Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/07/2011 April 7, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 7, 2011 RECEIVED MAY 13 2011 Board of County Commissioners 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 9:00 a.ill. in REGULAR SESSION m Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: v' 'U Donna Reed-CarOltiiller ~ Diane Ebert Henning '\ ~ Karen Homiak Coyle ~ Barry Klein Coletta -"!-v-.......... Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Mark Strain, Chairman Melissa Ahem Fiala ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager Kay Deselem, Principal Planner Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District J Misc. Corres: Date: q\\~ '\ Item .: \v -x:. ~ 'A"\ .~ Page 1 of 24 C:;!es to: April 7, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 7th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. And if you're like me, you get into a bad habit. After 10 years of being on this panel I showed up this momingjust before 8:30 because we always started at 8:30 until some member of our crowd decided to change the time to 9:00. But I'm glad she did. Thank you, Ms. Ebert. Little hard to get used to. Everybody want to rise for pledge of allegiance, please. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, even though the balance of the government may shut down, we're still in seSSIOn. Ms. Homiak, would you take roll call, please. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahem? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay, addenda to the agenda. Kay, in place of Ray, is there -- MS. DESELEM: I don't have anything, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Ifnot, Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is the 21st of this month. Anybody know if they're not going to be here on that day? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like we'll have a quorum. By the way, that day will probably go a little longer than normal, because we're going to get into more detail on the Watershed Management Plan presentation that had to be postponed. And the part that was postponed will probably be the one that will be most interactive with the public. It's got the -- a bunch of issues I know that people were here last time to talk about. So we'll probably plan on being here a little longer that day. *** Approval of the minutes. I don't believe there were any. There's none listed, so that would take care of that. *** Any BCC report, Kay? MS. DESELEM: The last board agenda had no land use items on it, so there is nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, I-- MS. DESELEM: Pardon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a transmittal of a shopping center that was controversial. MS. DESELEM: ,l{ay and I looked yesterday and the only thing we saw was a board initiated or something -- it was a sigtfvariam::ethat had come off of the regular agenda. CHAIRMAN ~TJ{AIN: Okay, no problem. Page 2 of 24 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY If 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES jil/ 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -irY 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. PUDZ-2005-AR-8674: Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from an Agricultural (A) zoning district with a portion of the real property in a ST overlay (Special Treatment) to a Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) zoning district with removal of the ST overlay 1 for a project known as Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD. The project will allow development of a 500 seat church, a single family residence and preschool of up to 150 students along with other permitted and accessory uses commonly associated with a church and preschool use. The property is located at the corner of Learning Lane and Livingston Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 12 +/- acres and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUDZ-2007-AR-12292: Cope Reserve RPUD -- An ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps; by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Cope Reserve RPUD. The project proposes a total of 43 dwelling units comprised of single-family detached, single-family attached, multi-family and townhouse unit types, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of l4.3:f: acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS ll. NEW BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Planning section staff requesting coordination for the availability of the Collier County Planning Commission for upcoming "Special" CCPC meetings for FY 2011/2012. [Coordinator: Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager] 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 3/2812011 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp ~ 2 April 7, 2011 ***Chairman's report. Just nice to see everybody so late here this morning. *** And with that, we'll move into consent agenda items. First consent agenda item and the only one is PUDZ-2005-AR-8674, the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, CFPUD. And after reading the consent agenda item, does anybody have any issues on that one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, I-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, Brad, did you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob beat you to it. Bob made a motion, seconded by Brad. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry, did you have a discussion? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: No, I was just going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. ***We have one item on today's agenda, and that will be our next item, advertised public hearing for PUDZ-2007-AR-l2292, the Cope Reserve RPUD. That's an area of the Estates down off of -- by County Barn Road. That's right. Anybody wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Anybody? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I spoke with Rich. COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess for the first time in -- that I can remember, I did not speak to Rich. So that was a very welcome, refreshing -- but I did speak to Wayne, and everything we talked about will probably be discussed here today. So with that in mind, Wayne, proceed. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor and Associates. And with me today of course is Rich Y ovanovich. I also have Mark Minor, who's the professional engineer on the project. The project's pretty straight forward. Kay has the location exhibit up here on the viewer. And we are south of Davis Boulevard on County Barn Road. We're just a little bit north of the County Barn facility, if you're familiar with that. And our immediate neighbor to the south is the Evelyn Institute which is -- Eden Institute School for Autism. The project, as you're aware, is a l4-acre project. We're asking for 43 total dwelling units, a combination of single-family and multi-family type units are being requested. Page 3 of 24 April 7, 2011 The master plan is in your packet. I've got a color version on an aerial that may help orient you. Our access will be off of Cope Lane, not County Barn Road. We've also been cooperating with the county for their future stormwater and roadway improvements on County Barn Road. And you can see that we have a reservation area for utilities and drainage improvements along our frontage on County Barn. And we also have our preservation area that's required by code on and adjacent to the County Barn Road facility. That location was changed somewhat over time, the project's been in the pipeline. But as we have gone through the Water Management District permitting process, local staff and the district staff agreed that that's the location, the best location for the preserve, so hence its location. We asked for two deviations from the code and both relate to the roadway. There's l,OOO foot requirement in your code for cul-de-sac. We're asking for the cul-de-sac be a little longer to accommodate the entire length of the property. Your fire department has two other conditions that they offered, to make sure that we have a proper turning radius at the end of that. And I forget the other standard that they quoted from the fITe code, but we're fully agreement with those. We also ask for a reduction in the 60-foot right-of-way width under the county's Land Development Code to allow a 50-foot right-of-way. Staff is supporting both of those deviations. I'd be happy to answer specific questions. The master plan's pretty straight forward. We have a residential tract that's to the north and the south, and we have a buffer condition that was added as part of the discussion with staff. And it's written in your conditions, if you want to look at that. You may already have seen that. But it was specific to a different buffering standard if we decided to add multi-family units here. I would make one correction to the staff report. The table that's listed in there on Page 7 of 17 still shows a little bit difference on the building heights versus what was in my version of the PUD document, for whatever reason. So I just wanted to make sure that we're all in agreement with what we're seeing, as I did tell Kay we would agree to a zoned height of 35 feet, an actual height of 40 feet per multi-family, with a restriction to two stories. So hopefully the PUD document that Kay has reflects that. Mine did not. That's all I have. I'd be happy to answer questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Wayne. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't make it out and my plan doesn't show that easily for me, but just for edification: That's a detention area. That's dry detention? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir, dry detention. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Ray, the fire code requirements, are they in addition to what would be done normally, or are they just reminding you? MR. ARNOLD: I think they're reminders. We had this discussion early on, and the cul-de-sac met the latest East Naples fITe code standards. It's probably a redundant standard, but we're fme with putting it in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing is on the exhibit, Exhibit B, you put in there footnote four, which is essentially referencing accessory structures. I mean, I'm just not sure why you have footnote four, because it is kind of covered in the building separation for accessory. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it's -- if anything, it's double. MR. ARNOLD: Well, if you look at for instance on the -- under the townhome standard, it allows the 12 feet for instance to go to 10 feet for their garages that are detached. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yet-- Page 4 of 24 April 7, 2011 MR. ARNOLD: So the principal structure, but we're just noting that, because sometimes you have an offset for those garages, as you know, so the garages can actually be 10 feet apart but the units would be five. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But wouldn't the garage be an accessory structure? Have you consideredthat,or-- MR. ARNOLD: I think it would be, but -- I mean, I think the reason that we've written it that way and others, because I think staffs position has changed over the years between whether or not an attached accessory is really still part of the principal or not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then -- and I guess this is the same kind of question: The maximum height of an accessory structure is equal to the main building. I mean, what is that giving us? Like a big screen cathedral or -- and, you know, the height of the structure wouldn't actually be 35 feet, that could be probably the center of the roof anyway. I'mjust wondering if that's too high. But-- MR. ARNOLD: I agree with you, I think -- all I can imagine would be a two-story screen enclosure, perhaps, you know, on a single-family home. Probably is not going to go to the top of the roof. It would be eave height at the most probably or midpoint of the roof. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let it go then. I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. The road. It seems like the Land Development Code says 60 feet wide. And it seems lately like everyone is coming in at 50. It bothers me a little bit, because I don't really see -- you're trying to get 43 homes within really just less than seven acres. Is there parking available here? Do you have anyon-street parking? Do you allow for any of that? MR. ARNOLD: We haven't made any provisions for on-street parking. Just in the way of comment to your standard, the county's code has been 60 feet, and typically that's because you've got a public road network. But almost every PUD has provisions to do less than 60. And there are some out there that go down to 24 feet because you have sort of unique development patterns. But more common we have 50 feet that allows plenty of room to get all the infrastructure you need, the actual travel lanes, sidewalk, utilities, all within that right-of-way. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But if you have a spine road, that really should be wider. And there is only one road in and out here. I'm just thinking of our community. You cannot get a moving van, he cannot go around in a circle. And to have to back in from Cope Lane, I don't know if he could make that turn. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think they can. It's going to be designed so that a large frre apparatus can also get in and out of that project. I think the other thing -- one of the things that's become more common too is trying to fmd ways to reduce how much pavement we have to put down and how much our right-of-way is, and that's part of what we're trying to do. It's really a matter of a standard that we think is appropriate. I wish the county staff would take another look at their code, honestly, because I don't think 60 feet is a necessity in all cases. You go to Bonita Springs in Lee County, they have private road standards that allow you to go down to as low as 35 feet, because you can still fit all the necessary infrastructure in that amount of space. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You can't get practically two cars to pass on our streets that are 50-foot width. I mean, mailboxes are being taken down all the time. MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure what your travel lanes are designed for in your community, but there are minimum standards of lO feet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Um-hum, that's what I was looking at. Can you make this a little wider? Could you take the 10-foot before the sidewalks, can you take a little bit, like two feet off from that and make the road just a little bit bigger? MR. ARNOLD: Well, one of the things that we have, there's a certain -- and I think one of the planning commissioners may have had that question, but we have sidewalks on both sides of the cul-de-sac. We didn't ask for Page 5 of 24 April 7, 20ll a deviation not to put sidewalks on both sides. Commonly we would have, but it fit within our right-of-way cross-section to do so. But doing this with a small valley gutter system, you have a certain separation from the travel lane to the sidewalk for recovery of vehicles. You don't put the pedestrian that close to the travel lane if you don't have a non-mountable curb. It's designed with a pretty typical cross-section that we've used I think successfully in many, many communities. I can't speak to yours, I'm not familiar, I haven't done any engineering work in your community. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, I just have a concern about the width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and Wayne, I think this is the reward you get for not drawing your cross-section to scale. Because I think you would see that the 10 foot between the sidewalk and the travel lane does make it look a lot wider. MR. ARNOLD: I think that distance is probably close to six feet. It's a six-foot separation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But 10 plus five plus 10 equals 25. Anyway, Carroll (sic), I think if you're looking at the cross-section, it's actually wider than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Ijust have one question. Has a marketing plan been developed where anticipated asking prices for the homes are determined? MR. ARNOLD: No, they have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, a couple of things. We are looking at 500 feet from detention area to detention area on the east-west portion of the project, and 300 feet from the detention area to Cope Lane up against Estates lots. And you want to put 40-foot buildings at -- multi-family buildings, which could stretch that entire section. I had a discussion with Mr. Y ovanovich about this yesterday. I'm sure that he spoke to you about it. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, we did. And as I understood it, your concem was having -- it was building massing, really, making sure that we didn't have single buildings, or I don't know if you had a number of buildings. We don't have a specific plan in mind. I don't know if you have a number in mind. But even a typical four-plex type building can approach 100 feet in length, just so you know. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. That's a problem for me. MR. ARNOLD: Keep in mind too we have an additional setback of 40 feet, and we also have at least a 20-foot wide type C buffer there. And we're a two-story maximum. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then you have your setbacks, though, for your accessory structures. You want to go even closer. You want to have the same height as your principal structure, but you want to go closer when you're talking about a perimeter setback. Why wouldn't you make those the same? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think -- I probably don't envision accessory structures that would be behind the building to be as tall as the other -- some of the accessory structures could be something like a pool. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand, Wayne, that you don't envision. But we're not in the visioning process here right now, because this whole project isn't actually for development, this is being done so somebody can sell it and with additional rights on it than they have today. So we have to protect the people that are here already. And you're up against Estates zoning and with people living in homes. MR. ARNOLD: I appreciate that. I understand that. They -- and I've had that discussion with others. Keep in mind too that they have the same right to come back and change their zoning too. They're in the density band around an activity center. Whether or not they choose to or not, I don't know. But I do know that maybe the approach is to look at unroofed accessory structures. So I'm trying to envision what would approach that height. And I really don't know what that would be on a multi-family. But if I've got a pool deck and some other minor lesser structures, maybe that's not the same issue as building another building. I don't know if that starts to approach your concern. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I guess we can discuss it here as a board. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Caron, we did discuss length of the building, and we were just waiting Page 6 of 24 April 7, 2011 for our client, he just got here. If you could accept 120-foot length of a building, it won't get -- we'll break them up into 120-foot increments, would be basically four-plex buildings, 30-foot wide units, or -- you know, we would break it down to that. And then I think also from a -- it's a 30-foot minimum from the perimeter for an accessory use under the table. So it's not all the way down to 20 feet so -- with the additional buffer. So hopefully breaking up the mass of the building to where it's not the 300-foot building we had -- theoretically could do. And also the 500-foot building on the other end. And hopefully that will address some of your concerns. COMMISSIONER CARON: So -- well, I mean, so then that leaves you with, for example, up against -- from the detention area to Cope Lane you could get two buildings in there with a 20-foot separation. That's what you're going to try to -- that's the potential there, right? MR. ARNOLD: That's about right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, two buildings is the max, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it would be a wall with a 20-foot separation. Okay. We'll have to talk about that as a board, I guess. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. And I'm going to have a lot of questions of staff when we get to that point with staff, so I'm going to defer the questions on the staff report to staff. And I'll start with just the PUD document, Page 1 of9. MR. ARNOLD: Which page? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 1 of9 in the PUD document. Item residential A, principal uses. Do you have any problems striking and eliminating numbers two, three and four? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I haven't seen where there's a compatibility analysis indicating why anything but single-family is compatible to a very low density Estates zoning. Estates is one unit per two and a half acres. You want to increase it. You have the right to ask for it, but I don't see how it's proven to be compatible, based on what you've supplied against the Estates zoning. So that's why I'm asking you to eliminate the uses that are certainly not in my opinion compatible to what the Estates people that are living there have right now. MR. ARNOLD: Can I respond? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think if you look just down Cope Lane on the north side adjacent to Falling Waters, those are also Estates zoned lots, I believe, single-family homes which lie adjacent to the multi-family units -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, mistakes of the past -- MR. ARNOLD: -- in Falling Waters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- don't have to be repeated in the future. MR. ARNOLD: I'mjust saying that's a real live example that's there. But also keep in mind we've exceeded the Land Development Code buffer standard that's used between multi-family and single-family units. And we're restricted to height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the Estates -- and you know I'm familiar with the Estates -- we have a buffer for dissimilar uses of 75 feet. I don't see 75 feet in the buffers you're offering here. And your multi-family is certainly a dissimilar use to the Estates low density. MR. ARNOLD: The only other response I would have to that, Mr. Strain, is the portion of the Estates you live in is governed by the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan. This area was -- even while it was zoned Estates, the Collier County Growth Management Plan designated this as a potential high density residential area with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Zoned Estates with existing P -- I'mjust concerned about the property rights of the people that currently live there. They do have rights, they have what appear to be fairly nice homes. And to be backed up to a 40-foot tall multi-family building, a cram-and-jam project just doesn't seem to be appropriate for the Estates zoning. So I'm real concerned about that. I think that the R zoning on the north side of that road where it goes north-south, it would be on the east side, Page 7 of 24 April 7, 2011 could all be limited to single-family. South of the road it's a little bit -- you've got plenty of buffer between the Estates homes. But at least on the north side of that road you ought to limit your uses to single-family. And obviously you don't have to agree, but that's a position that I'm concerned about. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because I'm directionally challenged, I want to make sure I got the right two areas you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two smaller R sections. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Here and here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Would it be okay to have single-family detached and single-family attached zero lot lines on those two tracks, and eliminate the multi-family and the town homes from that? Because single-family attached is essentially a duplex. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. And what happens is the game that's played, they get skinnier and skinnier. And then they have these common walls and they're really not single family anymore, even though they're technically sold as fee simple. I'm more concerned about having a tight project like that up against a very sparse area called the Estates. It just isn't fair. And if you had come in after -- say these people do eventually sell their homes -- they got nice homes, they may never want to. But say they eventually convert and decide more, they'll equally be restricted by what goes on your property as you should be as long as they're in place. So I'm looking at a compromise from my perspective to the north side of that road. But we have to stick to single-family. On the south side it doesn't make sense -- I mean on the north side doesn't make sense. South side you can have your uses. But that's how I would look at it. And obviously it's up to you as we go on with this program today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the development standards table on Page 3, I heard you say something about a two-story, and I believe that applies to the multi-family. But you have a 40-foot townhome allowed where -- you were indicating that two stories is a maximum for any use you'd have for any building on the property, right? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 7 under the ftre code, are these -- 2-A and 2-B. Are these new ftre codes? Are they not in existence at this time? MR. ARNOLD: I did not speak with the ftre reviewer. I know that they had communication directly with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we got probably someone better than they at knowing the ftre code. Brad, is 2-A or 2-B current codes? Are these new codes yet to be written that no one knows about and that's why they're in our document? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think they're just reminder. Essentially they're current. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, unfortunately with the ftre department having the influence they have over plan review, I don't think anybody ever needs a reminder from that group, and I certainly don't think we ought to be cluttering our PUDs with the obvious. We're here to put -- a PUD is supposed to be creative, and that means you put things in the PUD that are not customarily found in our codes. Our codes stand on their own. And if we're going to repeat one code, we need to repeat the entire 300 pages of the code in here. So I am strongly against inserting the ftre references here. They're a given. And I pity the people that have to deal with them in the future anyway. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, my comment was I don't recall ever being required to do it. We're required to comply with whatever the code is when we construct the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's exactly why it shouldn't be in here today, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I agree with that too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe they'll get a message, if that's possible. I'll make a note before we go on. Kay, my application says Page 8 of9 and it stops. For the record, is there a Page 9 of9? Remember, I had asked you about this and you were going to research it? Page 8 of 24 April 7, 2011 MS. DESELEM: For the record, no, there is not a Page 9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you'll go back and renumber the pages so that the record looks complete, meaning Pages 8 of 8 will be the end of it -- MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the rest will be renumbered seven of eight, et cetera? MS. DESELEM: It will be correctly numbered, whatever that turns out to be, based on what happens today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are the questions I have of the applicant at this time. Anybody else have any others? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I do want to ask. The preserve area to the south -- actually, is that a preserve area? Is that a Falling Waters preserve area to the south of your project? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: It is? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. It's part of the Falling Waters PUD. It's just on our common southeast corner or-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, right. And it's a preserve for them, right? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the Water Management District didn't want you to connect -- MR. ARNOLD: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the two preserves. Oh, now there's a good one. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I wasn't involved in all that. Passarella and Associates was involved with the district agencies talking about native vegetation, but I think it had more to do with the quality of the vegetation that's near County Barn Road and also the fact that the county's going to be doing some drainage conveyance through that area. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, who's going to do our presentation on behalf of staff? MR. BOSI: And also, there are two speaker slips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, after staff presentation. Thank you. And Mike, just out of curiosity, did Nick sign up for perpetual classes on Thursdays to avoid this board, or is that -- MR. BOSI: I am unaware of Nick's schedule. Mr. French may be able to answer-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, regardless of who knows what it is, I'm sure that every Thursday is booked away from here. Go ahead, Kay. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. Again for the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. The staff report has been submitted for the record. It is a 17 -page -- hopefully that's the right number of pages -- document. It explains what the applicant's proposing, as he has also done beginning on Page 1 with a requested action, the geographic location, the purpose and description of the project. Continuing on to Page 2 with the surrounding land use and zoning with an aerial depiction of the property and the surrounding area. Beginning at the bottom of Page 2 is the growth management discussion, talking about the density. And it continues on Page 4 with the evaluation from the transportation element and the coastal -- I'm sorry, Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Staff is recommending that the project be found consistent. Staffhas provided an analysis of the project, again including environmental review, transportation review and the ftre review that you've already discussed their conditions. And a zoning services staff review that begins on Page 6 and continues through to Page 8 with the deviation discussion beginning on Page 9. Followed by the PUD and rezone fmdings of fact. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them in relationship to the staff report or anything else I can assist with. Page 9 of 24 April 7, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions of staff from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CARON: Do you want to ask the compatibility issue of staff? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Kay, what do you -- did you ever question the compatibility of the higher density uses against the Estates zoning? And if so, what were your questions and what were (sic) the result of those questions? MS. DESELEM: Yes, staff had an e-mail interchange with the applicant regarding the density and what we thought might be a good solution. And then we came to a compromise. Initially we were asking for an increased buffer above and beyond what is proposed here for both the single-family and multi-family, and we came to an agreement amongst staff and the applicant to what you see before you now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you in agreement that a different buffer was offered? I think you had suggested 75 feet, as I had suggested today originally. MS. DESELEM: Yes. That was what we had suggested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a question of traffic. And, you know, Mike's sitting back there hoping no one calls him. But I ftgured he's here, he might as well be used and abused. MR. GREENE: Michael Greene, Transportation Planning. I'm here to take my lumps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're in place of Nick, so -- under the County Barn Road impacts in the staff report on Page 5, the last sentence says the following: This segment of County Barn Road currently has the remaining capacity of a negative two trips and is currently level of service F, as reflected in the 2010 AUIR. You're recommending approval. Can you explain that? It seems a little odd that we have a failed road with no trips remaining, but we're approving a project to put trips on it and make it more failed. MR. GREENE: Correct. The applicant has worked yery well with us to mitigate what trips they are generating. At the time the AUIR was created -- or the data that was used to create the AUIR that went into this report, the data collection was done in years prior to Santa Barbara Boulevard extension opening. Santa Barbara is now open and we're seeing a shift of trafftc from County Barn to Santa Barbara. So I would expect that as we do our next AUIR, the data collection will capture almost a full year's worth of reassignment of trips over to Santa Barbara and that you'll not see a County Barn failing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what does that mean, just out of curiosity, in the long-term improvements that were going to be at one time done to County Barn? MR. GREENE: The long-term improvements in the long-range transportation plan are being reassessed. Instead of capacity improvements, I think you're seeing enhancements. So it may stay a two-lane road but it may have dedicated turn lanes, improved sidewalks, bike lanes, water management. Our stormwater department is moving forward with the pieces ofL.A.S.I.P. along County Barn, which are box culvert and swale enhancements over the next year or so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fair enough. COMMISSIONER CARON: Believe me, all of that is needed on County Barn. It's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I was asking -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- very dangerous road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was hoping you hadn't scrapped improvements altogether because of Santa Barbara. And that's good to hear. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's basically all I have at this time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I do have something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Kay, one thing we're going to do, we have a buffer requirement along the Estates of these existing houses, right? Do we essentially remove all the natural vegetation to build this buffer? Is there a way we could, because the setbacks are so great, keep the natural vegetation that's there? Which it looks like it's dense from the -- not this aerial but other aerials I've seen. MS. DESELEM: In understand your question correctly, you want to know if they can retain the existing native vegetation in their buffer? Page 10 of24 April 7, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Because it seems a shame to go through and just -- you know, we're putting setbacks of 30 feet minimum on the perimeter. It just seems a shame to go through and clean it all out and then plant new stuff with this buffer. MS. DESELEM: I think part of that depends upon the dynamics of the property as far as what they might have to do to improve the property. For example, if they have to go in and put a lot of fill in to bring it to a certain level, many times those plants won't survive if they're backfilled. But as far as I know, it's the applicant's prerogative ifthey wish to retain native vegetation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But don't they have to meet the opacity requirements, and that therein lies the problem with a lot of native vegetation, unless it's Brazilian pepper, which is real thick on the bottom, the pines are pretty high. And so without a wall and the hedges and the other inner plantings of the trees that we insist on, the opacity doesn't provide any -- isn't enough and there's virtually no protection. Because the native stuff, which I have around my home and a lot of people do, the understory is real short. And it doesn't -- actually it doesn't give them as much protection as a good buffer would. MS. DESELEM: Usually it's a matter of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless it's wide. MS. DESELEM: Many times it's a matter of augmenting the native species that remain. So many times you see a really dense area, but in reality when you take out the exotics there usually isn't too much left. And like Mark says -- or Commissioner Strain says, it's very often the high upper story area rather than the low story that you actually see. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, could they not just put the shrubs in? That's what's going to give them that low level. I mean, it just seems -- I mean, it's scary looking at this, because that's going to be -- the brown is actually going to be dirt one day that we're removing that. But if that's covered, that's covered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think a well planted irrigated buffer is probably going to survive better than the native, especially with the amount of fill. Out by me I was watching a house go in and the guy was very careful to fill his pad. And he didn't want to fill where the trees were. He got in and tried to clear it out but he ran all the runoff where the trees were. And when he went in and cleared, the heavy machinery broke the roots of the shallowed pines. The next thing you know, within a couple of years the pines were all dying out, and he's got nothing. So as bad as it is to destroy the native, in some cases where you've got tight projects, you get more out of a well-planted buffer than you do out of native, if you're not going to go to a wider width. So that may end up being the best thing for the neighbors. MS. DESELEM: That mirrors what I've seen as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions of staff before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how many public speakers? MR. BOSI: Two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two. And I saw both of you when the request was made to rise to be sworn in by the court reporter, the lady wasn't here and sir, you didn't rise, so we've got to do that again. And if you'd mind standing up and raising your right hand for the court reporter to swear you in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. RIFFLE: And the lady can go frrst, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A gentleman. Good. MR. BOSI: And the frrst speaker, according to the preference, is Shirley Riley, followed by Skip Riffle. MS. RILEY: I'm Shirley Riley. I live on Cope Lane. One point I wanted to make was none of us on our street was notified of this until the sign went up there. And that's why Skip and I are there, because we were never notified about it. The other thing I wanted to talk about was the entrance and exit of Cope Lane, that's the only way we have in and out. When Cope Lane was built, that's built as a private road, not a public road, so it's not built to handle this kind of traffic. All the other condos up and down County Barn Road, they have their entrance and exit right off of County Barn Road to handle that type of traffic. Okay, Cope Lane is not built to handle that kind of traffic. So Ijust thought -- the proper thing would be to change the entrance and exit, if this project goes forward. Page 11 of24 April 7, 2011 And I do have to agree, we are all homes on this street; we're not looking to have more apartments or condos or townhouses. So as far as a single-family home, that sounds a lot better to us. Now, the buffer. When you were talking about the buffer -- now Falling Waters wraps around my house. And yes, they put up a buffer, but they put ficus trees. I have roots going all through my yard up to my house, through my sewer system, all sizes. They have went all the way from the buffer up to my house. Now, I'm sure you all know the roots are ruining everything. So their type of buffer is not the best buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe ficus have been prohibited in using them in buffers now in Collier County. Kay, can you verify that? MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are ficus still allowed to be used in buffers in Collier County? MS. DESELEM: Not to my knowledge, sir. I believe they're a prohibited species. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think that your issue is extremely relevant. And a lot of the older projects have done just what you're talking about and there are still problems in many of them today over what's happening with the ficus roots. MS. RILEY: Yeah, they're --I'm digging them out of yard constantly. And I know the last hurricane went through, these ficus trees fell right into my yard. They're still there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. MS. RILEY: Anybody got any questions for me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but we're going to follow up with transportation at least I know after we get done with public speakers. MS. RILEY: Okay. The other thing, where do we get these pamphlets that you're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That young lady right there, looking with a surprise on her face. MS. DESELEM: Me. MS. RILEY: Okay. Because Skip and I would like to have one of those to refer to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, is that -- can you -- MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I missed that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They would like to get a packet of the information on this PUD so they can have it before it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. MS. DESELEM: Certainly. I'd be more than happy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Make sure if you could, you get ahold of Kay with your address and everything at some point, either after the meeting or bye-mail separately. MS. RILEY: And any further action on this property, can Skip and I be notified? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's going to be a Board of County Commissioners hearing on it, which will be the next action. Do we know when that is, Mike or Kay? MS. DESELEM: If I may, on the back of the staff report is the Board date. And hang on, I'm getting tlrrough it. I was trying to verify whether or not they had been notified. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It doesn't have a Board date. MS. DESELEM: Oh, it doesn't. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It does not. MS. RILEY: You know, Cope Lane doesn't have any sidewalks, bike paths, streetlights. Neither does County Barn Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got a -- we're going to be talking here to transportation in a minute and ask them what the upgrade requirements are going to be. And hopefully that may address some of those issues. But we'll find out to what extent our codes require them to be addressed. If it isn't in the code, it's harder to get it done, but we'll find out. Did you fmd out about the date? MS. DESELEM: According to Wayne, he believes it is the 24th of May. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: And I can verify that either by phone or e-mail to the two interested parties. Page 12 of 24 April 7, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the 24th of May, and it will be in these chambers. That meeting starts I believe at 9:00? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they'll be probably a time -- if this is on the consent, you'll have to request it to be pulled. So-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: June 14th. It's on the other page where they had signed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So which is it, May 24th or June l4th? MS. DESELEM: It should be June 14th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So ma'am, that's another correction. June l4th is the date in front of the board. Thank you. MS. RILEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MR. RIFFLE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Skip Riffle. I also am a resident of Cope Lane. I might bring up, and I haven't heard it anywhere here, but Cope Lane has never been accepted by the county. It has been entirely maintained by the residents. Before the blacktop was there we would have to hire a grader to come down and knock the potholes out so that we could get in. Falling Waters had agreed to bring the road up to county spec if the residents had granted them an access for the destruction of that section of Falling Waters that buts up against Cope Lane. And we did so under the conditions that they would bring the road up to county specs. They immediately came in, shoved down an inch cap of blacktop after just grading the existing road, which is by no means straight, and we said now, wait a minute, that isn't bringing it up to county specs. They said well, there's no sense doing it now when we're going to have construction vehicles coming in, big trucks filled with dirt and so forth and concrete mixers and all that. But as soon as that's done, then we'll redo it. Well, in the meantime they sold -- Hubschman sold the -- a property back to the owners association. And when they fmished up, we had to demand that they put -- remove their gate entrance or chain link and put up a fence. And then we asked them about the road and they said, oh, listen, that was your agreement with Hubschrnan, it's not our agreement, we don't have to stand by it. And I still contend that it's in the public records that that was to be done and it never was. So with that being said, we are a bit suspicious of any project going in, and leery of it, as driving down Cope Lane you see your residential homes and then all of a sudden you see a chain link fence and the multi-family dwellings existing in the back of Falling Waters. They even refuse the fact that they own to the middle of the road, as the road was at one time deeded to the county. We as residents had to purchase the property from one of the residents there that didn't want to assign the right-of-way to make -- turn the road over to Collier County. So we had to buy him out. We did and turned over all of the deeds to Collier County. And to this day, they -- nobody knows where they're at. And we have searched for them and it is -- nobody has them, nor do we. So that brings up another issue. But Falling Waters technically, if you don't look at that, they own to the middle of Cope Lane. They refuse to clean their section of the road. The debris from the last hurricane is still laying on the road. The swale for the drainage runoff is still laying in the drainage, blocking it. We had a street cleanup, as their hedges were leaning so far into the road we were restricted to one lane. And we went through and cut all that and removed it so that we could pass. Cope Lane is -- has been a problem for a long time. The county has now come through and surveyed for swales to drain the water off along the north side of Cope Lane, down to Santa Barbara where they have put in the canal system. And I'm really not even opposed to that. But why all of a sudden it's been -- traditionally the drainage was to the south side of Cope Lane, and now that the county's come in -- actually since this project has started up and has changed the drainage off to the north side of it, which incidentally, the north side of Cope, right across from the two "R"s there, there is a lake and that's a groundwater retention pond owned by the county. So that's the first 640 -- 660 feet of Cope Lane that the county owns to the middle of the road. All right? So therein lies the problem that we are very concerned with the additional traffic coming in on the road for Page 13 of 24 April 7, 2011 this development where the road was never at all constructed for that amount of traffic. There's only, what is it, eight homes? MS. RILEY: Nine. MR. RIFFLE: Nine homes on Cope Lane right at the present time. And, you know, we're very, very concerned about this issue. And if it's brought up and to the point to be Cope Lane developed just to their entrance, I think the road needs to be looked at in its entirety, if any improvements are made for it. I realize you haven't discussed this with transportation yet, but please figure that in. The other thing is I had put my house up for sale here a while back, which that was a wasted effort. But I went and paid for the appraisal. And when they did the appraisal, they took in everything within a quarter of a mile of our home that's being sold, and that took in all of the multiple family homes in Falling Water and greatly reduced the value of our properties. This part concerns us also. Single-family, well, hey, you can't stop progress altogether but, you know, we'd like to slow it up. And the multiple family issue does go in and concemed us as far as our property values. Did I miss anything, Shirley? MS. RILEY: That's pretty good. MR. RIFFLE: Well, thank you very much. And I appreciate all your concerns and your questions. Mr. Strain, I like the fact that you doled into that packet and its depth and found a couple of questions that I had wanted to ask too. And thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Skip? Yeah, just a thought with regard to the effort to dedicate the road. Whether you transfer the deeds and they were not accepted and lost and whatever, you might think about going and having a search done of the records to fmd your deeds and have copies made. And if the county doesn't have ownership of that land, then you have ownership of that land. So you have some leverage there, I believe. That might help you with regard to some other factors. MR. RIFFLE: And, you know, we don't mind working with the folks, but so far we have had no notification, any of us, except for the sign that's gone up on the property. And, you know, I keep hearing that staff has researched this and that on it. Well, then the research is just in their office and not with the people that live there. And that kind of bothers me that they didn't contact anyone in the area. I mean, these folks have to understand that Estates means that if we want to put chickens and horses and pigs and stuff like that out there, that's part of Estates. Not that we do -- well, some of us have a couple of things. But, you know, this is a drastic change to our lifestyle and those of us who have lived there for in excess of 30 years. And I appreciate your looking out after us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And by the way, in lieu of a deed, you may fmd that there are easements for that road. One of them was somewhat in the packet that I was given, referenced -- at least I asked for it. I went to county records and pulled it. It's OR Book 877, Page 85l. So if you were to pull that easement, you'll see that's part of a road easement. And there probably are others, but that one happened to be on the property in question today. MR. RIFFLE: It was interesting that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the mic, sir. MR. RIFFLE: It was interesting that when we went to the county and asked them to accept the County Barn Road for the maintenance and all that, that they instructed us that we would have to deed our property to them, because there was nothing at the time on that. And if they since had that, then again we don't know anything about it, all right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. We'll have transportation come up right now and try to explain Cope Lane, Cope Road or all the circumstances involving everything you've just heard. MR. RIFFLE: Thank you. MR. GREENE: Michael Greene, Transportation Planning. And everything in between. All the property owners are still the underlying property owners where Cope Lane sits. You are correct, there Page 14 of24 - April 7, 2011 is public right-of-way. That is an easement. Easement dedicated to public access doesn't mean that the county maintenance is going to take over the responsibility to maintain the road. If you go to our ordinance that's being proposed, seven of nine -- or seven of eight, item two, transportation, letter B. Under developer commitments, it's very clear that the developer will be improving Cope Lane, including sidewalks and bike lines. MS. RILEY: How far down? MR. GREENE: All the way to the property comer, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, you can't -- please, Mike, you've got to -- MR. GREENE: The question was how far or how much of Cope Lane they were going to be improving. They will be improving it along their entire property frontage, which extends beyond their driveway. The county will be reviewing these plans to make sure that that design and construction is up to current county standards, which includes the amenities that they've been asking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the base and limerock thickness and the asphalt thickness? All that will be to a county standard of what cross-section? MR. GREENWOOD: That I'm not sure. We'll have to take a look at a projected annual daily traffic before we get into base and pavement design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the minimum? MR. GREENE: Usually you have eight inches of compacted lime. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the minimum design cross-section you were designed to? I mean, I think I know the answer, but I want to have you tell me. MR. GREENE: Pavement design or width of the roadway that's in the corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The county has a series of road designs in the applicable section of our -- I believe it's the LDC, or reference to the LDC, and they actually show the cross-sections. MR. GREENE: Because of the water management, this would likely be a section of urban corridors. So you'll have vertical curb and gutter. It will drain to the pond sites. A minimum of l2-foot lanes, four foot on-street bike lanes. Because this is not considered an arterial, it would be allowed five-foot sidewalks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, you just said they would take it to the end of their property, which I think is appropriate. But the document says they will take it to the driveway. MR. GREENE: There is an allowed transition area from a full county-approved section to taper it back down to the existing Cope Lane ribbon of asphalt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting, Mike. So we're fmding new things out here. So when it says: The developers, its assessors or assigns, agrees to improve Cope Lane, including any turn lanes warranted by this project from County Barn to site driveway as part of the first SDP or plat. Now, some people may read that, an attorney -- I don't know if there's any attorney in the room or not. But an attorney may read that like it just stops and turns dirt after it hits that driveway. I want to know specifically for the record what these people can expect on that road and how far they can expect it. MR. GREENE: The applicant just committed to the improvements all the way to their property line. So the transition would start from their property line as you move to the east. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Transition to what? MR. GREENE: To what's there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's not an improvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the improvements will be to the county minimum cross-section. Is that correct? MR. GREENE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the improvements will basically -- if the road doesn't have the thickness of the limerock that it needs, and the base, the right base, the right limerock, the right asphalt, the curbing, the sidewalks, all that's going to be put in -- all the way to the property line, to the easternmost property line, and from there you'll start your taper back to Cope Lane. MR. GREENE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's as fair as it can get. I mean, I don't think there's an obligation for the Page 15 of 24 April 7, 2011 developer of this property to go beyond his property, but I certainly think it's up to the property line, so I think that's a good compromise. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Who's going to taper it? MR. GREENE: The developer will be responsible for the taper as part of their construction. And that can be completed inside the easements that exist for Cope Lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, are you going to rewrite the language that's in the list of developer commitments so it reads like we've just discussed prior -- MR. GREENE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the consent hearing so we have it at consent? MR. GREENE: We will clarify that in this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make sure it's as clear as it needs to be so we don't have any confusion at consent. I think that helps a lot with the Cope Lane clarification. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Mike. Normally we don't, but come on back up. We haven't got a full house today so we can fit you in. MS. RILEY: You know, to this day residents of Falling Waters to this day use Cope Lane for jogging, biking, walking. Every day. You go down there, they may not live right on Cope Lane, but they use it. We don't say anything, we let them. Now, if this residence goes in and they're willing to put a sidewalk only on their property, everybody in there will also be using the entire Cope Lane for walking, jogging, biking. We have no problem with that. But they have to remember, all them residents will be using that entire road, not that little piece that they're talking about improving, the entire thing. When Falling Waters was being built, I had l8-wheelers in my yard, turning around in my yard, because they were trying to fmd the entrance of Falling Waters. I had flat beds of bricks. The trucker did not know where to turn in, he ended up in my yard. So the amount oftraffic that turns around in Skip's driveway and my yard, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand your dilemma, but it is a -- from what Mike just said, it's a public right-of-way. May not be as improved as an improved public right-of-way, but be that as it may, they have a right to use the road. As far as how it can get improved by Falling Waters to the agreement that you guys already seem to have with them, that's something in the past. We don't have -- I don't know if we have a right to enforce. I don't know if it's a private agreement or public agreement. Maybe Mike can answer that for us. MS. RILEY: You know, Skip and I, we go up and down the road to pick up the trash, the litter, trimming the bushes. It goes on and on, the maintenance, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I appreciate it and we understand, we'll do the best we can. So thank you very much. MS. RILEY: And I've asked many times for County Barn Road to have bike paths or sidewalks, because right down from it under the power lines they've got what, eight foot. They just recently put in blacktop. Put it on a road where we all will benefit from it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the improvements are scheduled. That's what we acknowledged earlier. MS. RILEY: I just hope it works in my lifetime. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I do too. I do too. Mike, can you verify whether the right-of-way on Cope Lane is public or private? MR. GREENE: The right-of-way on Cope Lane to my knowledge, and through research when we were doing Santa Barbara extension, has easements that have been dedicated for public right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The agreement that apparently or does or may exist between Falling Waters, is that between the county and Falling Waters or Falling Waters and private residences? MR. GREENE: I am not aware of any agreements that Falling Waters has in place for any improvements or use of Cope Lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you, as part of the consent item, fmd out ifthere are any? And ifthere are, Page 16 of24 April 7, 2011 they need to be included as a developer commitment to be -- so that they're enforced. If they're not a public document -- if not a document between the developer and the county, then I don't think we have a concern over it. But if it's one that is already in existence, I don't know why it hasn't been, should I say, enforced. So could you get those answers for us by consent? MR. GREENE: I will try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GREENE: And if I feel like we're kind of walking a line between a possible code enforcement issue if there's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, 1-- MR. GREENE: -- some agreements that are recorded that haven't been fulfilled -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wanted to make a correct -- MR. GREENE: -- review side for a different project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wanted to make a correction on my prior statement. It's not something we will add to this commitment, because this is a separate PUD. But it is something I think we need to know by consent. And it would be certainly interesting to have that information by the time it goes to the BCC. MR. GREENE: Certainly. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for Mr. Greene. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Greene, is Cope Lane -- how far is it going to go, or is it going to dead end? MR. GREENE: Cope Lane right now goes all the way down to within about 60 feet of Santa Barbara extension. It's not actually connected. And with the improvements to Santa Barbara and the canal extension, it is actually possible to drive off the east end of Cope and connect to Santa Barbara. I mean, it's not officially set up as an interconnection, but as time progresses and as more development happens in this area, because of the easements in place and because of access management setting intersections at such intervals, Cope Lane will eventually connect between County Barn and Santa Barbara. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, the Falling Waters project, if you get a chance, maybe you could help Mike and look at the PUD and see if the commitments in that PUD have any relationship to Cope Lane, and that might help him along in his review of any kind of commitments to the county. MS. DESELEM: It would be my pleasure to work with Mike to find out what we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of anybody at this point? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I was just going to comment that you may have to look back at minutes, not just the PUD itself. A lot of things in the past didn't make it into PUD's that were supposed to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as long as we have something enforceable, and if it isn't (sic) been done, we need to at least have that report available to the BCC so they know it when they review this project. MR. RIFFLE: One point that might be of help -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to limit it, sir, otherwise we'd be back and forth all day long. Okay, with that, any other questions of anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The park -- or the street in there bothers me. If they could just provide parking. To me it's -- you've got 43 units and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a list of questions that I guess I was going to go over with Richard -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- before we ask for a vote. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let's start with that one. Page 17 of24 April 7, 2011 How do you want to address Diane Ebert's concem? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, my recollection is regardless of the width of the right-of-way, whether it's 60 feet or 50 feet, the pavement width is essentially going to be the same. It's not covered by that. And my understanding is that the county codes prohibit on-street parking within subdivision streets. So it's never addressed in the standard provision in the frrst place. All we're simply saying is instead of requiring us to go to 60 feet of width to put the same width of pavement in, let us go to 50 feet and we're going to address utilities. And it's not an engineering related issue. And frankly it really ought to be changed in the Land Development Code, because I don't know of a project really that is a -- a development that has gone through in the last I don't know how many years where we haven't asked for this deviation and gone through the same explanation that the width of the right-of-way doesn't change the width of the pavement. And we're not allowed to put on-street parking in the frrst place. So I can't -- that's my response, is I'm stuck with it what (sic) it is. Even if you left it at 60 feet I would have the same width of pavement and I would have no on-street parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You provoke a question. Reminiscent of a recent activity that we had, we have under Pages 1 of 9, Exhibit A, for Cope accessory uses, recreational facilities such as parks, playgrounds and pedestrian bikeways. And I'm not sure, given what I see for a projected development, that you have room for hardly any of that. But as that relates -- or does it relate? I see parking, and you're right, you're not going to be on the street. But there wouldn't be anything wrong with taking a slug of land, a parcel of land, a small amount, that could accommodate say six, 12 -- six, eight, 12 vehicles and put it into an area where visitors could park. Because I'm looking at this number two item, recreational facilities. I don't think you're going to have any, okay, so I think this should probably go out of there. Either that or be proofed. And if you want to be helpful in terms of accommodating visitors somewhere along there, perhaps you can do it within the dry detention area. You're only talking about a penetration of what, 20 feet for parking. So in other words you have a road and then you have a portion and then you have people can drive in those -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will-- if we do have recreational facilities -- and it's an option, it's not a requirement, unlike the reference to a different project -- those recreational facilities will be required to meet the county's Land Development Codes regarding parking related to those recreational facilities. We will meet the county's parking requirements regarding whatever type of development we put in here. And we'll get to the issue multi-family versus single-family. But if it were 100 percent single-family development, the code requires I believe it is two parking spaces, or des -- you have your required parking related to the code. We will meet that requirement. We have not asked for any deviations from that. And there's not a community around town that on special events if you do have a party at your house wherever you live you're going to have the occasional parking related issue. But generally it's not an issue. You park your cars in the garage and your guests can park in your driveway. And we wouldn't -- we're not asking for anything different than the code already allows and already provides for in our community. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm going to just respond once and say this: You have units that are SOO square feet in size. Anybody who's going to live there permanently is going to come -- need wall stretchers to function eventually, because people tend to store things. Where do they logically store it? In their garage. That puts their vehicle outside. Now, I wasn't concerned really with single-family homes, because those do accommodate generally. But my concem is for multiple family homes. And many times people come down here in the summer, if they rent or if they live there, they have two cars. And that puts a real strain on a community. My only advocation here is to try to help alleviate some of the problems associated with such a narrow and pretty tight type of development. Ordinarily I wouldn't have a great argument on it, but I think in fairness that it should be considered. And I know Commissioner Caron had indicated previously that maybe we should start considering these things. I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, but I would say to you I would think that you might want to look at where you could accommodate, especially in the areas that I'm referring to, which is the multi-family units. That's Page 18 of 24 - April 7, 2011 where your predominance of problems are. And, you know, I will tell you this: When there -- forget the party part of it. When it's season and when people have the typical situation, you're going to have vehicles in the road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Wayne has pointed out to me that for multi-family there are code requirements regarding guest parking and loading. So that is -- that will be addressed and we will provide for with -- if a multi-family portion of the project is in fact developed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there are some other issues. One of them we have made a note on is unroofed accessory. I think there was a volunteer commitment that the setback I think along the Estates zoned areas where you have an accessory going closer than the principal structure, that accessory would be on the roof in that closer space. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're talking about screen enclosures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unroofed. Meaning unroofed, no hard roof, no tile roof, no roofto match the house. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In response to one of the other commissioners, you indicated where and if there is multi-family, it would not exceed 120 feet in width. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me ask this question now, now that we have -- and we have offered up and are prepared to offer up in response to your comments, Commissioner Strain, that on -- everything north of the road, it would be limited to single-family. Not attached single-family but single-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So is there a need at this point to really address the size of the multi-family building? Because I think that was in relation to those two particular parcels, because they were adjacent to existing Estates homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's bring that -- Ms. Caron brought that up. Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: I hate leaving things wide open so that you can have that entire stretch one big long building. I mean, I can't -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: At some point you've got to let the market -- the market's not going to let me build a building that starts at the -- I guess at Cope Lane and wind its way all the way around the south lane of that road. It's just not going to happen. And I know your concern was there's going to be a wall right next to these other single-family homes -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, right, of parking. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- and I think we've taken care of that. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you have definitely taken care of that problem. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I would like some flexibility on what -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know why we need multi-family in there to begin with, but -- so I have an issue with the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I mean, if you -- that's a good point. I mean, where is the need for multi-family at all? I mean, if you want multi-family, and Ms. Caron has a concern, you might want to address that with a limitation, or just take out the multi-family. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's your call. Do you want a minute to talk with your client? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. Are we going to have other comments so maybe we -- CHAlRMANSTRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- can go on through and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go through them all, then we'll take a short break and-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you can finish up. You had said that there'd be a two-story maximum. That would be for basically any use then? Page 19 of24 April 7, 2011 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, that was the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to remove the frre code references. Mike Greene is going -- you're going to work with Mike Greene when you come back for consent. We're going to understand the -- more specifically where the Cope Lane road improvements -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll bring it all-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- begin and end at and how they taper off. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- the way to our east property line that fronts Cope Lane and then taper from there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- as the intent of the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be part of the list of requirements. We'll refme that one. In that process, though, I would like to make sure that staff includes the cross-section that they intend to use. We have a-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- just a reference so that nobody goes down the road not knowing what they're supposed to do. Then the only other thing that isn't really part of the PUD but that will be done by consent is the discussion that Mike -- or the research that Mike and Kay will do to determine where Cope Lane's commitments are versus requirements that were committed to the county. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But that's unrelated to us, it's just an informational item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be information only, but the information is relevant to Cope Lane in regards to other projects that may not have met their commitments. And I think if the commissioners that this go to next are aware of commitments not met, it might help them understand what they've got to do to make sure Cope Lane is safe. So I think it all -- seeing as how it's the same developer, it all comes together. With that, I think that's the only notes I have. Paul? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not the same developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Not the same developer of Falling Waters? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. Because Falling Waters is -- was sold to -- I forget, I think it was TransAmerica at the time. And then -- in '98 I think it was, in the Nineties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who got the PUD? MR. YOV ANOVICH: But the point is, is the development was -- it's binding on the successor developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but who negotiated the PUD for Falling Waters; do you know? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it wasn't you. I think it was -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, I don't know. But my point is, is the beef is with the successor developer who didn't follow through with the commitment on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But we ought to at least fmd out the status ofthose commitments. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But my point -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hear it. We're on the same page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what my point is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I get it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If the north side of the development is going to only go to single-family, how much of a reduction in the number of dwelling units from 43 would that lead to? MR. YOV ANOVICH: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From a density viewpoint, I mean, they're -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's only three units an acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure it matters if they pile the density on smaller units across the road, but as long as the Estates low density is protected, I think that's the argument I was going to make, Paul. If they can't use the 43 units, so what? Page 20 of 24 April 7, 2011 That's kind of -- other than that, anybody else have any comments, anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, do you want to -- it's 1 0: 15, let's take a -- because we do have a follow-up item that might take a little bit of time, not too much. A very little bit of time? Okay, let's just take a lO-minute break, we'll come back at 10:25, okay? (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will please take their seats, we'll get back in session. Okay, Richard, what was your discussion? Or what parts of it do you want to reveal on record? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We've all agreed that we've lived here too long, and things have changed. I believe we would be addressing a huge majority of the issues by going to single-family for the project. There are still -- and I want to make it real clear that remember, the enhanced buffer we were talking about was related to if we did a multi-family project. So we would expect to put in the buffer that would be typically there for a single-family buffer, because I think we had -- the enhanced type C buffer, if you will, was related to a multi-family type project, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's what you're going to go by, then we need to see the differences between the buffers and where you're intending to apply those so that the record's clear and that we -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, if it's an entirely single-family project, why would we not just agree to the typical-- and Wayne, remind me what letter it is. I think a Type A buffer is what's required single-family to single-family. And so we would provide the Type A single-family buffer, single-family to single-family. And I think what would really make the residents happy is if the county would accept maintenance of this public road. Obviously we're going to improve it to the east edge of our property that fronts Cope Lane and taper it down. But I think the residents are saying if this is really a public road, why is the county not maintaining this public road. But that's an issue that I don't think they really necessarily have with us, but that's an issue that still lingers out there, even after we agree on the going to single-family. So I just felt it's fair to put that on the record that that issue is unresolved but it's not something that I think they acknowledge I can't fix that, I can only control the single-family use on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, the idea of going to the A buffer versus a B, an A buffer is 15 feet, it has trees at 25 feet on center and it has number 10 shrubs, four-foot on center, 60-inch height at planting. An A buffer is 10 feet, 30-foot trees on center, that's it. Now, again we're back to the north side of that road. I'm very protective of those Estates lots. I can't see why a B buffer wouldn't work better for you from a marketing viewpoint. MR. YOV ANOVICH: North of the road, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The two small "R" parcels. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fme. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then your A is the balance, because you're going up against a school and other uses to the south that are irrelevant for that regard. Okay, so if we do that, if we go with the B buffer on the north and the A on the south, and we go with all single-family, that's easy enough to correct. The unroofed accessory structure issue goes away. The length goes away. The two-story max, well, that's the same regardless of the use so you're not going to go beyond that. And the Cope Lane road improvements are the same. So I think that kind of certainly does make it a lot better project. A lot better project. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How many units per acre will you have then? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Still three. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Still three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What they can build and what they ask for, it's kind ofirrel-- going to single-family, you know, it automatically might force a lower density anyway, so -- Page 21 of 24 April 7, 2011 Anybody have any concerns, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that kind of fIxes a lot of our issues. Okay. Well, then, I think we'll be looking for a motion to approve this recommendation for approval on the basis of all single-family lots which would basically be the single-family only column from the development standards table. That would be the frrst column. MS. DESELEM: Excuse me. If! can, would you clarify if it's single-family detached or attached? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The frrst column on the development standards table is only for one use. MS. DESELEM: And what about the buffer to the east property line where the cul-de-sac is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the buffer to the east, where it -- south of the road it wouldn't matter. North of the road it would have to be the B buffer. South of the road would be the A buffer. And that's the most -- that would be the stipulations to the motion, single-family and correction to the A and B buffer and the issue on Cope Lane that we've already discussed. With that in mind, is there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion by anyone? Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the stipulations as recommended and with the recommendations -- well, staff doesn't have any. So it would just be our stipulations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray would second it. Other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion as discussed, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Well, that sure is a turnaround, Richard. I didn't think you'd be getting on summary under any terms. But that's good. And I think that certainly does make it a lot better for the neighborhood, so we appreciate your cooperation today. It's a better project for everybody. MR. RIFFLE: And we want to cooperate with them too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Be careful, he's listening. Okay, thank you all. And with that, that's the end of our advertised public hearings. We have one item left of new business. ***ll.A, it's the Comprehensive Planning Section staff requesting coordination for the availability of Collier County Planning Commission for upcoming special CCPC meetings. Okay, Michael. MR. BOSI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gentlemen, if you could take your conversation out in the hall. Mr. Riffle? You guys, we're hearing too much of your conversation. Could you do it out in the hall, if you don't mind? MR. RIFFLE: Thank you all very much. Page 22 of 24 April 7, 20ll CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager. Consistent with my section's long-range planning direction and focus, we are here asking you guys to look out into your calendars six to 12 to 18 months to just allocate space and time available for special proj ects that comprehensive planning staffis managing related to the AUlR/CIE for the 2011, but also the Growth Management Plan amendments associated with the EAR-based amendments. As designated on the spreadsheet that was provided with the attachment that was distributed to the Planning Commission, September 29th and 30th would be the two dates reserved for the AUlR/CIE. The lOth -- or October 14th and 18th of the 20 II would be reserved for the GMP amendment workshop that was requested by the Planning Commission during the hearing of the EAR-based amendments. So then that would be followed by January 26th and 27th of20l2, which would be the transmittal hearing for those GMP EAR-based amendments that we had discussed during the workshops. And then fmally for the GMP -- or the EAR-based GMP amendment adoptions, it would be August 30th and 3lst of20l2. There's not a tremendous amount of leeway or discretion that I've provided to you in terms of optional dates, just because what -- the constraints of what I tried to do was try to schedule these special dates outside of the weeks where you would have your regularly scheduled Planning Commission dates, but also with those off weeks when this room was available. One of the changes that we've had for the past, I think that this board has shown an appreciation for, that we would not be having that 609-610 in growth management as we have for the AUIR in the past. But because we're only going to hear it as a single body, the CCPC, that we could have the AUlR/CIE presentations in these chambers this year as well. Like I said, there's not a lot of options in dates. Really I'm just asking you for consent that these dates would be appropriate and you can, you know, hopefully adjust your schedules as needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm worried about the ones in 20l2. I mean, that's not enough notice. Michael, if a schedule stays in place that long, more power to you. Because I can't imagine that. And also for reference, I think from the Planning Commission's perspective in regards to 609-610, that's a great room to use for workshops, workshops that aren't necessarily needing court reporters or television cameras. And the reason I'm saying that is that room's most problem is that it's not set up. And every time we have to set it up for one of our regular hearings, it's a pretty big cost. And so I appreciate your effort to go through to schedule all these here. I think that works out well. And as a tentative schedule I think it's fine. Everybody satisfied? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody know if they can make it to the one in 20l2? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm defmitely going to be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, is there anything else? MR. BOSI: No, other than I appreciate the opportunity, you know. And like I said, they are long range in advance, but because of the demands and because of the unique nature of these projects, it requires this type of long-range planning, and it's something -- we appreciate the consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I just appreciate that they're all in the BCC chambers. That makes a big difference for this. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and that's the last item on today's agenda. Motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made and seconded by Melissa. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 23 of 24 ~ -./ - April 7, 2011 ------- ~/COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you, guys. *************** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at lO:35 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STRAIN, Chairman cwlP These minutes approved by the board on :>,5''/ l ( as presented ~ as corrected_. Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 24 of 24