on the other side of those lots are existing single-family homes all along here. So what has happened, the developer is externalizing his impacts to his potential buyers by moving the road to somebody else's backyard. These people who have bought and purchased and have lived there in the stable residential community -- and you'll hear a couple of them testify today -- who otherwise would have, God forbid, the screaming noise of little children enjoying themselves on a swing set, will now have cars. I've tried to scale that off. That is only a few feet. You're talking about a road within 20 to 25 feet. And what has happened is this developer has now cleverly created double fronted lots. These people have roads in the front and the back. But the problem are the roads in the back. They have pushed out the impacts to their development and not compatible with the neighbors. I don't see how that's compatible. Page 93 January 20, 2000 And the thing that bothers me is, although they did submit a survey as part of their application, when they did their site plan, they don't show these existing homes, and they don't show that we have currently platted lots 92 feet in width to 100 feet in width. One of the aspects about putting their facilities on the outside that impact the neighborhoods, the recreational facility. You'll hear from a neighbor who lives right here. He's now got a recreational facility across the street from him. And just a question about -- I'm not quite sure what type of recreational facility is going to be provided. This site plan shows a pool and looks like tennis courts and parking lot. The latest one I saw today has no parking lot, looks like a tot lot, tennis court and some building. So I'm not sure what is proposed. But either way, it's going to have an adverse affect on the folks who live right here and right here. And that becomes a very serious compatibility issue with regard to this proposed project. As opposed to a project where the goal and/or intent is to preserve and/or protect additional habitat for unique areas by devoting less areas to dwelling units and amenities. Which I thought was meant by cjustering. I think that's what the planning commission thought was meant by cjustering. This project ignores those concepts, with the fixation solely on maximizing the number of units that can be squeezed into this site. Granted, and accurately, the staff report and the petitioner have indicated that under the RSF-3 regulations, the maximum permissible density is three units per acre. But I defy you with the current criteria for roads, streets, sidewalks, drainage areas, water management and other requirements to get three units per acre from a single-family tract. You're going to get much, much less than that. If they had shown you a single-family plot plan for this project, we'd have a lot less units, I'd submit to you, than 157 that they're proposing, because 90 of those are villas in this concept. And if we make those typical single-family lots, it would reduce the number of units substantially below even what they're Page 94 January 20, 2000 proposing. The lakes are needed anyways. The fill, they're going to need anyways. As a result, we believe that what was to be the backyard of a neighbor's house is now a road with little buffering, it's not been shown. We have recreational facilities adjacent to existing residential uses. And we think the devil is in the details. We've heard that phrase a number of times. But the conditional use and cjustering requirements require a determination or question of whether it's consistent with the Land Development Code. Is this concept, is this plan. Staff, at Page 4 of its staff report, says consistency with the Land Development Code will be determined at the time of site development plan approval. I think the time is now, as I read the code. That's part of the determination of whether the conditional use should be granted. And that's in the staff analysis. And that's one of the questions to be asked when reviewing a conditional use is consistency with this code. But on Page 4 the staff says consistency with the code will be determined later. I don't think that's the right time to do it. I think that's too late. Things can change. We don't know what's going to happen on that site. The time is now to make sure it's determined to be consistent or not with the code. As to the gopher preserves, I agree with Mr. Priddy, a more creative innovative technique for truly cjustering is to take advantage of the gopher preserves on the Collier's Reserve property, and not push them off to another area. What's also not iljustrated, and once again it becomes an issue from the details, is there is an existing easement on this site in favor of the Colliers, an ingress, egress easement that perhaps maybe said shouldn't be considered by this board, but I also think it comes in to play as to the developability. It runs right through here. Will the Colliers give that up? Will they sell it? Vacate it? I don't know. But that's there now. I wonder how this board can Page 95 January 20, 2000 approve a plan where this has not been re-platted or vacated, where is still in existence, and there's an existing ditch that comes this way that's not even referenced in the application or in the staff analysis. I think for all the foregoing is the request of the neighbors and the Palm River Association that this planning commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation of denial. You know, there is not enough level of detail I believe for this board to make any recommendation other than denial. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next speaker, please? MR. NINO: I have a number of speakers here. Edward Erpelding, Bill Hunt, George Smith. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There's no particular order. If you're closest to the mike, you're on. Would you please state your name for the court reporter. MR. BELT: For the record, my name is John Belt. I'm a remember of the board of Palm River. I come principally to apologize for my wife. She's president of the Palm River Homeowners Association and has been actively working on this for a long period of time. Unfortunately due to illness of her aunt she has up in Illinois, and is staying with her 94-year-old aunt who just got out of the hospital, so she is sorry she couldn't be here today. And she's in ice and snow, so I know she's very sorry she's not here. I just wanted to say that we are not opposed to a development. We've never been opposed to development. We just don't like this development as it's now set up. Particularly as our attorney pointed out, there's nine lots in there that are platted, in a unit -- individual homes. And the people that bought, there are some here that will explain more about it. They wanted other homes behind them. These people have come over and planned a road right in between there and taken that out. They've gone right up there next to the area and put in a recreational plot. That's right opposite some of the homes that Page 96 January 20, 2000 have been built there for 30 years. They don't seem to care about the recreational should be over in the far corner, away from our particular area for their use and for their own people's use. To me, cjustering of lots is a bit of problem. Those are 50-foot lots. And as I read their application, there's a minimum of 600 square feet, not the 1,200 I heard just awhile ago. It says on there, on a 50-foot lot, minimum building area, 600 feet. We in Palm River have 80-foot lots, 90-foot lots or 100-foot lots with a minimum of 1,000 square feet on up. To me, a minimum of 500 or 600 is not appropriate. If they're building 1,200, why didn't they say 1,2007 Again, Palm River Estates has been, except for one area down in the far corner, which is Cypress Way East, there are condominiums along Cypress Way East for a good portion of the area. The rest of the property is single-family, one-level homes. We -- the first time I've heard in my life talking with these people they're going to put in two-story homes. I anticipated it when they have a 50-foot lot that they wanted to have a two-story home. But that's not compatible with our present neighborhoods at all. And they said that they've talked to us on several occasions. We had one meeting with them where they had no plot plan or showing any sort of an outline. Since that time, we had a letter explaining that they're coming in, but no discussions in any way, shape or form. Again, there's been no layout of building plans, until I heard today some of the things they were going to do. I won't -- I won't take up any more of your time, but we feel that the plan that they have submitted is really not appropriate enough now for your consideration or recommendation to the board, and we recommend that you recommend that they deny it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. ERPELDING: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ed Erpelding, and I am a homeowner of No. 790, in Palm Page 97 January 20, 2000 River Estates, Unit 2. In a map, which I'd like to make as Exhibit 1, is a -- shows that Palm River Estates, or this -- a development, pardon me, is part -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Use the microphone, if you'd like. MR. ERPELDING: I'm sorry. That this development is part of Palm River Estates, room number two, Unit 2. And I believe that this Unit 2 restrictions, which came in 1959, state that the lots need to have 100-foot frontage, that it -- or 90-foot frontage, or 80-foot frontage, and that it must have 1,400 square feet and at the very least of 1,000 square feet. I believe that the lot owners can sue, if they need. That these restrictions were turned over to the homeowners' association November 22nd, 1978. And that's all I have to say about it, that it's part of the Palm River Estates, No. 2. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. ERPELDING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Erpelding, that Exhibit I that you referred to -- I'm right here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Up front. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Up here. The front. MR. ERPELDING'. Yes. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: We didn't get a chance to see it in the relevancy of it with your -- MR. ERPELDING: May I present it? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Would you, please? The board is right behind you. MR. ERPELDING: I don't know if you can see it very well. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Well, the camera can zoom up to it. But we need to know the relevancy of that exhibit with your speech. MR. ERPELDING: Thank you very much. This is a -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Use the microphone. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: There's a hand mike right behind Page 98 January 20, 2000 you. And switch it on. MR. ERPELDING: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. MR. ERPELDING: This is an assessment map done by Abe Skinner, property appraiser. And in it shows this area -- pardon me, this is Unit 2, and this shows this area as part No. 1. Number one, the Palm River Estates, Unit 2. And this whole thing, it looks like to me, is part of Palm River 2. And, therefore, the restrictions apply that I read to you. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. HUNT: Good morning. My name is Bill Hunt. I'm the vice president of the Palm River Homeowners' Association, and I'm also here as a fill-in because Jean Belt couldn't make it. And I'll be brief. I don't want to be redundant and go over things, and I certainly can't embellish what Mr. Pires has brought up. We as lay people kind of look at this as the final piece to the puzzle, if you will, to Palm River Homeowners' Association. But it sort of looks to us like well, we got new pieces and we're going to shape the puzzle to fit the new piece. And we're not quite sure it blends in and fits in for reasons that have already been mentioned. I mean, basically we looked at it as a higher density use of the land. And if you go through Palm River, you look at Palm River, high density multi-family units are built towards the front of the project. So this is a little deviation from what I think the original concept was. However, the most important concern that we really have, and it's an oversimplification to say traffic. Our main concern is the impact on streets that are already crowded and the impact that it will have on school children, pedestrians and what have you. And I don't think it can be overstated that the life of a child or pedestrian doesn't warrant rushing into a development just to get some housing built. So with that said, that's basically all I have to say and I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. SMITH: Ladies and gentlemen, my name's George Page 99 January 20, 2000 Smith. I live at 401 Cypress Way East. I was going to pass today. I learned a lot listening, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity. I notice that the counsel for the developer said that to accommodate the traffic concerns, we're going to run just loaded trucks down Cypress Way East, the unloaded trucks will exit through the other way, not Palm River Boulevard to Immokalee Road. My comment is that we just got Cypress Way built back from the damage done by the construction of Quail Crossing and Candlewood. Now we're going to have nothing but loaded trucks coming down there and changing Cypress Way East to Cypress Way expressway. And I would like you to know that I don't really like that. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MS. WRIGHT: I am Mary-Jane Wright, and I'm on foot and I know not to live on Viking Way. It's a raceway now with cars coming down, and I have a little dog that I walk every morning, early in the morning, and it's dangerous. The road itself is not up to code. It's three feet under. And that makes it very narrow. And I also see young children out there in the morning. And it's nice to say a parent comes down and watches them, but that does not happen every day. Once in a while with the little ones, but not the older ones. And older ones, I've had the kids, I know what they do, they fool around, and every once in awhile one's out in the middle of the street. It's dangerous. And that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. MS. BRENNAN: Good morning. My name is Annette Brennan. I'm with Collier's Reserve Homeowners' Association. And I'd like to point out, as Mr. Pires pointed out, there's a lot of issues that aren't defined on this plan, and I hope that you would consider not approving or denying the plan today. But I'd also like to make a point that if you can't do that today, that you would ask that the developer construct somewhat of an opaque buffer along the border, the western border against Collier's Reserve Drive -- I mean, Collier's Reserve project there. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Page 100 January 20, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MR. ROGERS: Good morning. My name is William L. Rogers. I have empathy with the gopher tortoises. I didn't say sympathy, I said empathy. I'm one of those rare animals that's a native. I was born in Fort Myers in the last century and have been here most all of my life. Came to Collier County in '57. I'm concerned with this issue with the gopher tortoises, and one of the issues there is, is when I was listening to staff, they pointed out that there was 17.62 acres that was the optimum active area. There was an additional 7.5 acres that was adjoining that I assume that had some impact and some in their travels, and as they move about and forage for food. So that's a total of 25.12 acres. And we're talking about condensing these animals from 25.12 acres down to five acres. I think that has a tremendous impact on them. And I don't think that that's negligible. Another point I'd like to address, I'm one of the people that live -- that will be impacted upon their recreation area. I live on the corner of Fairway Circle and Cypress Way West. Immediately across the street from me is a neighbor, and they plan to put the -- I live right here on this corner. There's one house adjacent to me, there's a house straight across the street from me, and then to the north of them is all vacant. North of my neighbor there's two or three vacant lots, and then a couple of houses down at the end. They're proposing putting, according to the first drawing that I saw, a swimming pool with a recreation facility. Now apparently they're talking about putting in tennis courts and other amenities. My concern is, is that they're putting a recreational facility or some type of facility outside their living area, but right outside my children's bedroom windows; that we're going to have to deal with the noise and we're going to have to deal with the light, if they're open at night. And I didn't hear them saying that they were going to close at sundown. And we're not going to have any voice in that. If it's within their neighborhood so that it impacts upon them, they within their homeowners' association are going to regulate and are Page 101 January 20, 2000 going to be sensitive to that. I would submit to you that they're probably not going to be very sensitive To us outsiders. So I think that the statement that it does not create any type of a potential adverse impact to us is not a correct statement. The last item that I'd like to bring up, and this kind of touches on some of the points that Mr. Pires was making in terms of the vagueness and the lack of clarity and information in this proposal. The initial paperwork that I saw on this, there's references to residences as small as 600 square feet. There was comment made now today that we're talking about 1,400 square feet. Yet in a letter that they sent out on Arthur Ruttenberg Homes' letterhead on December the 30th, they at least try to make it appear to us that we're talking about 2 to 3,000 square foot homes, because they point to a comparison with their recent developments located within Pelican Marsh, Ivy Point and Trune (phonetic) Lakes have a similar look to what we have planned for Little Palm Island with homes ranging in size from 2,000 to 3,000 square feet. Now, there's something either inconsistent here, or worse, there's something that's misleading here. And that concerns me, when you don't have the specificity and you don't have it nailed down so that we know and that you as a board know exactly what we're talking about. Because it seems to be changing, making the story what it appears that the listener wants to hear when there's some other plan. I know this land is going to be developed. My grand daddy ran a bulldozer that helped big a golf course on this whole development. It's going to happen. It should happen. The owner of the property ought to have the ability to develop it. But it shouldn't destroy our lifestyle that we've been there for all these years. It should impact them and they should be considerate of the people around their boundaries. Thank you. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next speaker? MS. BLACKFORD: Cypress Way West. I'm Sandra Blackford, and I live on When we bought our property, we were told that the Page102 January 20, 2000 property behind our house was Palm River owned it and it was going to be developed eventually just like the rest of Palm River, with the same size lots. What these people are saying now is it's not really a proper plan, in my -- I don't like the cjuster homes. It will really impact me. Our-- the road that they're planning on putting would be about six feet from our pool cage. And then beyond that you'll see cjuster homes. And that's what I really don't like is the road. I don't -- we know there's going to be developments there, but we just don't like the way they're doing it. Also, it will impact the roads for the traffic and also the animals. Living right near there we see foxes, bobcats, owls and all kinds of -- woodpeckers and everything else, and tortoises. And I would like you to reject their plan and maybe they can build another one. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Question? CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a question, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Ma'am? CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you would come back up. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Where did you say you lived? MS. BLACKFORD: Cypress Way. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Cypress Way. So then -- MS. BLACKFORD: It's west. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: West. Thank you. MS. BLACKFORD: So the road will be right behind my property. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. TURTURIELLO: Good morning. My name is Blanca Turturiello, and I'm -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Would you spell your last name for the court reporter, please? MS. TURTURIELLO: T-U-R-T-U-R-I-E-L-L-O. And I'm going to be brief, I have to go to work. I live also on this side that is going to have the road behind it. And I don't mind neighbors, but I really would appreciate if they don't build a road right behind my house. When we bought it, it was going to be part of the development. And I guess I was Page 103 January 20, 2000 hoping that -- I never had neighbors, because it looks very nice now, But if I need -- you know, I'd like to have a home with kids or good friends on our road. That's all have I to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Yes, sir. MR. HEMMING: Good afternoon. Thank you. My name is Bruce Hemming, I live on Viking Way. Been there about six years. Genocide aside, as far as our tortoises, my main concern is in answer to the question, if we disallow cjuster housing, what are the number of units that we would be allowed to build or the developer would be allowed to build on that parcel, given the current development restriction as to infrastructure, retention ponds, open areas and wetlands? I think what's happening here is the market is not supporting the allowable density under RSF-3. RSF-3 gives you a maximum of three units. Doesn't say you're allowed three units, given development standards. So I would like to know what we would cut this project down to. We know that if it is developed as a single-family project, it would be compatible. We ask for compatibility. We're not saying don't develop it, all we're saying is develop it reasonably. Thank you, CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MS. HEMMING: My name is Carol Hemming, the other half of Bruce. And Bruce is correct. I think there are things that have not been said here. The preserve area, where they propose to put the turtles, actually is not usable, because it's -- there's a canal that divides it from the rest of the land. In two different portions of the information that we went through from the environmental committee, they say that they're draining into the canal in one part, they're saying that they're not draining into the canal in the other part. The lakes are necessary for drainage. They propose to use them for drainage. There also -- it's also cheaper for them to take fill out of there so -- for drainage and fill. Wetlands are Page 104 January 20, 2000 wetlands, so I would like to know -- and also, where is the sales office in the site plan? They actually have proposed an off-site sales office on Immokalee Road, which has been denied, and they're appealing that decision. So there's no provision for the sales office in the site plan. It was brought up at the other meeting also by a former county road planner that when the traffic counts I believe he said got above 1,300, which I think they will, there was a special study that was required. And I don't know if that study has been done. The traffic counts that were taken on Viking Way were done during an off-season period. And also, tortoises, by the way, it was brought up at the other meeting, are supposed to have two acres, I believe, per tortoise. So we should actually have 20 to 25 acres, not five acres for the tortoises. And this entire area is in floodplain, so drainage, it's designated AE-11, I believe. It's in a flood hazard area. So drainage is a very, very important issue here that needs to be addressed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Yes, sir? MR. DEBAUN: My name is Peter Debaun. D-E-B-A-U-N. I have a slip, and I haven't handed it in. Do you want it now or later? MR. NINO: Give it to me later. MR. DEBAUN: I live at-- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Were you sworn in? MR. DEBAUN: No. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. DEBAUN: I reside at 527 Cypress Way East, which is up in this area here. The street at that level, although it's been -- you've been informed that the street was constructed for this construction in mind. The street at that area is 17 feet, 10 inches wide. And perhaps one of the reasons why the construction vehicles will be coming in that way one way is they can't pass each other on that street. Trucks cannot come in and go out on Page 105 January 20, 2000 that street at the same time, because the street's just not wide enough to accommodate them. We've got vehicles going in and out of that area, as all residential areas do all the time, and will be impacted by it. I've got a five-year old son, and I can tell you that I work for the school district and I know that there are 250 students that live in this development that will be impacted by the construction traffic and the resulting traffic. In addition to all the other reasons that the people have come before you today to oppose it, particularly the indefiniteness of the plan and putting a road on top of those nine acres that are deed restricted, I would ask you to vote against this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else from the public? Yes, sir. MR. HINKES: My name is Sylvester Hinkes. I was sworn in. I'm a member of the board of directors of the Collier's Reserve Homeowners' Association. Collier's Reserve, as you may know, is a single-family residential/golfing community, with 228 single families on 448 acres of property, or approximately one home for every two acres of land. Our eastern border parallels the western portion of this development. And I think it's important for you to know that when Collier's Reserve was developed, and it's almost completely developed now, it was developed with great care to protect the environment. So much so that Collier's Reserve has earned several awards. One of the awards it's earned, it's the first Audubon cooperative signature sanctuary that has ever been named in Florida. And last year Collier's Reserve earned the outstanding leadership award from the Governor's Council for Sustainable Florida. All of this effort was done to try to have a balance between the residential community and also nature. We in Collier's Reserve, we homeowners, oppose the planned housing development as being incompatible with our residential community. And if approved as presented, will have a negative Page 106 January 20, 2000 affect on the wildlife and the ecology of the area. The proposal is essentially to build a large number of those cjuster homes within five feet of the eastern border of Collier's Reserve. And that area right now is just full of wildlife. Bobcats, the famous gopher tortoises, and many other animals. And we think that will very importantly diminish that natural habitat. And we urge you not to approve this proposal. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Any other speakers? Yes, sir, please come forward. And if there's other speakers, please come forward. MR. BARNHILL: I have not been sworn. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We can do two for the price of one. (Speakers were duly sworn.} MR. BARNHILL: My name is Kevin Barnhill, like a barn on a hill. And I live at 593 Cypress Way East. And I just wanted to make the -- everybody aware that there -- in the past three years, there's been two injuries of children on Cypress Way East. One was a car versus pedestrian, or cyclist of a young girl. The second accident was a car versus a car. Two residents on Cypress Way East. And the little girl has lost her right eye and is disfigured. I myself have a two-year old girl who is learning to ride the tricycle. Thank you very much. MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, thank you. I'll just take a minute. Mr. Name is Dr. Lawrence Goldman, and I live in Collier's Reserve. I live directly to the west of the boundary as shown on the diagram. And I frequently walk across into that area. I've seen much wildlife. There is that preserve for the tortoises there. The thing that I did notice, and I think that's most important, and I'll make this very brief, is that this is zoned originally R-2 -- R-3, rather, which, as you all know, that allows for three units per acre. As the impact that they have done to encroach on the property that's there in order to preserve the wetlands which have been in that area and were designed by the founding fathers to zone it that way, will now show that these lots that they're aligning on the western border are approximately 5 to 6,000 square feet of lots, which would give an impact of about Page 107 January 20, 2000 eight units per acre in that western border. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Any other speakers? Anyone else from the public to address this item? Does the petitioner have any closing comments or responses he would like to make? MR. GARLICK: Yeah, the proof that this is the American way is that Sam Hinkle who spoke is my next door neighbor in Collier's Reserve. But I know the area that they're talking about. It is fenced. It's not something that you pass back and forth. I've never seen an eagle out there. And I think that it's unusual for somebody to suggest that at this hearing. Nonetheless -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please, in respect to the speaker, if we could give them the courtesy that you were given and refrain from any comment. MR. GARLICK: I'm sure they land there and I'm sure they pass through, and I'm happy about that also. But in any event, I just wanted to have S.J. Farmer to clarify -- first of all, in a number of those questions, they answer is, by buffering, and we are going to provide and in some sort after dense hedge-type buffering, we're going to comply with all the buffering in terms of the county as well. And in all areas that are not, you know, open areas where there are neighbors in the vicinity. The -- I'd like Mr. Farmer to comment and respond to Mr. Pires' comments about we haven't submitted enough information or where that information is. Just very briefly, because we have discussed these issues with staff and obviously they're satisfied that we've complied. David, if you could just a moment. MR. FARMER: For the record, my name is David Farmer. I work for Coastal Engineering, and I represent the applicant today. In regard to Mr. Pires' comments, on the plan we do have a schematic showing a typical cjuster lot layout. It's in the lower right-hand corner on the plan. Commissioner Pires' opinion is that we need much, much more detail. I don't know if he expects us to have every single house that would ever be sold, if that be shown. I've worked Page 108 January 20, 2000 with staff, and I believe that staff has agreed that our plan shows the necessary detail to a review at this point in time. And we've agreed to their stipulation that when it comes time for either an SDP or a construction plan approval, that we will provide the appropriate details at that point in time in terms of-- I see "JA" as looking at me. What kind of detail would you like to see at this point in time? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: What -- section 2.6.27.3 says that you have to show a conditional use application. The conditional use application for cjuster development shall be supplemented with a conditional use conceptual plan -- where is that -- MR. FARMER: Which we have. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- which shall at a minimum depict the following: The overall development plan of the site showing individual lots and their square footage, setbacks and yard relationships, buildings and their square footage. MR. FARMER: Well, we have demonstrated the buildings by a table. Okay, it says show. It doesn't say that it has to be an actual drawing. So we've shown that in the table. As far as the square footage of the lots, the plan is to scale. And the minimum lot widths are delineated also on a table on the plan. So by our interpretation and staff's interpretation, at this point in time we have provided the appropriate level of detail. After -- at such time that we get beyond this process, we'll be going to go the PSP process, which you probably already know, the preliminary subdivision plat, where we must show variances and distances and many, many annotations with additional details on the plan. MR. NINO: If there was -- I -- this -- aside from the technicalities that Mr. Pires has identified, this plan for the most part does address most of that grocery list. If there's one deficiency, it's the calculation that says all the lots that are less than 10,000 square feet amount to "X' number -- "X' amount of land area. And how much have you provided in common open space that verifies that you've exhausted all of that "X" amount of land area that resulted from lowering the size of your lots? That Page 109 January 20, 2000 information is not here in black and white. However, subjectively, I think you can come to the conclusion that the wetland area, the lakes and all of that acreage is in all likelihood, if that calculation were to be made, I think you would find that indeed the common open space area does exhaust the benefits gained from reducing the lot size. Although, you know, to keep the record straight, that calculation can be made very easily, and introduced to this plan. One of the things we need to keep in perspective, if this developer decided to make every lot 80 feet wide and 10,000 square feet in area, we wouldn't be having this discussion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Farmer, any other comments? MR. FARMER: Many more. MR. GARLICK: Yes, just one thing, following up on what Mr. Nino said. I would add that -- Mr. Reischl, could you put the alternate site plan on the overhead? This is the plan that I spoke about initially that was an early look, you know, what can you do here and even with reduced density. This is the site plan I called boring, unattractive, unimaginative, not taking advantage of open space, et cetera. And it was a series of parallel roads with lots, you know, adjacent from side to side. I simply point out that this site plan could be accomplished and under current zoning with no approvals required from the Planning Board or the county. A developer could come in and do this site plan. I ask you to compare that site plan to our much more aesthetically pleasing, much greater open space site plan, and take that into serious consideration when you think about should we grant this application. That's an alternative, ladies and gentlemen, and not a nice one. MR. NINO: If I may, though, I -- how many lots are on that plan? Because I couldn't find -- MR. GARLICK: 174 -- 178. MR. NINO: 1787 MR. GARLICK: Yes, sir, as opposed to 157 on our site plan. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does it account for drainage Page 110 January 20, 2000 stormwater runoff? MR. GARLICK: Yes, sir. Your open spaces there, your open space is simply backyards instead of lakes and preserve and recreation and habitat. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Backyards are going to retain the stormwater runoff? MR. GARLICK: Stormwater runoff, David? MR. FARMER: Yes. When we drew up that site plan in the very beginning, I also did -- my assistant here, Leslie Morrison, will pass out a cross-section showing conceptually how the water management would be attenuated. And you're exactly right in that it is going to be stored in the side yards and the rear yards and also in the front yards, much like the existing Palm River. It will still have the curb and gutter that's required today, it will still have the sidewalks that's required today, but the front yard setback of 30 feet allows for quite a bit of area to store and attenuate stormwater. MR. REISCHL: And just for the record, staff did not have a chance to review this. This is the -- MR. FARMER: This is just an exhibit we brought along, yes. Staff had not reviewed that, because it wasn't part of our petition. All it is is an exhibit for use today. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, question, Ms. Urbanik. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Yes. Mr. Pires made mention of a possible right-of-way that Collier's Reserve had, an easement? MR. FARMER: That is -- there is an easement. And I think I'd like to let Tom Garlick address it, because it's a legal issue. MR. GARLICK: I just say it's a title matter that's been raised, that we understand that it's going to be resolved, that it will be resolved. And we understand we cannot do our development with an easement running across it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Saadeh? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: There seemed to be a little confusion from the homeowners and us, too, at least myself, on the minimum size of the home. They said 600 and they said 1,000. Is there any specifics in the proposal? That would clear Page 111 January 20, 2000 this whole thing. MR. FARMER: If you could, let me address that, just to begin with -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Please. MR. FARMER: -- and then you can fill in the blanks. When I did the initial application for the conditional use, I went by the code, and in the code it says the minimum you can ask for is 600. And many of you have been in the development community and you want to start off by asking for the minimum and then you can go up from there rather than locking yourself into a plan that can't be worked on later on. So after consideration of that, I understand that there were some strong objections to that. And we never intended to build 600 square foot houses, so I consulted with the developer, and we put 1,200 square feet on the plan, again being an absolute minimum that they would build. And then subsequent to that, the developer then issued a letter to the homeowners, the neighbors, I think everyone on Palm River, I believe -- although I'm not going to state on the record that I know for a fact they all received it -- got a letter that said she plans on building houses between 2 and 3,000 square feet. She also referenced the other developments that she's done. Being her engineer for those two other projects, I can tell you that probably the average is closer to 3,500 square feet. They're quite large. As far as on the record, if you want a stipulation, she may be willing to make a stipulation to an alternate minimum square footage. Does that help paint the picture? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Yeah, that answers the question. Basically your application has been revised to where it states the minimum is 1,200 square feet. MR. FARMER: The plan, yes. I didn't revise the application, per se, but I'm willing to -- MR. NINO: Actually, it says 1,200 and 1,500. It says 1,200 for the 50-foot lots and 1,500 square feet for the 80-foot lots. MR. FARMER: 1,500 is per the RFS-3, so I'm not asking for Page 112 January 20, 2000 any kind of exception there. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Would you address the compatibility issue on the lots with the street behind it and also the park recreational area? MR. FARMER: Yes. Actually, do you mind if I shift podiums real quick? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Go right ahead. MR. FARMER: Can you see that, or can we darken that up a little bit? What I've done is, is part of --just so you know, we do have a state water management permit through the South Florida Water Management District. These are the lots right here. Shown right here are the lots that back up against the proposed development that we would like to do. Section QQ, as delineated below it. I don't know if you can see it very well. We're providing approximately 25 feet from the back of curb to the back of their property line. I submit to you that that's more than if we built RSF-3 behind that with a pool. We could get even closer to there. Now, true, it is a road, but if you'll notice on our site plan, it is not the major arterial road within, it's merely one of the roads that supports, I don't know, what, 15 lots or something like that on that side. So we plan to heavily screen that and buffer it, if you will, as based on this conceptual cross-section. And we will be providing, like I said, you know, extensive details at the time of construction plans. Does that help address that? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: And the recreational area? MR. FARMER: And then the recreation. Now, it's my understanding that recreation parcels are consistent with the -- with residential, and that even if we were doing just straight RSF-3, where we would be able to, without this board's approval, to put a recreation site adjacent to the existing lots. Now, we do want to be good neighbors. We do again plan on heavily buffering and screening that area. We've also had deed restrictions via the homeowner documents that will, you know, cull out the minimum or maximum noise and enjoyment of that facility so that it doesn't impact adversely the surrounding area. Does that answer your question? Page 113 January 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Why did you choose that particular location for the recreation facilities? MR. FARMER: It helped fit with the roads. And when you do the geometry to lay a road out, you want to make sure you don't -- your curves are certain radii. It just -- it seemed to work and fall in there nicely. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But it really wasn't a consideration of what's existing around it or near it? MR. FARMER: Yes, it was considered. And that was considered to be the best place that would work with this plan. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Ms. Student, we had some comments regarding the easement, and Mr. Garlick made some comment and I think you were about to add something? MS. STUDENT: Yes, I was. Again, the commission is to be guided by the criteria that exists in our land code for the grant of the conditional use, and title matters are really private matters between property owners or individuals that have other interests in the property and are not a relevant consideration for this board. That's all I wanted to put on the record. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Thank you. Mr. Pires, I think you have some additional comments? I just would request that you present new testimony and not remind us of something you've already told us. MR. PIRES.' Wouldn't dare to do that, Mr. Budd. Well, I might dare, but I think you'd stop me quickly. Just quickly, I think one concern I have is I think this is now really showing that it is zoning on the fly. We have a site plan, the horror story site plan has been handed out today to scare this board or push this board into approving the unfinished plan that they had previously submitted. And what's curious about this, they haven't provided for any recreational facilities on this. So there's probably a couple acres that they're backing off that they would not get their 178 single-family lots. Also, they still haven't notified or indicated on here where the retained native vegetation is that has to be shown, the 25 Page 114 Janua~ 20, 2000 percent. This is something that just popped up today, similar to the issue with regards to this cross-section of the road. I don't have -- haven't had the chance to analyze and see what impact -- there was a road behind these people's houses. They thought there was going to be a house. But I take issue, and I think this planning commission should take issue getting new materials handed, revising the concept on the fly, then asking you to make the decision of approval that they're asking. We still ask that you recommend denial. Thank you. MR. FARMER: With respect to that, all we have done is we've offered a very preliminary plan that we did way back at the beginning as an exhibit to show today what we could do without the conditional use for cjustering. And we're trying to demonstrate that it is unimaginative. And we brought it along today only because Mr. Pires, in the last public hearing, said that we couldn't do it any other way. And we thought well, might as well show them one of the first plans, it can be done another way. It's not something that we prefer, it's not something the developer wants to do. There were, you know, many points made by the speakers. I can answer them quickly going through them. Things like, you know, we're in a floodplain. Actually, half the property is in a floodplain. It's an AE-11. The Water Management District knows that. Many of the houses that exist out there are already in a floodplain. We've got -- we've recently received our state permit for water management. Our water management permit with the state allows us to divert that water to the north. I don't want to waste the board's time here. Do you want me to just keep going through the points? CHAIRMAN BUDD: No. If we have questions, we'll be sure to ask. MR. FARMER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this item? Yes, sir, this gentleman right here. Were you sworn in? Page 115 January 20, 2000 MR. MYERS: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, could you state your name for the record. MR. MYERS: For the record, my name's Mike Myers. I'm with Passarella & Associates. I was contracted to do the environmental consulting work on the project. And I just wanted to follow up. There's been a number of statements today made about gopher tortoises in particular and what's going to happen with them. And in some of the opening comments, why wasn't a preserve put along Collier's Reserve. And I'd just like as quickly as I can to address those comments. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We would encourage you to be brief. And I assure you, if we have questions, we'll ask you. MR. MYERS: Okay. First off, when you have on-site gopher tortoises, there's only three avenues basically that you can pursue. And the first one is on-site relocation. On-site relocation, creating preserves on-site, is applicable per the Game Commission guidelines to large-scale developments. And what is a large-scale development? That's anything over 100 acres. What we have -- what we have around the site, Collier's Reserve, Palm River Country Club and the Imperial Golf Estates, those are all considered large scale projects. Our project, 86 acres, is not a large-scale project. So there's a different set of regulations that apply to a project of this size. Because it is so small, that in itself creates some inherent difficulties. Two other alternatives: Off-site relocation and Incidental Take, which is, as you know, what we have applied for and we're in the process of getting. It has been reviewed by the Game Commission and to my knowledge to date it's on track to be approved. Off-site relocation. Off-site relocation is, in my opinion, bad biology. And I'll try to quickly read from the state's gopher tortoise relocation guidelines for going off-site. This paragraph. The Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, now the Wildlife Conservation Commission, does not generally sanction or condone and typically discourages relocation of wildlife, especially as a perceived solution for land development/wildlife Page 116 January 20, 2000 conflicts. Relocation normally has negative impacts on both the relocated and resident populations of wildlife in the form of stress, disease, parasites and overpopulation, leading to increased competition for food, cover and other resources. So by the Game Commission's own statement, they don't prefer off-site relocation. So we -- so the reason for that, we pursued it on Incidental Take, which is going to be approved. You had some additional comments talking about why we didn't abut Collier's Reserve. Collier's Reserve has a number of gopher tortoise preserves scattered throughout their development. Again, as a gentleman mentioned, they're are 448-acre development. We're down at 67 acres. And a lot of our site, because the state, the federal and local government require so much regulation on wetlands, basically those lands are taking out of the potential development calculation. We also have -- we also have this lake and this long arm of a ditch here and another ditch that basically aren't serious considerations for development, as well as this land, practically speaking, to the north. The reason I'm proposing or we have proposed the gopher tortoise relocation development north across the canal is for a number of reasons. And I'll try to list them quickly. Again, first and foremost, it's a small site. Collier's Reserve to the west has the luxury of a golf course hole buffering their preserve. On our -- if we were to put our preserve to the east of Collier's Reserve, in all likelihood there would be single-family homes abutting that preserve. And it has been my experience in the long term with single-family homeowners, chances are they're going to go into the preserves. They do things like mulch them, trim vegetation. And gopher tortoises by habit prefer just to be left alone. They do very well on their own, and they don't take to stress very well. And with single-family homeowners also comes kids and pets, and it has also been my experience that they both can have a negative effect on preserves that are nearby single-family residential areas. So as a result, what I did is I took a look at that area to the Page 117 January 20, 2000 north. And there are a number of sandy spoil piles that have been left in that area. And right now they have Brazilian pepper growing on them. But once the Brazilian pepper is removed, I believe this area will be suitable gopher tortoise habitat. Especially once we do supplemental plantings with things like bahia grass and gopher apple and some other things that have been mentioned here. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: When it comes to your gopher tortoises, you're putting them across the canal. Just out of curiosity, do gopher tortoises swim? MR. MYERS: Actually yes, they do. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So they can swim and come back again. MR. MYERS: They can swim, but chances are, they probably won't. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: They won't, okay. One other species that was observed on the site in our staff item was the common wild pine. There is any common wild pine being preserved that's part of this conditional use to protect and preserve habitat in the wildlife? That hasn't come up. MR. MYERS: Common wild pine is it's a protected bromeliad. It's very common in Southwest Florida. And any that are within the proposed development area, they can be removed rather easily into things like the wetland preserve. And in actuality, the wetland preserve probably already has wild pine in it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You don't know that? MR. MYERS: No. I haven't seen myself any wild pine in that area. It's a small plant that grows on a tree. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And one other just real quick question. Would you clarify for me what the Incidental Take really involves for the gopher tortoises? MR. MYERS: The Incidental Take permit application, which is afforded by the state to small development projects such as this involves an application that has to be submitted to the state, and the applicant has to pay funds that go into a state designated fund that will turn around and buy gopher tortoise Page 118 January 20, 2000 habitat back in this region. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do you take the gopher tortoises and turn them into soup, or put them someplace else? MR. MYERS: Well, in any many parts of the state, to answer your question with all candor, they bulldoze the habitat. Now, in Lee and Collier County, we do not do that. The applicant does not intend to do that. We will dig up the turtles and move them to this proposed relocation area. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So that's what the take is. You take them and move them. MR. MYERS: The take is paying money to take the habitat. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Take the habitat. MR. MYERS: To take the habitat, the burrows and the gopher tortoises. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any other questions? sir. Thank you, Mr. Nino, you have a registered public speaker? MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, I have another registered public speaker. Rich Henderlong. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Were you sworn in, Rich? MR. NINO: No, he wasn't. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We can do that. (Speaker was duly sworn.} MR. HENDERLONG: Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Richard Henderlong. I reside at 542 Cypress Way East. I received the notice of the hearing, oh, I guess from the previous buyer. I just bought the house in August. And several of the neighbors -- this has been one of the few projects that I've had the opportunity to get to know my neighbors real quick. And I've been a resident since August. But I'm here to talk to you today about what I consider are issues that are premature as it relates to this proposal before you. And what I'd like to start with is a hand-out and then basically explain to you about our neighborhood. And this is Palm River Estates, Unit No. 3. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll pass them down while you talk. Page 119 January 20, 2000 MR. HENDERLONG: What you're getting is a quick synopsis of the development's zoning standard comparative table. Okay, one of your tests is compatibility with adjacent properties. The second page is the plat for Palm River, Unit 3 Estates. This is a plat instituted back in 1966. It's a very interesting plat because all the lots are either 90 feet, 49 of which are 90 feet in width or more; 31, 100 or more in width or greater. These standards were also instituted under deed restrictions. The center column shows you the deed restrictions. They show on a comparative basis what the RSF-3 zoning district entitles the landowner to. And then it shows what Unit 3, the comparative -- the existing deed restricted and how in fact that subdivision's been developed. And then it demonstrates to you what Little Palm is asking to you consider. The evidence we show, the minimum lot areas, are smaller compared to our 11,250 for the 31 lots at 90 feet. If you choose the Lot B at 6,000 square feet, it's even worse. I think you can self-evidently look from the facts of this and find that the compatibility of adjacent properties, particularly as it pertains to Unit 3 is not compatible. Now, when I talked with the engineer of record, Mr. Farmer, it was indicated to me it was going to be a gated community. Maybe that's not true anymore, but I would urge you, do not make it a gated community. It needs to be a flow-through neighborhood. It's an island that should not be truncated at the back end. Secondly, the standards as you see are much less than what people bought back in 1966. I find it ironic that the developer back in 1966 did something really good here. He went far and beyond the RSF-3 standards. Little Palm does not measure up to the compatibility of those standards. So we would submit that even on the right-of-way width, when you look at a front yard 40 feet on both sides, we've got 60 feet plus 60, okay, now we're talking about 140 feet. They're submitting a 50-foot road right-of-way with only a front yard setback, depending on whether it's a B lot or an A lot, I call it, of 60 plus 50, 110. Spatially what's happening is these buildings are Page120 January 20, 2000 coming in. You take a look at the minimum building area. You're supposed to look at as a board of zoning appeals bulk height and density. Those are some of the tests. The building area here is much less than what Palm River Estates Unit 3 has. The 90-foot wide lots have 1,200 square feet. The 100-foot lots have to build at 1,400 feet or more. There are documents under A lots of 1,000, B lots it was 600. You can go down the list and see, it does not match the compatibility of the adjacent property owners. The second issue that I'd like to talk to you about is the gopher tortoise habitats. I was the planner working with Dr. Eric Kiel (phonetic) in the design of Collier's Reserve and doing all those negotiations for gopher tortoise habitat. I submit, that project did -- and in fact the turtles do survive on those single-family lots. There's conservation easements on there. If you elect to proceed with the plan as it is, it does not take into respect the habitat that is out there. There's nothing wrong with designing the lots and putting conservation easements. I would personally urge to you do a good plan here, get them to define the native habitat, get them to define, maybe there has to be additional conservation easements within some of these single-family lots. People can coexist with the turtles. You don't have to just remove them all and get rid of them. When that plan on the eastern side of Collier's Reserve was proposed, there was a concern expressed to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, why should that project draw a fence line and say all right, turtles, you're only going to be abutting here? What was directed by the staff from the agency was because of this property also to the east, there had to be sufficient habitat for both. Two turtles per acre, okay? Sure, an Incidental Take can occur. They're not entitled to it. By right you have to use prudent judgment. Listen to your Environmental Advisory Council. They voted against it, they think it's premature. Page121 January 20, 2000 I submit that what you're being asked to approve today is a master plan, not a site development plan. Your stormwater management issues, details, it kind of keeps coming in bits and piece. I'm very concerned at the specifics of when an application goes forward there ought to be the supporting documentation and details to back it up. So let's see the commitment, let's see them on the papers and the site plans. So I would tell you on the basis of compatibility as a -- you're charged with the mandate as a board of zoning appeals to determine is it compatible with those adjacent properties. They're not there. Can they get there? Yes, there are ways to do it with a better design. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Dr. Goldman, I think you had some additional testimony? I just request that it is new, relevant information. MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. The proposal for removing the turtles and moving them to this canal on this side of the canal would negate their lifestyle and possibly discontinue their actual living. And why? Because there's a commission, a waterways commission in the State of Florida that dredges this canal every year. On this side of the canal is Imperial Country Club, Imperial Homes. Now, this canal is dredged in a throw-off method, which means that they don't dredge the canal and then pile all the dirt that they dredge on back of a barge, which is done, as you've seen in many places like at Wiggins Pass when they dredged there. They dumped the sand and the dirt and the muck back up on the canal banks where the turtles would be living. Now, this is in fact. The second thing that I wanted to bring to your attention is that sometime after 1995, Collier's Enterprises had an option to purchase this entire tract of land. At that time, before or after, they purchased this easement that ingresses into this property for the purposes of construction. Why did they do that? They did that so as not to disturb these people who live in this area of Palm River, either on this Page t22 January 20, 2000 street, Cypress Way East, or the other ingress and egress of Viking Way. That was the purpose of that easement. During the time that they had the option to purchase this property, a significant investigation was done, and they determined that the property had been landlocked for so many years that it became vegetation, animal preserve, and it became unbuildable. Consequently, they approached the Collier's Reserve Country Club members, 1997 or '98 -- '98 -- for the purposes of determining what the usage would be for that property, as they determined it to be unbuildable. They asked the country club members to approve a proposal to build a nine-hole golf course. That is still under consideration, it never came to a vote, but they -- Collier's Reserve of course did give up their option for their property. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this item? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Before you close. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, Mr. Wrage? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Fred, under the staff analysis, egress and ingress, was there a reason why staff has a requirement to improve the narrower portion of Cypress Way East? As a stipulation, maybe? Did they approve that small portion of the road? Because my understanding, it's not much, but it is very narrow. MR. REISCHL: It is narrow. On my site visit, as you're driving on Cypress Way East, there's a notable reduction along that east-west portion of Cypress Way East. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I guess my question is why didn't we ask the developer to at least improve that up to standard to alleviate that little problem? MR. REISCHL: Yeah, I did not add that as one of my stipulations. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there any other testimony relative to this item? If not, we will close the public hearing. Page 123 January 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER for the first option. Do we have any discussion, or even better yet, a motion? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward CU-99-27 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of denial based on incompatibility. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I second that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Priddy, a second by Commissioner Abernathy. Do we have some discussion? There being none, we will vote. All those in favor -- excuse me, did you have some comment? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I did want to make a quick comment. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I really do appreciate the effort at the cjustering concept. I think it looks much better than what else could be there. I like the concept of the urban infill to use some of the density. However, I'm not fully convinced that this is compatible. I've got some other concerns about what's been presented here today, and I really think they could come up with a much better product. But I too feel that it's not compatible and I can't sign my name on this conditional use petition form that I'm supposed to do in good faith, from what I've heard here today. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any other comments? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Just a quick one. It was not lost on me, that if we don't get this we're going to get this? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I don't think so -- ABERNATHY: I don't think so either. PRIDDY: -- because there's not any buyers COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I understand that, okay? It isn't going to look exactly like that. And the only issue I have is compatibility. I'm not going to support the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any other discussion? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Just to mention that if the Page 124 January 20, 2000 petitioner was to build today, giving the existing zoning standards, they can build a product that they showed us. And the compatibility, if I remember correctly, it means residential to residential. It doesn't necessarily mean if they have commercial it wouldn't be compatible, if they have industrial next door it wouldn't be compatible. But residential to residential, that's compatible. And if they were to build today under the zoning standards that are existing, they can have a roadway right abutting these homes, they can have the recreational area abutting these homes. That's a given. I know the residents next door don't like that, but that's the fact. So from that standpoint, I don't think I'm able to support the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion? With that, we'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: No. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So the motion carries. Also, there was a related item, the ST-99-02. Since you're doing so well, Mr. Priddy, you want to make a motion on that one, too? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: What are those numbers again? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: ST-99-02. It was actually a two-part agenda item. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay, I would move that we forward that petition also to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of denial. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion and second. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Nay. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Nay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Same split. Page 125 January 20, 2000 Okay, as we clear the room as quickly and quietly as possible so we can wrap up our business, we have one more agenda item. Item M. That is CU-99-33. Do we have any disclosures on this item? No disclosures. Anyone that wishes to testify on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record. I don't mean to know slight you on my wonderful presentation I had, but in light of the hour, I'll just go ahead and put on the record I've put the site plan up, if you have any questions. Provided this petition is approved with staff stipulations, it is consistent with the criteria for a conditional use approval. We are recommending approval. You have seen this project a couple times before. I have not received any letters or phone calls in opposition. And with that, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: You guest extra brownie points for a brief presentation. Any questions for staff? Does the petitioner have any comments? MR. HOOVER: Good morning -- good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Bill Hoover, representing the petitioner. I think this is pretty straightforward. The property next door was abandoned quite a few years ago. They didn't pay their taxes, and the Yahl family went ahead and purchased this land while we were processing the second five-acre addition. So what this does nicely is we're taking the traffic off the -- instead of running around the project now, we're going to come in the back end. We've got a little bit more room to do the project. But we're not increasing the traffic or anything, it just gives us a little more room to maneuver. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner? Is there anyone from the public to address this item? We will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? Come on, somebody let us out of here. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I move for approval of Petition Page 126 January 20, 2000 CU-99-33, conditional use two -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: -- with staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Urbanik, second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. There's no old business, there's no new business, there's no public comment. We are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:10 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL BUDD, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 127 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION January 31, 2000 Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-99-26, Andreu & June Vails Dear Mr. Scofield On Thursday, January 20, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-99-26. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-01 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very tru~ yours, Ross Gochenaur Planner II g/admin/BD-99-26/RG/im Enclosure CC~ Andreu & June Vails 324 Bryant Ave. Plainedge, NY 11756-5602 Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Phone (941) 403-2400 Fax 1941) 643-6968 www. co.coilier. fl.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 01 RELATING TO PETITION ~BER BD-99-26 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 15-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 5 feet to allow for a 20-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-3 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield, representing Andreau and June Vails, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 4, Dolphin Cove, as described in Plat Book 19, Pages 55-56, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 15-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 5 feet to allow for a 20-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-3 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. In order to address the protection of manatees, one (1) "Manatee Alert" sign shall be permanently affixed to the pilings and shall be visible from the waterway. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. The dock shall be field-adjusted to avoid/minimize the removal of mangroves within the conservation easement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-99-26 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this ~Orh day of ,laintory , 2000. ATTEST:/h/ VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-99-26/RG/ts -2- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION January 31, 2000 Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-99-27, Thomas Wajnert Dear Mr. Scofield On Thursday, January 20, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-99-27. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-02 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very t~ yours, Ross Gochenaur, Planner II g:/admin/BD-99-27-/RG/im Enclosure Thomas C. Wainerr 425 Getmain Ave. Naples, FL 34108 Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics File Phone (941) 403-2400 Fax (941) 643-6968 www. co.coilier. fl.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 02 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-99-27 FOR A BOATHOUSE ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of an 18'x36' boathouse over a 20'x45' dock and boat-lift in an RSF-3 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Cornmission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield, representing Thomas C. Wajnert, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 16, Block P, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 2, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 17, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida be and the same is hereby approved for an 18' x 36' boathouse over a 20'x45' dock and boat-lift in the RSF-3 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. In order to address the protection of mariatees, one (1) "Manatee Alert" sign shall be permanently affixed to the pilings and shall be visible from the waterway. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-99-27 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote, Done this 70th day of January ,2000. VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marm M. Scuderi Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD~99-27/RG/ts COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN 2