CCPC Minutes 05/01/2014 R May 1,2014
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples,Florida,May 1,2014
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.m., in REGULAR SESSION in
Building"F"of the Government Complex,East Naples,Florida,with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Stan Chrzanowski
Mike Rosen
Diane Ebert
Karen Homiak
Brian Doyle
Charlette Roman
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V.Bellows,Planning Manager,Zoning
Heidi Ashton-Cicko,County Attorney's Office
Tom Eastman, School District Representative
Page 1 of 100
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2014,
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
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 3, 2014
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PL20120000139 /CP- 2013 -1: An Ordinance amending Ordinance 89 -05, as amended, the Collier County
Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending
the Future Land Use Element to allow the Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve
Residential Planned Unit Development to utilize Transfer of Development Rights from any lands
designated as Sending Lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and Providing for Transmittal of
the Adoption Amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability;
providing for an effective date. The subject property is located approximately 1 -1/2 miles East of
Collier Boulevard and one mile North of US 41 in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 668 acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner]
Page 1 of 3
B. PL20120002909/CP- 2013 -3: An Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 89 -05, as amended, the Collier
County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically
amending the Future Land Use Element to revise the Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Urban
Mixed Use District to remove the office and retail caps and allow up to 7,500 square feet of gross floor
area of commercial uses per acre or 11 residential dwelling units per acre, to make residential
development optional, to prohibit commercial and residential uses on the same parcel, to limit multi- tenant
commercial buildings to no more than 50% of the Commercial square footage to revise development
standards including the cap on the size of the footprint of Commercial buildings, and providing for
Transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability; providing for
an effective date. The subject property is located on the West side of Airport Road and approximately
330 feet North of Orange Blossom Drive in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 21.70 acres. (Companion to PUDZ- A- PL20120002906) [Coordinator:
Michele Mosca, Principal Planner]
C. PUDZ- A- PL20120002906: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,
which established 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 a project previously known as the Buckley Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) to a Commercial Use Planned Unit Development (CPUD) which will continue
to be known as the Buckley PUD, to allow a maximum of 239 residential units, with no requirement for
workforce housing units and up to a maximum of 162,750 square feet of gross floor space of retail, office
and services uses, including permissible and conditional uses in the C -1, C -2 and C -3 zoning districts. The
subject property is located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Airport - Pulling Road (CR
31) and Orange Blossom Drive in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 21.7 + /- acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Number 05 -05, the former
Buckley MPUD; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to Petition PL2012 -2909 CP- 2013 -3)
[Coordinator: Kay Deselem, Principal Planner]
D. PL20130000365/CP- 2013 -4: An Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 89 -05, as amended, the Collier
County Growth Management Plan of the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically
amending the Future Land Use Element Future Land Use Map and Map Series to change the designation
of the Olde Florida Golf Club property from Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Neutral Lands
to Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Receiving Lands, and providing for transmittal to the
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability; providing for an effective date.
The subject property is located on the North side of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension two miles East
of Collier Boulevard in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 554 + /- acres. (Companion to PUDZ- PL20130001374) [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt,
Principal Planner]
E. PUDZ- PL201300001374: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,
which established 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 a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District within the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District — Receiving Lands Overlay, to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)
Zoning District within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District — Receiving Lands Overlay, to be known as
the Golf Club of the Everglades RPUD to allow up to 750 residential dwelling units, a golf course and
related recreational uses and 141 acres of native vegetation preserve. The subject property is located on
Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, just east of Collier Boulevard, in Section 31, Township 48 South,
Range 27 East and Section 36, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of
835.684± acres; providing for repeal of Resolution Nos. 91 -16, 99 -61, 00 -189, 07 -117 and Ordinance No.
10 -08; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to PL20130000365/CP2013 -4) [Coordinator: Kay
Deselem, Principal Planner]
Page 2 of 3
F. RZ- PL20130001302: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida
amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which
established 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 a C -1 zoning district to a C -4 zoning district for the project known as
Walgreens Naples Rezone located on Pine Ridge Road, east of Airport- Pulling Road in Section 12,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1.79± acres; and by providing
an effective date. [Coordinator: Mike Sawyer, Project Manager]
10. OLD BUSINESS
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. ADJOURN
CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp
Page 3 of 3
May 1,2014
PROCEEDINGS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everybody.
If everybody would please take their seats so I can ask you to rise again for Pledge of Allegiance,
please.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And welcome to the Thursday,May 1st meeting of the Collier
County Planning Commission.
Will the secretary please do the roll call.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning.
Mr.Eastman?
MR.EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Chrzanowski?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Rosen?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Here.
Ms. Ebert is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Doyle?
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Roman?
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Ray,this is a GMP meeting as well as some zoning. And Mike is usually up here making sure I start
at a split second and do things that the clock tells me to,so I'm glad to see that you're here making life a littler
simpler for me today.
Addenda to the agenda. I've had a request,which I hope this board will grant,to move the
Walgreens project up to a time-certain,and I suggested between 11:00 and 11:30.
The Walgreens project is tied to the YMCA property,and the representative of the YMCA is a
volunteer,so they're trying to coordinate their schedule with a time-certain. And is that okay?Anybody from
the Planning Commission have an objection to that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll pause somewhere close to 11:00--between 11:00 and
11:30;move into that before lunch.
Just for the Planning Commission's agenda benefit,we have to fit in an LDC meeting or two.This
month along with everything--the other two meetings that we have that are pretty booked up,including this.
And just so you know,the reason for that is,as we all know,the Board of County Commissioners
goes on vacation over the summertime. And we're trying to get as much to them before they leave so we
don't holdup a lot of--a lot of issues.
So with that in mind,we've got two tentative--well,two meetings scheduled for the Land
Development Code for this month in addition to our Thursday meeting. The first one will be at 5:01 on May
19th. And the reason it's at 5:01 is we're required by law to have meetings on the Land Development Code
that involve changes to zoning.The first meeting has to be in the evening so the public that may be working
--or more public can possibly attend.
Now,that will start at 5:01,and we'll go to 8 o'clock. I don't know how many of those we'll finish
that night. If we're lucky and finish them all,that's great. If not,the continued meeting would be to 5/21,I
believe.
And,Ray,was that the last--I was talking to Caroline. She was looking at--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: 5/22.
Page 2 of 100
May 1,2014
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5/22. Yeah,Pm sorry,5/22 was the--in the morning. I don't know,but
we'll announce that at the 5/19 meeting when we continue it,but I think it was 10 o'clock in the morning,
something like that.
So those two dates,if you could put them on your calendar. Does anybody know if they're not going
to be available in the evening on 5/19?
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I won't be available,Mr.Chair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about 5/22?
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: That's a daytime meeting?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I won't be available for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,at least we'll still have a quorum so we can continue with
those.
Our next regular meeting is May 15th. That's our Thursday meeting. Does anybody know if they're
not going to make it? I think we have one absence.
Mike,is that the meeting you're--oh,you're going to leave early today?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I won't be at that meeting. I have a deposition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
We'll move on to approval of minutes. We were all electronically sent our April 3rd minutes.
Anybody have any changes to those?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms.Homiak.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms.Roman.
All in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
Ray,do we have any recaps?
MR.BELLOWS: Yes. On April 22nd the Board of County Commissioners heard the RPUD for the
Dockside PUD. That was approved on their summary agenda,so it was approved subject to Planning
Commission recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you.
Chairman's report. Fm going to,just for the sake of the audience here,lay out what we're going to be
doing today.
This is a Growth Management Plan hearing as well as a rezone hearing for some items. The Growth
Management Plan issues are adoptions.They've already been here for transmittal,so we're going to be
hearing them the second time around and response from the state. And some of those have a rezone
application with them. That will be the first and only hearing on the rezone for this board. Everything we do
is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
The next hearing on these issues will be probably in June before the Board of County
Commissioners. I don't know the exact dates,but I'm anticipating that's what it will be.
The first item we're going to have up is Naples Reserve. That is a GMP issue,Growth Management
Page 3 of 100
May 1,2014
Plan.
The second item will be the Buckley mixed-use subdistrict both for the Growth Management Plan
review and for the rezone to a PUD.
The third item up will be the Olde Florida Golf Club. That's off Vanderbilt Beach Road extension.
That's here for a Growth Management Plan adoption and a PUD.
And the last item that was now moved to about 11 o'clock is the YMCA's property for a rezone for a
Walgreens. It's called Waigreen Naples rezone on Pine Ridge Road.
That's the order--that's the items we're going to be hearing today. If anybody wants to speak,we do
have speaker slips out in the hall,but I will try to remember to ask between each item. If anybody wants to
speak,you can just come up and identify yourself. We like to use the speaker slips,but they're not something
that we strictly adhere to.
***So with that in mind,we'll move on to the advertised public hearings,and the one up is
PL20120000139/CP-2013-1. It's for the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of that item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion—or disclosure on the part of Planning Commission?
Anybody?We'll start with Stan.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've emailed--I've had email correspondence with Maureen
Bonness.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I just spoke with--I just spoke with--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mulhere.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,Mr.Mulhere.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I had spoken with Richard Yovanovich as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Charlette?
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I spoke with Richard and maybe Bob. I don't even remember
now.But we--I did have conversations with them as well as staff.
So with that in mind,I'll turn the presentation--David,do you want to make an introduction since it
is a GMP issue? One of them is at least.
MR.WEEKS: For the record,David Weeks of the comprehensive planning staff.
Mr.Chairman,I think you covered my introductory remarks,but I surprised the petitioners this
morning with something,and so they've asked me to go first,very briefly. I won't make a detailed
presentation.
Regarding the Naples Reserve PUD,you might have noticed that the staff recommendation changed
from transmittal to adoption. At transmittal we had recommended approval. We did,in the staff report,
identify some concerns but,nonetheless,recommended approval based upon the data and analysis provided
by the applicant.
Subsequently at the board hearing for transmittal,the board gave some direction for the applicant
outside of the actual GMP amendment--that is not part of the text amendment that they're proposing--to
work with one or more persons within the sending lands within one mile of the urban area from which they
presently are required to obtain TDR credits for the urban residential fringe subdistrict portion of the Naples
Reserve PUD.
In the adoption staff report for this petition,staff changed its recommendation to approval but with
the requirement that 30 percent of the TDR credits needed for the urban residential fringe portion of the
project continue to come from within one mile or,conversely,that only 70 percent of those TDRs could come
from beyond the one-mile sending lands.
And a key part of that recommendation was not board direction,because we don't typically change
our recommendation based upon what the board has done any more than we do for this body's
Page 4 of 100
May 1, 2014
recommendation. You function independently and so does staff;however,mistakenly I,and perhaps other
staff,had thought that we had not contemplated the fact that the PUD might also come in for an amendment
because this PUT)already contains language identifying where the TDR credits will come from.
Well,mistakenly,because,in fact,in that transmittal staff report we do acknowledge that very
eventuality,that potential. That was the basis for our changing in recommendation.
Well,the PUD already requires them to obtain a certain number of'1'DR credits from those what we
call qualified sending land within one mile of the urban residential fringe. So even if the GMP language
changed,the PUD still required them to come from within that one-mile corridor.
But because staff had already acknowledged at transmittal the potential for the PUD to be changed
and,nonetheless,we recommended approval of their plan amendment without restrictions, it seems
completely improper for staff to come up at adoption hearing and say we changed our minds.
And so the recommendation from staff is the same as it was at transmittal and that is approval of this
petition without limitations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,good. That will save me a lot of discussion that I had planned to have
this morning.
But at the same time,a lot of the members of the Planning Conunission may not have familiarity
with the reasoning of the rural fringe. In fact,I doubt if, including staff,that anybody in Collier County has
an understanding of the reasoning for the rural fringe. It's a very difficult and cumbersome overlay,to say the
least.
So would you--why don't I--because I'm--you were more involved than anybody else,could you
tell us why the philosophy was originated that required the TDRs to come within that first one-mile area as a
preference compared to the overall program'?
MR.WEEKS: Well,the assertion had been made by landowners within that one-mile corridor--
again,that's the first one mile of sending lands east of Collier Boulevard. The first mile east of Collier
Boulevard is designated urban residential fringe. Then you get to the sending lands,and they go on for a few
miles.
In that one-mile corridor of sending lands touching the urban area,landowners asserted that the value
of their property,their sending lands,was greater than the value of sending lands more distant from the urban
designated area because they were closer to the urban designation. They were closer to infrastructure,
including water and sewer.
And staff,doing some data collection from property appraiser records,we agreed with that assertion.
The property owners, as I recall,had asserted,because of the increased value--well,"assert"--they
expressed their desire that they should be able to generate more TDR credits within the one-mile corridor
from the more distant lands because their land was more valuable.
Ultimately,what the County Commission did was leave the TDR generation the same for those
one-mile lands,but they did give them the advantage of being the only sending lands that could transfer the
density credits,TDR credits,into the urban residential fringe subdistrict,that one-mile corridor of urban on
the east side of 941.
Stated differently,sending lands within the one-mile corridor east of the 951 can be transferred to
any receiving areas. All other sending lands can transfer their credits to any receiving lands except for the
urban residential fringe along 951.
So it all had to do with--the short answer is it had to do with the value of those properties.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something you said that--one of the reasons that this land that's this one
mile--actually,its within the--it's the two-mile section past 951,because the first mile is the urban fringe
and the second mile is where this supposedly more valuable environmentally sensitive land is.
I thought you said it was more valuable because of the proximity to the infrastructure. I mean,that--
sensitive land doesn't get more valuable because of proximity to infrastructure. Actually,it would be more
problematic.
MR. WEEKS: Well,the assertion was because it's closer to the urban designation,it's closer to
urban services,the potential--the demand or the potential demand for development of those properties is
greater than those more distant. If you're six miles from the urban area,why would your land be at the same
Page 5 of 100
May 1, 2014
value of one that's right next to the urban area?
We're extending water and sewer lines,your proximity to roadways,urban services, shopping,et
cetera,et cetera. Why would those lands more distant be of the same value as those close?
And,again,maybe I wasn't clear. This is during the amendments to create the rural fringe mixed-use
district including the sending lands. So at the time of the public hearings,those properties within one mile,as
well as all of those future sending lands were,in fact,simply designated agricultural rural. They were
allowed to develop at one unit per five acres. They were eligible for conditional uses for churches and
childcare,you know,very much like the agricultural zoning district would allow.
So,again,that argument that we're right next door,our land is more valuable,and the property
appraiser records,the research staff,did verified that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the theory,then,is that if we're closer to an already urbanized
area,we're better off protecting a strip and making the land further out less valuable so that it gets developed
sooner and we end up with more leap frogging and haphazard development instead of concentrated
development?
MR. WEEKS: Not at all,because those more distant lands are also designated as sending. They also
had a significant reduction in their development rights, including density.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But they're not considered as valuable as the land closest to where
the urban area is.
MR. WEEKS: Monetarily valuable. I'm not talking about habitat value.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,so this was a monetary--
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --decision,not an environmentally sensitive decision.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that helps clarify a lot of it,since the purpose of the rural
fringe--one of the purposes was to preserve more environmentally sensitive land for the benefit of
developing more--less environmentally sensitive land.
MR. WEEKS: That was the prime reason for the rural fringe,to protect--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR.WEEKS: --habitat.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could 1 ask something?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So why do you have to force people to buy land in that one
mile? Is it strictly money? I mean,you put a percentage on it. You said you have to buy 30 percent of your
credits or whatever within that mile. Is that just--because they won't do it if you don't force them to?
MR.WEEKS: Well,the applicant probably could better respond to that. But as I recall from the
transmittal hearing, I think their position is,a lot of the--some of the sending lands within the one-mile
corridor are comprised of small properties. I mean,their parcel sizes vary. And for them to obtain the
number of TDR credits they need for their project,they have to buy a lot of TDR credits. They're going to
need to--well,I said it,buy a lot of TDR credits.
It's easier to negotiate with,say,one landowner that can provide all the TDR credits you need rather
than to have to negotiate with 25 different landowners or smaller numbers to aggregate into the total number
you need. And I think that's the way they explained it at the transmittal hearings.
And part of that negotiation,of course,is the price,how much the seller is willing to sell their TDR
credit for. And so if you're negotiating with 25 people,you know,the monetary value could be up,down,
and all over the place,and it's much easier to lock in all of those with one entity.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was going to go somewhere else,but,okay. I'll wait for
the presentation.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Thanks, David. Appreciate it.
We'll move on to the applicant's presentation.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record,Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant.
Page 6 of 100
May 1,2014
And with me I have Don Mears who represents the property owner for Naples Reserve and is also one of the
co-applicants. Mr.Torres is out of town. He was here last time,and he represents the other applicant for this
petition. And,obviously,I have with me Mr.Mulhere.
My presentation is significantly shorter with staffs revised recommendation going back to their
original recommendation,but I do think we need to talk a little bit about the economics of the current Growth
Management Plan and why the economics don't work and why this amendment is actually necessary.
.lust to go backwards for a brief moment,this particular project is an already zoned project. It's
already got the density approved. The PUD recognized the then existing Comprehensive Plan amendments
or Comprehensive Plan provisions relating to where IDRs come from. And since a portion of this property
is in the urban residential fringe and a portion of this property is receiving lands,regular receiving lands,we
have to get our TDRs for this project from two different areas.
The green area of the project,which is outlined in red, is receiving lands. We can get those TDRs
from anywhere in Collier County where there are sending lands,the yellow portion with the crosshatch,that's
the urban residential fringe portion of the project,and we can only get TDRs from that one-mile area that
David took you through.
The problem with the one-mile area and the way the county Comprehensive Plan was originally
structured,they were trying to address a perceived economic value of the land,that one-mile land,through
the TDR process by limiting the area in which you can get TDRs,theoretically,which will increase the value
of those TDRs,because you can only acquire it from that area. And law of supply and demand tells you the
price will be higher if there's more demand than supply.
The problem is, land development is really a function of simple arithmetic,which is,you've got to
figure your Iand costs in,you've got to figure your land development costs in,you've got to figure your
construction costs in,including impact fees and everything else related to construction costs,and you've got
to figure out how much can you sell a house for on this particular piece of property.
So you probably start with the price that you think you can sell the house for and work your way
backwards as to what you can afford to do all these other things that are required to develop the land.
You can only pay so much for a 1 DR in order to still be able to deliver the house in the price range
that you're talking about.
So if you limit us to an area where we can buy the TDRs--and let's just say the market rate for a
TDR for a house in that area is$12,500. Let's just take that as the market rate. That's what we can afford to
pay. If people in that area say we want$25,000 a TDR,you're not going to buy the TDR and you're not
going to build the house.
So the way they went about addressing the issue,1 think,was the wrong way. There was an
amendment to the TDR program that occurred,if you recall,after the original adoption where we had one
unit per five acres;minimum price of$25,000 is the way the prop-am was originally set up.
There was another amendment that went through the process that would allow you now to generate
up to four TDRs per 5-acre parcel; never changed the$25,000 minimum price for the first TDR.
So we had an interim step that created value theoretically not only for the sending lands further out
but also the more proximate TDRs to the urban residential fringe.
That didn't work to create a market where sending lands were willing to sell at a market price that a
developer of the urban residential fringe receiving lands could afford to pay in order to get this project off the
ground.
So you have a choice. We can develop the property with the maximum density allowing TDRs--
which is still,if you remember,Naples Reserve--I don't remember the exact. It's about one unit an acre,I
think,is the overall project density if we max out the density on the entire project--or you can have
something less,because we can't buy enough of the TDRs to develop in the urban residential fringe,and we'll
have a less dense project,but it will be profitable and,you know,that's a good thing,or--which is a bad
thing for the rural fringe mixed-use district program, because if you don't have places for sending lands to
send their TDRs,people aren't going to put their land in conservation,which is really what you want them to
do when they have sending lands.You want them to put their lands in conservation so that they'll generate the
currency,which is a TDR,and someone will buy it at a market price that makes sense for both the seller and
Page 7 of 100
May 1, 2014
the buyer.
So the program,in our opinion,is broken. In fact,there is a restudy that's going to happen,but we
can't wait for that restudy. We've got a project that's out of the ground and being developed right now,and
we need to figure out,is the project going to be at the max density,which was approved in the PUD,or is it
going to be something less?
So we proposed a GMP amendment to open up,for this project,the universe in which we can buy
TDRs.
Now,at the transmittal hearing,one of the TDR property owners, I believe,wrote an email to Mr.
Strain that everybody saw where she recommended a 50 percent requirement,that you get 50 percent of the
TDRs that you need for the urban residential fringe portion from the one-mile area.
You-all didn't go with that recommendation. Staff didn't change their opinion based upon that input.
At the BCC level,the number came down to 40 percent,I believe. The BCC didn't say 40 percent. They said
go talk to the property owner.
And one of the concerns that was raised by the--I think it was Commissioner Nance who said he's
worried about the small little guy and the small property owners within this area. And I provided you all
some information--I hope you got it by email--that we provided to staff a couple weeks ago--actually
three weeks ago--that we sent out in the interim after transmittal; we did a couple of things.
We met with or talked to Joe Bonness after Maureen told us to talk to Joe about TDRs that they
control. We also sent out a letter to all of the property owners within that one-mile area. And there's a lot of
them. And we provided--we said, county give us the mailing list. We sent letters to everybody,said we
would like to buy your TDRs,if you have any,for the price of$12,500.which we already had an agreement
to buy for from somebody else.
Mr. Mulhere,I think,fielded six calls from people based upon that letter. And all six of those people
said,no,not enough money. We're not willing to do it. So we did reach out to the small guy and say we're
willing to buy your TDR.
Now,keep in mind, if you have a five-acre parcel,you have four theoretical TDRs,but you really
only have two. You have the base,which you get as a matter of right,you get the early entry,which it
basically is--you get as a matter of right.
The third one you've got to clean up your land,so who knows what that's going to cost the property
owner to do to clean it up,get rid of the exotics.
And the fourth one is you've got to fmd somebody who's willing to take and own that TDR,a
governmental agency. Most governmental agencies make you give them money to take the property because
they know they now have an obligation to maintain it.
So,basically,I refer to it as you get two for free,and it costs you something to get the other two.
And the question is,to get the other two,does it make economic sense to try to get those other two? And on
small 5-acre, 10-acre pieces I don't know if it makes sense for that person to go and try to get those other two.
So the small property owner, effectively,has two TDRs and,theoretically, with all the letters we sent
out,we could have gotten responses from 281 --responses from enough people to sell us 281 TDRs within
that one-mile area for the price we were willing to pay.
We didn't get any that were willing to sell us TDRs at the price we were willing to pay.
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mean to interrupt,Richard,but the amount you were willing to pay,
you have verified that that is an amount you can buy them for elsewhere?
MR.YOVANOVICH: I have a contract to buy them for that amount elsewhere.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How far from the one-mile area?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Very close to the one-mile area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Pm going through this because I think it's important to understand,are you
really devaluing the TDRs in that one-mile area? You're not devaluing the TDRs in that one-mile area,
because the market is going to tell you what the value is.
The fact that you've created a limited area doesn't create the value for that TDR. The market creates
the value for the TDR.
Page 8 of 100
May 1,2014
And so by doing this change,you are in no way hurting people in that area. They have to compete
with the market and what a willing buyer is willing to pay.
Now,we've had some discussions with other property owner,or another property owner. It took a
while. [think the price is now close to what we were willing to pay for others,but the problem is is,you
know,we have a--we have to either get all 281 in that area at 12,5-,or we lose another agreement we have,
and we can't take that risk.
So we have a program that isn't working. What we're trying to do is further the program by buying
281 more TDRs, which means sending lands were converted commercial--I mean to conservation to make
that happen,and we are proposing something that furthers the rural fringe mixed-use district provisions.
Your staff now is--your staff agrees. They agreed at transmittal. They're agreeing today that what
we've provided as far as data and analysis supports the original submittal as well as the additional data that
we've provided since then, I think, supports what we're requesting.
And we hope that the--you will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to
adopt the GMP amendment as it was originally transmitted and reviewed and approved--or not commented
on,basically,by the state. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions? From Mr. Rosen?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah. Rich, I've got a question or maybe a statement you could help
me out with here.
Are you saying there's 281 property owners,you know,along the--closest fringe to 951:, is that
correct?
MR.YOVANOVICH: No. I'm saying we need to get 281 TDRs.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay. But how many property owners did you make contact with?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Let me see if I can count quickly on the--
MR.MULHERE: Well,we only sent it to private,no public.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We sent it to private property owner,obviously,you know,the ones
that needed to make money.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Sure.
MR.MULHERE: It was 50 or 60.
MR.YOVANOVICH; it was more than that,Bob.Bob says 50 or 60 property owners within that
area.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: All right. That's fine.
MR.YOVANOVICH: We gave the list,so you've got the list.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: All right. Let me continue then.
From what you said--and I sort of understand the program. It's a very difficult program to
understand,you know,especially with all that you mentioned. You're talking about the market,the value,
you know,the market value. The market value,part of the elements of creating a market value,location is
one of them. So you've got a market value,but it's just not a plain statement. It's based on elements that make
up that market value,and location is one of those elements that makes up the market value.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the TDR or for the ultimate home?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: For the TDR. Now,when you want to discuss the home,you're going
to buy,eventually,TDRs at a fixed price,correct,whatever it turns out to be?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay. Ilow many homes are there going to be in this particular
development?I don't recall.
MR.YOVANOVICH: 1154.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: 1154.
MR.YOVANOVICH: If we buy all the TDRs.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Understood. Okay. So possibly,we'll call it 1150 homes,around
there,plus or minus.
I would imagine that the pace of the absorption of those homes--when I say the"absorption," the
sales pace, 100, 150 a year,200 a year,somewhere around there;does that make sense?
Page 9 of 100
May 1, 2014
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: When we level off.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. You can't answer from the audience.
MR.YOVANOVICH: He's the developer. He's telling me,yes,about 200 when we level off is
about the right number.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: So it's a five-year, six-year sellout,somewhere around there.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: So over that five or six years,I would imagine that the price of homes
are going to escalate if our economy continues to move up like it is. So that's kind of my thought on that
particular item.
Then when you talk about the program not working,it almost sounds,Rich--and please correct me
if you think I'm wrong. It almost sounds like it's not working for the applicant. It sounds like it might be
working for the people who bought into this program,the landowners,that relied on this program for all these
years that are in that one-mile swatch of land where--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Can I--when do you want me--do you want me to wait till you make all
your comments or comment one at a time?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah,let me finish.
So it almost sounds like there's that one-mile strip; is that right? Is there a one-mile strip?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah,the one-mile strip.Are those called qualified TDRs?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah,qualified'1 DRs.You know,that one-mile strip has a value to it
that when this program was initiated those landowners that bought into the program relied,you know,on the
fact that there was more value to that one-mile strip.
And nothing against your client,you know,the applicant,but it sounds like it,just for today, isn't
financially working for them,and they'd like to change the entire program to make it work for them. So now
I'm finished.
MR.YOVANOVICH: A couple things. One of the applicants is a fairly significant owner of TDRs
within the qualified area.
So that applicant is saying,I agree; open up the area. So that's in response to,allegedly,these people
bought into this program,which I don't know that the individual small property owners in the sending lands
throughout Collier County and specifically to this area,quote,bought into this program.
I think this program was imposed upon them,and they have no option. I don't believe--unlike out
east where you had a smaller universe of property owners who helped design the program,the Rural Land
Stewardship Area Program,you didn't have that same type of process in the rural fringe mixed-use district.
You had too many property owners that were either receiving lands or sending lands.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: There were no public hearings during that program?
MR.YOVANOVICH: There's a difference between there being public hearings and buying into a
program. I could tell you--I participated in them. I don't think that there was one person or a group of
persons representing specifically the small sending land property owners.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Were there a lot of objections you recall from your memory?
MR.YOVANOVICH: 1 know I did,yeah. I remember going up there and I said,I don't think this
program's going to work. But it got adopted,and now we have to figure out how to make the best of the
situation.
Now, if the program doesn't work for this applicant,that's fine. We'll just develop less units. And in
doing the development of less units,that means there are less receiving lands for those who are sending lands
for them to sell their asset.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Rich,what are the--and I apologize for interrupting. What are--the
dollars that we're talking about per unit,what's the difference?
MR.YOVANOVICH: What's the difference?
COMNIISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah. Well,you say you have a contract to buy what you need from
an entity or a couple of entities. I'm confused. Is the 12-or 15,000 a credit that you're looking to buy it for?
Page 10 of 100
May 1, 2014
is that too much? I'm not--I'm confused on the dollars.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I could tell you right now.Can I? Can you give me one second?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Sure.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't have--let me take a step back. We talked to a property owner who
has 60 TDRs within the qualified urban area,qualified area. I need 281. Okay.
If we went with 40 percent of 281,I would need to get 112,okay. So I talked to one property owner
who has 60.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yep.
MR.YOVANOVICH: The price doesn't matter.Let's just say the delta between those two is
anywhere from 0 to$2,500,whatever the number is, I still don't have enough. I've still got to find another 62.
And,oh, by the way,not only have I got to find another 62,the deal I have to buy the 281 in the first place
goes away.
So I'm back into the market chasing 281 TDRs,not 112. I'm chasing 281 TDRs because we get near
the end,and you know when people are near the end they start getting a little bit more realistic.
But I'm--that's where I am. All the cards are on the table. I've got the ability to buy my 281 TDRs
that 1 need. The co-applicant,who I'm buying the TDRs from, is one of the primary landowners within the
qualified area. He thinks it's a good idea. He's the same guy who had the,you know,quote,economic
advantage because he was in the one-mile area.
And we have it at a price to buy it that we can afford to make sure we have a project that will make
sense. Because we've all been through the ifs. You know,we-- if the economy keeps going like it's going is
a risk we're not willing to take. We need some certainty. We're not going to bet on the come(sic). And if we
can't get it at a price we can afford,we'll develop less.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: See,here's my confusion.And try to help me out if you can. If it's 281
credits that your client needs for this one individual project,are you--are you talking about$281,000,or are
you talking about$2,081,000? You know,I mean,that's the question. Are we going through this--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you talking about the delta,or are you talking about total cost?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: The delta.
MR.YOVANOVICH: The delta?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I can't answer the question because I don't have some--I don't have people
within the one-mile area--I don't have 281 --I don't have enough people to come up with 281 credits at any
price.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But,Richard,I think what he's asking is,say you did it at the 281 credits
and you had to be restricted to buy them within the one-mile area,what is the delta between what you'd pay
for that 281 versus if you bought it off site,and that difference is about$12,000 per credit--well,whatever
the going rate is for the--
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're willing--you know,come one,come all,$12,500,okay,wherever
you get it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what are you getting in the one mile area? What's the best price you've
gotten in the one-mile area from anybody? What was a recent sale? I think 1 know where Mike's trying to
go.
MR.YOVANOVICH: The last number we heard was 13,5-.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So--
MR.YOVANOVICH: But that's only--that's only for a small--that's for 60. I haven't heard that
that's what everybody is willing to do for 281 credits.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you had to do 281 credits and you were able to get that number for all
of them,if you could even find them--
MR.YOVANOVICH: If I could fund them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --it would be$1,000 more for 281,so you're$281,000. Does that get to
where you're trying to--I think that's what you're trying to ask him.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: It does,exactly,yeah.
Page 11 of 100
May 1,2014
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's real simple,but that's a big if,can I find the 281.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But I'm just trying to put it on the table to get to the answer 1 think
Mike was trying to get out of you,so--
MR.YOVANOVICH: But I don't know what that information does for the--the ultimate question
is,can you find the TDRs at a price you can afford to pay?
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a comment,Mr.Chair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike,were you finished?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I think so. I might have some more questions later,but please go
ahead, Charlette.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thanks,Mike.
I wanted to follow up on Mike's line of questioning,because it seems to me one of the reasons that
it's being presented today--that this program doesn't work is because the holders of the TDRs credits in the
one-mile area don't want to sell for the price.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And I'm not sure if that's just not having a valuable commodity that
you own that you want to get the best price possible for. I don't know if that's reason enough to say that the
program itself does not work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,let me talk about a statistic,because I've been working on trying to
get this whole program reevaluated and replanned.And some of the numbers that I had to research through
staff came up.
And this program was initiated on February 11,2004. Now,that's been--that's 10 years and three
months,approximately. And you can weigh the successfulness of it by how many TDRs were actually used
in that period of time. 17.8 percent of the program has been used in 10 years and approximately three
months. Now,that doesn't say that's how many credits have been created. That's how many have been used.
So if that's a sign of success,I guess 17--less than 20 percent over 10 years, I'm not sure we would
all think the program is successful or it's the easiest program to maneuver. So that may help in your
understanding of what Richard was trying to get at.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question on those credits used. Do we have a relationship
with the context of how many projects have come forward to use that 17.8 percent?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm sure we do. We could ferret it out. I don't have that number. I
mean,they had to be used on projects that were allowed where they were allowed to be used on,whether it
was in the urban fringe or somewhere else. For example,there's a project DR Horton did called
Mockingbird. They used credits up there. I believe Bonita Bay was going to use credits on some areas south
of linmokalee,but I don't know if they ever secured any or used them there. I don't even think it's developed
yet,so--
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well, I guess what I was getting at was if that's one or two projects
coming forward to buy credits and they worked successfully,that's different than if,you know,the credits
were requested but they couldn't get anybody to sell them to them. And 1 --
MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,there are more credits severed than have been sold.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR.YOVANOVICH: There's more credits that are severed than have been sold. We're buying
credits from people who've severed the TDRs. So we're at a point where they've bought into the program;
they've severed the TDRs,and they worked out a fair market price that they're willing to sell it for,okay. So
--but they're not within the one-mile area. The people in the one-mile area,1 don't know how many have
been severed,but they're not willing to sell them at a price that we're willing to pay,and that's fine.
You know,I may say my watch is worth a million dollars,and I'm going to wait till someone's
willing to give me the million dollars.But the universe of receiving lands is going away because we'll
develop,we'll develop at a lower density,and there'll be less area for sending land people to sell.
The people who are closest get to squeeze everybody else out further away from the opportunity to
sell their TDRs to us because they have established a price that they want,and there will be less and less
receiving lands available and,yet,the people in the one-mile area can sell to anybody they want to, so they're
Page 12 of 1011
May 1,2014
always going to be able to,at some point,agree to sell to another receiving land at a lower price and beat out
the guy who's further away.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Charlette, out of--the program has--out of the 23,000 acres
available to have credits severed from,there's been 7,834 acres that have actually been severed.That has
produced a little over 3,100 TDR credits.
Actual sold were 1,842 at the date I did these numbers. Actually used was 1,150,which produces the
less than 20 percent effectiveness of the program over a 10-year period. So if that helps with your
understanding.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But your--those figures are for the entire niral fringe or just for the
urban fringe?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's for the entire RFMUD district.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. But the one mile is the urban fringe that we're talking about
where-- if I understand you correctly,that you're not able to get the credits that you would--you desire for
your project within the one mile.
MR.YOVANOVICH: The Qualified area,we cannot get them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Are you finished,Charlette?
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question.
Rich,if you don't get these--and I see this property is split,and so you really need them on the light
green area. IIow many less units would you have if you do not get the credits?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Two hundred eighty-one less units.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So the project can still go fonvard. You really won't lose anything
except 281 homes from this. So we're not stopping the project by any means?
MR. YOVANOVICH: What you're doing is you're stopping a transaction that would compensate
somebody who has severed 281 TDRs. That's what you're doing is you're taking an opportunity for someone
who has agreed to participate in the program and you're taking away an ability for them to be compensated
for being designated sending.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I guess--what I'm going to say is that in reading this
information--and,yes, it is very confiising. But the Board of Collier County Commissioners passed this as
Qualified. Until they change it,I don't think we should be making exceptions.
MR.YOVANOVICH: And that--again,we're going through this process,and you transmitted it
with a change,and so did they. The Board of County Commissioners transmitted this understanding that this
is a limited change,and they have basically—
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But they said this development would be the only one for this change.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And because we're the only one who has asked for this change--there is a
group of property owners that--it's a more expansive group now--that is made up of receiving land property
owners,neutral land property owners,and sending land property owners to study the program and propose
more global changes. Now,that process is probably a two-year process.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But for now it says urban residential fringe cannot be used. I mean,
this one mile was created for a reason,and until this program is changed--and I understand your frustration.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm not frustrated.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But it would only be 281 less homes out of the 1,154?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's--you're right,okay.Yeah, if you want to look at it that way,it will be
281 less homes for the project,but the program that we're trying to implement is a program where sending
land property owners lost-- David has told you. They had very valuable development rights on that property.
They had one unit per five acres.
People who had a 10-acre lot could do two homes. Now it's one unit per 40. And they were given a
TDR as compensation,originally. Then there was a modification to give them,theoretically,an opportunity
to get more TDRs,
What will happen--it's very simple. For a five-acre piece,if we're willing to pay for the two TDRs
Page 13 of 100
May 1,2014
that is--it can generate safely,that's$25,000 for a five-acre piece.
Nobody's going to sell their five-acre piece for$25,000. They'll build a house on it. They'll be
pressured to put houses out there,which means the lands that were supposed to go to conservation won't be
conservation. They'll be houses,and that's not what the program was intended to do.
We're saying the old Jerry MacGyver quote,"Help me to help you." We are willing to buy the TDRs
at a fair market rate,and we have people who are willing to sell it to us at that. It's a win-win.
It is a low-density project,one unit per acre,basically,with all of the TDRs, and people who are in
the sending land program get compensated.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I just--and thank you,Mark,for letting us know when this
started in 2004;then we went through our bad economic times,and we're still not quite coming out of it the
way we should. So this has not been really used at all because nobody was doing the building within this.
That's all the questions I have right now on this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: A follow-up question,if I could.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Rosen.
COMMISSION-ER ROSEN: It's a two-part question,and one is for David Weeks and one,Rich,if
you want to respond.
David,is there contemplation that this program will be coining up for major re-haul,major change'?
MR. WEEKS: There's no set schedule for that to occur. Mr. Strain--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You haven't been involved in it; I have. And,yes,the commissioner from
the district has requested the property owners to come together to discuss this. They had a rather large
meeting. There's a very active debate going on right now about how to proceed with it.
Based on my understanding,it's supported by the commissioner from the district to relook at this
program. And hopefully when the property owners come together with a final solution,we'll see it move
forward for some necessary changes.
I would suggest that it needs extreme changes.The program is one of the most difficult programs for
anybody to follow. It is not just one overlay.It's multiple overlays on top of overlays.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: And I would agree,it sounds that way. Now,here's the second part of
my question. If this--when this project moves forward,and let's say it moves forward under today's rules
and regulations,which means you have to buy the credits from the qualifying lands or whatever it is,can you
come back in a year--because the absorption of the homes could he five or six years,as your client has told
you. Could you come back in a year and then revise or amend,you know,your applications to then be able to
buy additional credits if the program has changed around,you know,as Mark was relating to?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,the reality is the program, I think,on the most aggressive schedule--
and,Mr. Strain,correct me if I'm wrong--you're going to have to,one,come up with a consensus as to what
the change is going to be,then you're going to amend the Comprehensive Plan, which requires the process
we're going through now,adoption--transmittal and adoption. That's every bit of--what, David, 12 to 14
months is a typical cycle?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICII: Then you've got to adopt the appropriate Land Development Code
regulations.Now, I guess you could do them all at the same time. But,realistically,l think you're two years
out from now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two to three years to get the whole program redone.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So now I'm three years into development, and I probably am not at a
point at that point where I'm going to come back and say,scrap the plan and go try to chase 281 more TDRs,
wherever they may he,because I have no certainty as to what the market price is at that point. You know,I'm
starting over,essentially.
And that's why we're going now is because we're ready to move forward. We have a project that is
in the development. It's developing. I mean, its been cleared. Infrastructure's going in. We're not a
Page 14 of 100
May 1,2014
theoretical project hoping to go forward. We're a real project,and we're a real buyer.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan first,then Diane.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm just curious.You seem happy with the 12,500. Is that
the going rate for these things now? Can you get them cheaper? I assume in 2004 they cost a lot more
because of what was going on,and in 2008 they cost a lot less because of what was going on. Now they're
back up,or is that how it works?
MR.YOVANOVICH: I think the way the program really works is developers went out and
acquired larger chunks of sending lands to control their own destiny. They were—developers of receiving
lands went out and bought--
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Destiny not density,right?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Went out and bought the sending lands themselves at a price they could
afford to pay knowing that they were going to get X number of TDRs from them. And I bet you dollars to
doughnuts that most of the TDR's that have been severed are from developers and have been used by those
developers for their projects. Hacienda Lakes is a good example. They control both,
And I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that most of the TDRs that have been severed and used within
the urban residential fringe have been by Hacienda Lakes.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So you're saying even the 17 percent figure is bogus?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not saying it's bogus. It's part of the program.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Psuedo bogus.
MR.YOVANOVICH: It was probably the lower--you know,the lower level fruit. It was easier to
get those lands at a price that made sense.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. On the qualified, I noticed the Bonnesses,you have spoke with
Maureen,and they want more for their credits,and it's more than your client is willing to pay? Is that the
problem right now?
MR.YOVANOVICH: The last--the answer--it's a twofold answer. Even if they were to come to
the price my client is willing to pay,it's only 60 TDRs. I've got to go find 221 others at that same price.
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: May I?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah,go ahead,Brian.
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yeah, Richard, it seems that we have gone from requesting,whether it
was staff or either of the boards,that you get 50 percent,then 40 percent,then 30 percent,and with what
you're able to acquire right now,what percentage would that be,and would that be something we would
support as far as the acquisition of your TDRs?
MR.YOVANOVICII: First of all,staff has never required a percent and neither has the Planning
Commission nor has the Board of County Commissioners as we've been going through this process.
There has been a property owner who has recommended to you-all that you require us to get 50
percent, lowered their request to 40 percent. Staff carne up with a 30 percent number that they've just told you
they're withdrawing,so they're still at 0 percent.
So there has been no agency-or staff-level request that we do 50 or 40 percent.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: So as far as today,it's 100 percent?
MR.YOVANOVICII: That's what the code requires,and we've gone through adoption at 0 percent
--I mean transmittal at 0 percent at two levels including the staff level,which would be a third level. So,yes,
right now it's 100 percent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant before we
move to any further comments from staff and then to the public?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard,thank you.
David,is there anything else staff wants to add?
MR. WEEKS: Just a few comments,Mr.Chairman.As I stated earlier,the staff recommendation is
Page 15 of 100
May 1,2014
approval without restrictions.
As provided in the transmittal staff report,staff does have some concerns about the proposal but we
also recognize the benefits of the proposal.As Rich has articulated clearly--and he did it at transmittal
hearing--they have the option of developing without obtaining any TDR credits for the urban residential
fringe portion of their property. They can just obtain the TDR credits from their receiving area portion,
which they can obtain from any sending lands.
The benefit,the plus of this project as,again,Rich has already stated, is that if they are allowed to go
beyond the one mile,then that is,his number,281 credits. I had a different figure,but I'm not sure if maybe
you-all have some credits in hand.
But at any rate,close to 300 TDR credits are in the balance. If they are not successful with their
amendment,then that's 300 TDR credits that may not--from their perspective it sounds like likely would not,
but at least may not be consumed by this project. But, conversely, if this amendment is approved,then it
seems like there's a likelihood that they will, in fact,purchase 300 plus-or-minus TDR credits from some
sending lands.
The objective of the sending lands designation is to protect those lands. That is the county's
objective. It all goes back to the--I don't want to get too much in history,but the county was under a final
order from 1999. We needed to re-evaluate our rural lands and,ultimately,we traded this TDR program.
So the county could have simply designated all of those sending lands as conservation,but we had to
compensate those landowners. I mean,the Bert Harris Property Rights Protection Act of 1995 really changed
the pules in Florida.
And so the TDR program is the compensation mechanism. That's how we--the county is able to
change that designation for many landowners to sending which,unquestionably,took away property rights.
That's not subject to debate.
What might be debatable is on any given piece of property whether or not it was ever likely to have
been developed with anything other than a home or even developed at all due to its remote location,
environmental conditions,and so forth.
Nonetheless,here we are. We have a program.We're trying to make it work,and it's dependent upon
individual landowners within receiving areas acquiring TDR credits.
I have to,as I did at the transmittal hearing,tell you that the staff perspective is that the TDR
program is not broken. It is clearly a matter of perspective,but we don't think it is.
I do agree with Rich,and perhaps Chainnan Strain, [think,may have indicated the same position.
There's a big difference between a TDR being severed,that is a landowner saying I now have removed
development rights from my property,and I have this commodity available for somebody to buy;big
difference between that and someone else in the receiving areas actually buying that commodity,buying that
TDR credit.
You've got to have both--excuse me. You've got to both sell,but you've also got to buy and redeem
for the program to be successful. And so far it has been a limited success in the sense of actual redemption of
TDR credits.
I'm only aware of two major projects that have actually redeemed TDR credits. Rich mentioned one,
hacienda Lakes. The other is Twin Eagles,all three phases,I, II,and III.
Indian Hills Estates is a large project that has--that is pending. It's in for plat approval and proposes
to use several TDR credits. And there's at least one more that's in the works. But actually redemption,no.
It's not a significant number,but the severance has been--I didn't know the figure,but I'll accept it as 17
percent.
That's over a 10-year time period. And as Ms. Ebert mentioned,that was notwithstanding a
nationwide recession that we've still achieved the 17 percent rate.
TDR programs are not something that most people are familiar with. It's a very different concept,the
idea that I can sever my development rights away from my property. I still own my land,but I don't have the
rights to do what I used to be able to with them,and I can sell those rights to somebody else.
And I believe that's something that is probably the nature of all TDR programs. It's something new.
Property owners are not familiar with it. It doesn't start off with a bang. It takes a while for the program to be
Page 16 of 100
May 1, 2014
successful.
Ten years is not a long period of time. Won't belabor the point. Clearly there's some disagreement.
Could the program be improved? Of course. Of course it could.
One of the concerns about making change to the TDR program were expressed by Dr.Nicholas who
was the TDR consultant for the county, and that is don't keep making changes to the program,because if you
do, landowners will stop,they'll sit back with the attitude, if I wait long enough,they'll change the program
again. My land will be more valuable.
Now, I need to be specific to the TDR mechanism,like adding different bonuses or,you know,
changing the value. That's not to suggest that other changes cannot occur to the TDR program without
causing that freeze in activity.
But,again,staff had some concerns. But the data and analysis provided by the applicant does show
that there is more demand,potentially--because not every landowner of sending lands is going to participate
in the TDR program. Not everyone is going to sever their credits. Not every receiving-lands owner is going
to buy TDR credits. That's not going to happen,and we know that. So there's a certain amount of unknown
here.
But their data and analysis does show that the potential is there for more TDR credits to be needed
within the urban residential fringe than can be generated within that one-mile corridor. If everybody in the
urban residential fringe says I want to use TDR credits,we're not going to have enough supply.
And,again, staffs recommendation is approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David,did you--in part of that early part of that discussion you made a
note that one of the reasons that we had to create the'l'DR system is to avoid taking of properties without any
compensation. That's why the sending land--and I'm sure you're referring to the sending lands.Is that a fair
statement?
MR.WEEKS: Absolutely. That is the only compensation mechanism that I know of that exists.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,sir.
Anybody? Mike?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Dave,I have a question for you. And I appreciate your description of
what this program was all about,especially the Bert Harris Act,which a lot of us that were in development
really appreciated.
The issue--or not issue,but concern that I have is that what you said--not what you said,but the
fact that this program was put in place to protect land rights,you know,property rights,you know,when
you're telling a certain group of landowners you really shouldn't,you know,develop out here,but in
compensation you're going to get credits, correct? I mean,the real simplistic terms.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I guess the real issue I have for the applicant is that since that system
was put in place,now we have one applicant that's saying,well,I don't want to pay that rate,so let's change
the system. That's what kind of concerns me a little,and what concerns me also,as I think I mentioned in my
very first statement,that you want to change the rate,but we know that the market is going to change--
hopefully,it's going to change as it has been historically over the years,notwithstanding this past five years
that we just went through,but now things seem to be bouncing back. You know,who knows,there might be
another recession in five years, but hopefully not,but then things will bounce back.
If we go back to the history of housing here,you know,in 1993 or'92,when I got here,I was selling
houses for$120,000. Today those same houses are 300-. So things tend to move.
And with that absorption,annual absorption that the applicant is forecasting,which I think is a pretty
robust absorption but probably could happen, it's going to be five or six years,you know,so I would think
that the price, if it's a marketable price paid--you know,I say"marketable;"market is the market. Pave(sic)
those units,the applicant will make up for that in his price increases over the years. That's just my thoughts
on that.
Thanks,David,
MR.WEEKS: Mr.Chairman,I'll just make one more note that I don't think would surprise anyone
here. But if someone sees a change in regulations that they think is beneficial that's approved for one
Page 17 of 100
May 1,2014
particular area,someone else will see that and think,well, I'd like that,too. And we've already seen that. We
do have another application for plan amendment pending right now with a very similar request to what you're
seeing here.
I don't say that as a point of negativism,just an observation and so that you're not surprised if you see
it,because they will be able to present the same data and analysis that this applicant has to show that there's
more demand,potentially,than there would be for supply. Rut at some point,if we continue to see enough
amendments of this nature for enough of those urban residential fringe properties,we'll get to a point where
we're at or beyond a balance.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: David,that was a very clear explanation;thank you.
And I--the program seems to move,I understand,but I would guess that bookkeeping must be a
nightmare.
MR. WEEKS: Marcia says it's a challenge,but we have--we do have a log. We do--of course,we
have to,to monitor the program,we track all of the TDR severances and redemptions,and we also have--on
the county's website we do have a list of all of the sending lands properties showing those that have severed
TDR credits, so that if those potential receiving lands owners could look and see where there are credits that
have been severed,they could see who-all has those--they can--they don't necessarily know who owns the
credits,because it's a commodity. I have sending lands. I can sever them and then sell them to a third party,
but they can at least see what-- get some idea of the number of credits. They're floating somewhere in the
marketplace and also,of course,we need it from the standpoint of implementing regulations to make sure
somebody doesn't come in and propose development on their sending lands where they are not allowed to
because they severed those credits.
COMMVISSIONER ROSEN: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I have one final question, if I could. Can I ask the applicant a question
at this point?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as he doesn't get into concluding remarks at this point,because I've
still got to get to the public before we--
CONL'vIISSIONER ROMAN: And I have a question of staff,too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Just a fast question of Rich, if I could. I don't want to get into the
mathematics too heavily but,quickly,I thought you mentioned a figure before of 12,5-a credit; is that
correct?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay. And I thought you had mentioned that the letter that was sent
into the county from an owner out there that has 60 credits was willing to sell at 13,5-;did I hear that
correctly?
MR.YOVANOVICH: I think that's--I haven't had that direct conversation,but I understand that
that's the price--the last price that was presented to us.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay. So it's$1,000 difference per credit.
MR, YOVANOVICH: For 60 units.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: So a$60,000 credit for--to get you to the extra 281 units?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Which is still less than the percent that that person is telling you to force me
to buy. That person's saying 40 percent, 112.They control 60.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Charlette.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes,I had a question for staff. My understanding of the rural fringe
mixed-use overlay district is that in addition to protecting some of our county's most sensitive environmental
Page 18 of 100
May 1, 2014
lands,that it was also designed to incentivize something other than single-family gated communities such as
more of a village format.Could you speak to that,please.
MR. WEEKS: Sure. One of the allowances of program is to develop a rural village. There are
four receiving areas. If you can picture the Future Land Use Map that's identified in blue,there's four
different large chunks of blue,four different receiving areas. Each of those receiving areas is eligible to be
developed with a rural village.
For a receiving land that develops using TDR credits other than a rural village,the maximum density
that can be achieved is one dwelling unit per acre. In a rural village,the maximum density is between two
and three units per acre,and the village must include recreational uses,civic uses,and commercial uses. I
mean,it's truly a village or small town,you know,as far as the whole composite of land uses,and it also
requires a green belt around the project. So that's actually an ideal circumstance.
Rather than have a lot of individual receiving Iands developed at one unit per acre or even less,the
idea would be to have these rural villages developed so that the end result of that would be we would protect
even more lands if it were concentrated.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But,David--
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --clustering was a high note of the program.
MR.WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In fact,to even use TDRs,you've got to have no less than 40 acres. And if
you do 40 acres or more, it has to be clustered.
MR.WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is,in essence,promoting exactly what we see in the residential design
of some of these communities.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mockingbird is another example of that. So it's not that they were trying to
restrict any type of community, like gated communities or residential. They're actually trying to remote(sic)
it through the clustering provisions and the acreage sizes,and the use of TDRs is limited to those kind of
conditions.
MR.WEEKS: True. But I'll stand by my statement that the rural village would be the preferrable
development pattern.
CHAIRMAN STRALN: But then you get with that the commercial aspects and all the rest of it?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But we're not eligible for it.
MR.WEEKS: No,no,no. fin not--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got 300 acres,up to 1,500 acres, unless you're in the North Belle
Meade overlay,which is 2,500 acres. You go to 2,500.And they're not even talking in that realm here.
MR.WEEKS: No,no. Please he clear my response--and I think the question was a generality--
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: He answered my question.
MR. WEEKS: Not this project.
Mr. Chairman,one more point I want to make,because we've thrown out the figure of the value of
the TDR credits,and I think I need to put this on the record.
The I'and Development Code establishes a minimum--is that the floor--minimum of$25,000 for
each base TDR credit,but the bonus credits,including the early entry bonus that Rich referenced earlier,is
purely at market rate.
So when they talk about 12,500 or some other figure less than$25,000,they're speaking of an
average,and they have to be talking about base and bonus or just bonus credits averaged.
CHAIRMAN STRALN: Okay. Anybody else,before we go to public speakers?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray,do we have any registered public speakers first?
Page 19 of 100
May 1,2014
MR.BELLOWS: Yes. We have one speaker,Maureen Bonness.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you want to come up and use the--were you sworn in when we
MS. BONNESS: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you.
MS.BONNESS: Maureen Bonness. I'm a property owner in the near urban area there as well as the
manager of a preserve that straddles the urban rural fringe area.
I would like to see the TDR program work for the property owners that are sandwiched between my
preserve and the Picayune. That's the area that we're talking about today,the area with the qualified TDRs.
Most of those properties are small in size,five to 20 acres at most,and right now the way the
program is working is it's not being effective for those private property owners.
What I see,the way the program was made,to have the additional value given to their TDR,the
additional marketability,the preference for using their TDRs first was in exchange for their greater land
value.
In my view,that's how the program should continue to work,that the urban--the near--the urban
fringe developments should be covering that cost of buying those higher value TDRs. And it's not just this
project. It's all the rest of the projects in that area.
This project is setting a precedence now. If they are allowed to get their TDRs from anywhere,so
will all of the other ones that are shortly to follow thereafter.
So I would suggest still at least a minimum percentage,that at least some of their TDRs are derived
from the near urban area where those land values were recognized by the county as having higher value
before they took away their development rights. And I'd like to see the program work for those smaller size
parcels.
Right now it's difficult. The program is confusing. I would say the TDR program is easier to
understand than the tax code,but it's confusing. 1 think a lot of the property owners are still trying to get
information. What is my TDR worth? How do I do that? Then you go to the website and find out,oh,I've
got to do this.I've got to have a notarized person. I've got to do this. It's not easy.
So I could see that the program,the greater TDR program needs a little incentive to get those smaller
parcel owners involved. And it might end up being something like a real estate broker that starts being the
person in between,the liaison or something. There does need to be more incentive for those small-sized
parcels to work not just in this area. This is going to happen also--you'll see it in North Belle Meade
eventually and other areas of the rural fringe.
One of the important things here,though,is that when I was at the transmittal hearing for the Board
of County Commissioners,they passed this amendment as stated by the petitioner,but it was also mentioned
that they could,at adoption,change that number. Instead of it being 0 percent from the urban--the near
urban area to a percentage, another number,such as 40 percent. That could be done at the adoption.
And I don't know all the details. I just know it was mentioned by staff and other people that this
number,this percentage that they have to get from the urban could be changed between transmittal and
adoption.
So I don't think your choices are 0 percent from the urban area or 100 percent. You can choose a
number in between.
I'd like to see the program work for my neighbors, and so I suggest--I'll go with the staffs
recommendation of 30. I won't go below it,though. I'd rather see 40,if you ask me,but I want the program
to work for my neighbors.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
David, as a point of clarification,is staff recommending 30?
MR. WEEKS: The staff recommendation is as it was at transmittal,and that is with no percentage
requirement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Anybody else from the public wish to speak on this item?
(No response.)
Page 20 of 100
May 1, 2014
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard,do you want to have a short--
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask a quick question of David before we do?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The 30 percent,the urban credits,whatever,do they
represent 30 percent of the total of all? So if we go with 30 percent,they'll all get used up at exactly the same
time,or will the urban get used up very quickly? Does that make sense to you?
MR.WEEKS: Maybe. Let me try to answer. The ratio of IDR credits--I was looking to see if I
have the number here. It's not quite 50/50. If they use maximum use of TDR credits,a little over 50 percent
would be to the urban residential fringe,and a little bit less than 50 percent of the total TDRs would be for the
receiving lands portion of the project.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't mean this project. I mean overall in the whole
county. If we force everybody to go to the 40 percent,are we going to use up the urban quickly? Does that
make sense to you,the question?
MR. WEEKS: Yeah. Any requirement for the urban residential fringe subdistrict to obtain all or
some of their TDR credits from within the one-mile corridor,duh,would require--would result in the use of
more--presumed use of more of those TDR credits in the one-mile corridor. I say"presumed." I can't give
you a black-and-white answer--
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,how many total credits countywide are in the one-mile
corridor? Percentage,roughly. Anybody have any idea?
MR. WEEKS: It's going to be pretty small because you're--that's--
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So if we go to 40 percent,you're going to use--
MR. WEEKS: Let's say 10 percent.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You're going to use them up quickly,right,more quickly
than the others?
MR.YOV_ANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If it's 10 percent.
MR. WEEKS: Not necessarily,because those sending credits can be used anywhere.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I see.
MR. WEEKS: It's just that all the other sending lands can be used anywhere except within this
one-mile corridor. That's why-- I'm sorry, it's just a part of the complication of the program,I guess.
CONLMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard,do you want to do a-- it's taken about an hour longer than I
thought on this particular agenda item--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Me,too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --so try to wrap it up if you can.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah,real quickly.
I think Dr.Nicholas,remembering back,I don't know, 14 years ago, 10 years ago,whatever the real
number was,not all of his recommendations were actually followed for this program,and one of his
recommendations was,I believe,don't put that$25,000 figure into the plan because you created unreasonable
expectations the minute you put that number in there. And we've been fighting those unreasonable
expectations ever since.
So when you put the 25,000 in there originally for these people and everybody else and then you
increased the number from one per five to four per five,they thought they went from$25,000 for their
five-acre piece to$100,000 for their five-acre piece because they heard that$25,000 number.
I think Dr.Nicholas always intended that the free market system was going to work or play a part in
making this program work.
And there's two things in your code that stopped the free market system from working: The$25,000
figure and the limited acquisition area.They stopped the free market system from working.
Now,knock on wood,the economy continues to go for the next five,six years,and home prices go
up.
And, Mr.Rosen,when you did your original development,I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts you paid
Page 21 of 100
May 1,2014
a lot less for dirt than people arc paying for dirt today,and the construction costs were probably significantly
cheaper. Over the next years,construction costs will also go up,so it's going to be--yeah, housing prices
will go up,but it will go up because you've got to pay the subs more money. You've probably--the county
right now has reduced its impact fees. Doesn't mean they won't go back up. We don't know.
So the economy--the economics of the deal,we have to look at it today. We can't bet on the future.
What we're proposing,we think,helps the program. It allows 281 TDRs to be acquired,and staffs
recommending 0 from this one area,and I think the data and analysis supports that.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Rich,can I ask you a question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Rosen?
COMJVHSSIONER ROSEN: Yeah. When you first appeared before us,Joe Bonness was here and
discussed,you know,percentages and things like that,and you very quickly agreed at that very first hearing
to 30 or 40 percent number?
MR.YOVANOVICH: I did?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah,you did.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think I did. It would have been--it would have gone to the BCC with
that number,and 1--
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: No, I thought you did,and you did it here at the podium.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: "I'hen you changed your mind.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Something that happened,and I don't know what it was.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll he happy to go hack and look at the record,but I'm pretty sure I didn't
agree to 40 percent.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay. Well,we can agree to disagree,but I thought you did. So that's
kind of a point that 1 was making is that the market--I understand what you're saying about the market,and I
understand thoroughly about the cost,but prices do go up and prices sustain at a certain level.
They go up;they might come down. They go up,and they might come down. It's a stair-stepping
effect.
There's no houses available that 1 know in that fringe area for 119,000 that we were selling back in
1993. So it's just not going to happen.The prices are not going to come down;the price is 10 years.
So they are going to go up,and whatever rate differential or you call the delta between what you like
to pay or your client,excuse me, and what's being offered, I think,is minimal.
I personally like the idea of a small percentage included so there is some fairness to your client and to
the people that arc in the program, landowners in the program.
Thanks,Rich. Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any comments? If not,we will close the
public hearing,and the Planning Commission will entertain a motion for recommendation.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wait a minute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Ms.Ebert.
COMIVIISSIONER EBERT: Well,I will not--I cannot support this only because I don't like to see
exceptions. And I don't know why poor Rich always gets all these exceptions. You know,the other night lie
wanted to do an exception.
But he's trying to change the program at this point. I can just see 281 less homes on the property. It's
not that they're stopping. I just can't--if you're not going to get them from the qualified and stuff,I just--not
at this point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a motion? Are you going to make a motion,or do I--or was that
just discussion?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It was just that--it was just--I feel sorry for Rich because he's always
making these exceptions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I don't feel sorry for Rich at all. I mean,he's a very successful
attorney here in the county. So let's get beyond that. Is there a motion? Then we can have discussion on it.
Page 22 of 100
May 1,2014
Does someone wish to make a motion? Mr. Rosen?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah,Mr.Chair,I'll make a motion to approve PL20130000139 with
the proviso that there's a 40 percent mix on the credits,and I apologize for not having the proper wording,but
I think you know what I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep, I do. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr.Rosen,seconded by Ms.Ebert. Is there discussion?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is it 40 percent?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yes,that's what I said,yes.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I think that--
COIVL IISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm just--I'm not going to support that. I want to go with the
transmittal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,I'm not going to support it either for different reasons. But go ahead,
Charlette.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. I'm sorry. I'm down here at the end. Sometimes I can't see.
I feel that there should be some small percentage for the property owners in the urban residential
fringe,and 1 also favor the applicant's project and the ability to do the project. I think that 40 percent might
be a little high for me to support the particular motion. I think 0 is too low, so--
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I would amend my motion if there's a suggestion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. bet's finish with the conversation first.
There's a motion made and seconded. We will take a vote on it or amendment to it,but let's go to
full--anybody else for discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have been involved in this program,and I didn't really get involved
because I wanted to,but I saw that the program, in an area that I live in,wasn't,in my opinion,as clear as it
should be. It was difficult to understand. So I think I know the program real well. And the more I've learned
about it,the more I've grown to dislike it.
David just noted that there was a taking of property rights by creating the conservation lands if we
hadn't provided the TDRs,yet there seems to be no hesitation to an indirect taking of receiving lands by this
program's price fixing,price fixing in a form of demanding it be taken from a--being supplied by a certain
area controlled by a few people.
This program is a restriction of property rights producing de facto taking of private property. And
using this project as a precedent-setting example to me is a good thing because this is an unjust program the
way it's designed right now.
I cannot support the motion,any motion beyond the recommendation of staff's recommendation--
beyond approving staffs recommendation.
The federal government does enough price fixing for all of us. We don't need our local govermnent
to be involved in it. So I will be supporting no motion that has a percentage attached to it,that this should be
supported with staffs recommendations,and that's my position on it.
Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER CIIRZANOWSKI: Yes,a comment.
I worked for the county for almost 20 years,and I can't even come close to counting the number of
times I went home saying to myself, I don't believe they paid that for that piece of land. You know,just--we
have a tendency to overvalue property,and you don't necessarily have a right to make a profit on a piece of
land. It's--it's a capitalist system. It doesn't automatically flow with the land that you have to be overly
compensated,but we've come to that point sometimes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well, one comment. I see this as a movement of density. I mean,
let's not forget that our goal is to protect some of the most sensitive environmental lands in the county,and
we want to move density from those lands into areas that we can develop more intensively so that we protect
Page 23 of 100
May 1, 2014
the lands that we want to keep in perpetuity for our environment.
So,you know,the TDR credit is basically a density credit to be able to move it off our sensitive
environmental lands. And, in principle, I think that the program has merit;it's just in the execution of how
we move that density around the land.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And one thing to remember,this project,by using the TDRs,no matter
where they come from, is doing exactly that. It's moving the density from sensitive lands to--closer to the
urban area where it's encouraged to be. From that perspective,ifs the right thing to do.
My problem is the program itself. I believe it's severely broken and needs some attention.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I agree with you,Mr.Chair. The only thing I would like to see the
commission consider is the fact that these property owners that were defined in this urban fringe all of a
sudden go from whatever percentage they had in the amendment to 0,and I think that's unfair to those
property owners,and I think it's not unreasonable for this commission to consider balance when we look at
this amendment to both address the petitioner's request and also the people who live in that urban fringe and
own those TDRs. And I think that I'd like to see this commission strike balance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I understand your position. And my concern was that people
out further have the same equal rights to be able to sell their'1DRs to anybody they want as well. So I see no
difference between this one-mile--the urban boundary was drawn as an urban boundary. So anything
beyond that is open game. To give a preference to that one-mile strip close to the urban boundary, I see no
sense to that.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But didn't we have reason to do that back when we developed this
whole overlay?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you've got to look back at the time that it happened,and I would
suggest that the politics at the time were different,too.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can 1--Mike,would you be willing to reduce it to 30 percent--
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I would present an amendment to reduce--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: --the motion.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: --it to 30 percent.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I will support that. So we have some balance here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a motion on the floor to--instead of using staff
recommendation,to allow the project to go forward by using the 30 percent from the one-mile strip instead of
the 100 percent that's currently required,and then there's a second. Is that stated well?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yes,sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSTONER ROSEN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you do that by show of hands so I can make sure.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two.
All those opposed,same signs,say aye.
COMMISSIONER CIIRZANOWSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5-2.
Is there another tnotion?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make the motion to support the adoption with the same language
Page 24 of 100
May 1,2014
as it was transmitted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ms. Homiak,second by Mr.Chrzanowski.
Discussion?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Mr.Chair,could we put that transmittal language on the visualizer? I have
it here if--
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,its in the staff report,but sure.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think there's some lack of clarity because--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't--we haven't done that in the past,but--
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,the reason I'm asking is because in my notebook under adoption the
staff recommendation is for the 30 percent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
CO'MIVIISSIONER DOYLE: No. In the ordinance--we have an ordinance here that--and it has an
Exhibit A and it has the language that was used before.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She was using the language from transmittal,but the language from
transmittal--do we have that,David,that you could--
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We'll just put it on the visualizer,because my attachment to the ordinance
is the Buckley exhibit so--in my notebook, so it doesn't have the right exhibit.
MR. WEEKS: It's two pages.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,your recommendation is all I think we're--
MR. WEEKS: This is Page 1 of the ordinance,and it basically is the same language in both sides.
I'll now flip it over to the other page.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
CONM9ISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion carries,4-3. That will go on to the Board of County
Commissioners with that recommendation.
And now we will see where we've got to move next. Well,we're going to have a break,but I'm
thinking,if it's okay,Terri,we'll take a break at 11:00,and then when we come back at 11:15,we can go right
into the Walgreens and save the break till then.
***So the next item up is the Buckley project.This is a two-part project. We have a Growth
Management Plan adoption hearing. It's the same one as the project we heard months ago tinder
transmission,and it's also a rezone;we have a PUD.
The two cases are PL20120002909/CP-2013-3,and then PUD is PUDZ-A-PL20120002906.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I live right across from the Buckley PUD and have gone to a
couple of neighborhood information meetings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I think when this first came up before us,I had a conversation with the
Page 25 of 100
May 1, 2014
applicant's attorney;that was a while hack. So I'll just put that on the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And we'll get Diane when she comes back.
And I've had meetings with the applicant's representative's attorney. And I know there's been some
correspondence from one or two of the landowners behind,and I've, obviously,talked with staff about it.
So with that,Diane--or, Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing.
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brian? Charlette?
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have to catch Diane when she gets back.
So let's go into the--well,first of all,this is a GMP and a rezone. So,David,do you have any
opening comments from the GMP side of it?
MR.WEEKS: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And go ahead,then,Bruce. You might--when Diane gets back,at
some point during a break in your presentation,I'll ask her to do her disclosures.
MR.ANDERSON: Thank you.
Good morning,Mr. Chairman,Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson with the Roetzel &
Andress law firm.
n.
have here with me today Tim Hancock,senior planner with Stantec engineering finn.
I'll give you a brief overview. This is a Growth Management Plan amendment for the Buckley
mixed-use subdistrict. It was approved in 2002,and this is also a companion item for an amendment of the
existing PUD,which was approved in 2005.
This property abuts the north county library,which is on the south side of the property,and abuts the
Emerald Lakes community on the west and the north.
This is not a request for new commercial zoning. This property is already zoned PUD for 162,000
square feet of commercial uses,and no increase is proposed.
Residential density is reduced as well,and we have added a conversion factor into the PUD
document that for each acre developed commercially, 11 dwelling units would be subtracted from the
allowed total of dwelling units,and for each acre of residential that is developed,7,500 square feet of
commercial is eliminated.
A lot has changed since this was first approved. Back then it was thought that the latest land-use
trend was the concept of mixed use with people living above commercial establishments.
The current Buckley district MPUD require residential and commercial to be built,and it requires
that they be in the same building as well.
The chief purpose of this amendment is to eliminate that requirement that both residential and
commercial must be constructed and that they must be constructed in the same building.
What we have here is really simply a rearranging of what has already been approved,and we have
moved the zoning level details out of the Comprehensive Plan into the PUD zoning document that you have
as a companion item.
Mr.Hancock and I will address both the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the PUT)amendment
together since they're so closely intertwined.
The Growth Management Plan amendment was unanimously recommended for approval by the prior
Planning Commission with certain additional conditions that were incorporated into the language. The Board
of County Commissioners also gave unanimous approval at the transmittal hearing.
Prior to the transmittal and continuing since then,we have worked closely with our closest residential
neighbor,the Emerald Lakes Homeowners Association,to address concerns or questions that they have.
They have been very supportive of both applications.
But the staff report states,after transmittal it was noticed that there was some holdover language
from the current Growth Management Plan that had been left in,which was inconsistent with the new
amendment.
Those changes are featured there in the red.Paragraph G makes clear the residential and commercial
Page 26 of 100
May 1, 2014
uses shall not be combined in the same building.
Also,clarification language was added that fuel pumps are not allowed in conjunction with
convenience stores.
And, lastly,there was a typo that was corrected as well.
There are two changes to the PI JD language that were requested by the County Attorneys Office,
and that is highlighted in yellow. Also,numbers were transposed on the master plan,and that has been
corrected at their request as well.
Lastly,there are a few changes to the PUD based on a meeting with Chairman Strain. And if you
will permit, I will walk you through those.There were too many pages to keep flipping up here. And,for the
most part,they're clarifications.
On the third page of the PUD document under commercial where it says"prohibited uses,"and it
says "convenience stores,"we would add there"convenience stores with fuel pumps." And that's added
under the C2 restrictions and the restrictions on C3 uses as well. So that would read,"SIC group 5411
convenience stores with fuel pumps only." Those would be prohibited uses.
Under accessory uses we are striking one,two,three,and five,because they are redundant and
already captured in the Land Development Code as permitted accessory uses.
Next is on Exhibit B,residential development standards,Table 1. On the third line in Table 1,the
heading is "minimum floor area of buildings."And instead that would read"minimum floor area of unit."
And then if we drop down four more lines where we had the reference to lakes and the setback
requirements,the 20 feet across the board,it should read 20 feet from the maintenance easement.
And if we could turn, please,to the next page,Footnote 7,that would read 20 feet or 0 feet from the
maintenance easement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm going to go through these again for the benefit of this board just to
make sure,because I've noticed you've got a couple of them. There's another one,too,but I was going to
catch that for you.
MR.ANDERSON: Okay. Well,I'll just quit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,no,no,go ahead. I want to hear where you've gotten--
I just want to make sure we catch everything,that's all. And I have to do things in order,sorry.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Back to Footnote 7,that should read, "No building should exceed three
stories in height. >✓nderbuilding parking is prohibited." We would strike the words"with no allowance for."
On Table 2,commercial development standards,we drop down to the PUT)setbacks for lakes,and it
would be 0 feet from the maintenance easement or 20 feet.
And on Footnote 5,we have the same language change that no building should exceed three stories,
and underbuilding parking is prohibited.
And then the last change is on the PUD master plan,and at the top of the master plan there are six
different paragraphs,headings,and the--all of them are being struck except the land-use summary and the
deviations.
It's just more clutter on there, and those items are already addressed in the body of the PUD
document.
You're keeping open space? Okay.Environmental staff asked that we keep the open space
requirement on the PUD master plan,and we are happy to do that.
And at this point in time,unless there are questions specifically for me, I'll ask Mr.Hancock to come
up and address the planning considerations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of Bruce at this time?
(No response.)
CIIA RMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR.ANDERSON: Thank you.
MR.HANCOCK: Good morning. For the record,Tim Hancock with Stantec.
Again,following the pattern set by Mr.Anderson,I'm going to speak about the Growth Management
Plan and PUD amendment somewhat interchangeably. I recognize some members of this body were not
present at the time of transmittal,so I may give a small amount of background here and there to assist in some
Page 27 of 100
May 1,2014
understanding.
What 1 plan to focus on,basically, are what really are the differences between the recommendations
contained in your staff report on Page 16 of 17,and the position of the applicant or petitioner and the bases
for those differences.
First and foremost,the change in this project really is to take it from something that has no value in
the marketplace,which is a forced integrated mixed-use development on 20 acres at a mid-block location.
There's just no market for it,no opportunity for development.
So a lot of what was contained in the original Comp Plan amendment that was sought by the
applicant at that time just simply doesn't work anymore.
What we've sought to do,and what this body agreed with in transmittal,was to basically take those
two uses,commercial and residential,and require that they be separate. So the project has one of three
possibilities. It could develop entirely as residential,it could develop entirely as commercial,or a portion
could be residential and a portion could be commercial.
We just simply aren't going to stack one on top of the other. And if you look back at what the issues
for the Emerald Lakes residents were at the time, it was that forced integration stacking and the massing of
both uses at a high level on the property that gave them the greatest concern.We're decoupling and separating
that,and I think that's, quite candidly,why we've had such a positive reception from that community and its
leadership.
The question then becomes,in doing so,how does it change the scale and scope of the development?
Previously, if you had forced integration and smaller buildings but you had a line of them,if you will,you
still had a wall of buildings and you still had a high degree of commercial,but the buildings'footprints
individually were smaller.
The concern was whether or not we would become a shopping center and thus compete with other
shopping centers in the area. This concern was raised by staff. So we included in our language that no more
than 50 percent of the commercial square footage could be placed in multi-tenant buildings. That's to say we
don't want to compete with dark space up at the corner of Vanderbilt and Airport. We're going to be an
assembly of individual buildings more so than a shopping center.
The next question became,well,how big could the buildings be or should they be. At the time of
transmittal,we had a lengthy discussion with this body,and we were asked to put a cap on the size of the
buildings. The cap that we chose that was approved for transmittal and that was found acceptable by the
residents was 100,000 square feet.
The reason for that cap is important. The 100,000 square feet is a line of demarcation when you look
at impacts from a retail use becoming what you might constitute or call a superstore. For example,just
recently Robb and Stucky constructed a furniture store in the City of Naples on U.S.41,two stories,65,000
square feet. "There's a multifamily development within 150 feet of that store. It fits into the fabric of the
community well,it's a good neighbor,low traffic impacts.
However, if you look at furniture stores that exceed 100,000 square feet,for those that are under
100,000,you'll see a trip generation rate of approximately five vehicles per 1,000 square feet.
When you get to a furniture superstore which is in that 200,000 square feet range,that trip generation
goes to over 20 vehicles per 1,000 square feet. There's no real distinction between a 49,000-square-foot
furniture store and the 85,000-square-foot furniture store from the standpoint of impacts. Trip generation is
similar,the parking demands are the same.
But when you get over that 100,000,you get into superstores,mega stores,and they do have a
different traffic pattern and a whole'nother set of impacts.
So it is our desire to retain the 100,000-square-foot cap for the simple reason that it does exactly what
we intend it to do,which is prohibit a single mega or superstore on the site,but it doesn't unduly restrict the
property from combining buildings or combining uses.
Probably the nearest example 1 can give you is immediately to the south you have a library. You
also have a Clerk's Office. The two buildings combined are just under 100,000 square feet. They share a
parking area. So if those buildings were physically attached or whether they're separate,how does that
change the dynamics and the impact of the building? The answer is it doesn't. They're still the same height.
Page 28 of 100
May 1,2014
And we have a 29-page architectural standard in the LDC that addresses massing and transition for larger
buildings.
So it is the position of the petitioner that to further restrict the size of any one building to an arbitrary
number--staffs recommendation of 50,000 is a burdensome limitation that has no place in the marketplace.
The second item is a limitation on drive-throughs. We have limited the number of drive-throughs,as
this body approved and transmitted,to four with only one fast food with drive-through being allowed.
What you'll see in the staff recommendation is a line that says"no fast food." We find great problem
and trouble with this because,as 1 pointed out to staff this morning,Moe s, Subway,Jimmy John's--all my
favorite places to go when I have 15 minutes for lunch--those are all fast food restaurants. They're also in
lane--they tend to buddy up with other stores.
The staff recommendation would prohibit those uses. I think the real issue is looking at fast food
with drive-through and keeping the limit on fast food with drive-through. I think the more appropriate
limitation,rather than eliminating them altogether, is to allow the one that was agreed upon previously and
agreed upon by the residents and the petitioner but to limit it to within approximately 300 feet of Airport
Road.That way you're putting that use up by the roadway nearer the vehicular traffic,and you reduce the
opportunity for a use like that being closer to neighbors to the rear. That,to me,seems like an appropriate
response.
The last item is hours of operation. We did not include hours of operation in the GMP language.We
have not included them in the PLD,and that's for a good reason. We live in a changing world. I have a
friend who owns a company that has office space,and he has two shifts because they have businesses in
India. They can't work at--from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. They have to work different hours. Fitness facilities
open before 7 a.m.
So a blanket hour-of-operation requirement really is not appropriate. We are adjacent to Airport
Road. I don't know what we're preventing,but the unintended consequences of blanket hours of operations in
a PUD,to then have to come back through a public hearing process to be amended for as much as a 60-,
120-minute interval have no basis in the marketplace. We don't find those limitations on other commercial
projects of similar size,and we don't think they're appropriate here.
Commissioner Strain,you requested some information on lighting,and we talked about this,because
in the PUD it says that there's a limitation on lighting. There are three limitations. One is that lighting on the
perimeter of the project is limited to 15 feet in height,and that needs to be more clearly defined.
The second limitation is that all fixtures have to be flat-panel fixtures, and that avoids the convex
bulbing and the further spread of light. And these are techniques we've used on PUDs recently.
And the third one--I drew a blank on the third one. But we were talking--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,those were the two light issues that you've shown,and I suggested that
we take a look at how we had regulated light in some other projects.
MR.HANCOCK: And those were the ones that--when we look at Top Hat,for example,we had a
section of the projects that was not lit at all because we had water management to the rear.
And so one thing I wanted to show you is to give you a relevant example is the library immediately
to the south. This is a light fixture in the parking lot of the Collier County Public Library. It is approximately
25 feet in height,and it's difficult to see.
There's a blue piece of painter's tape right there that's about seven feet off the ground. So the height
of the fixture is 25 feet.
It is a flat-panel fixture. It's not LED,but it is flat panel. It does not have cutoff shields.And,I'm
sorry, it's located approximately 38 feet from the property line which adjoins the residential.
This is that same fixture,although it's a single fixture instead of a dual,and it is located eight feet off
the property line,25 feet in height,flat panel,no cutoff shields.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is at the government center?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The government can do whatever it wants.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes,sir. 1 understand that,and I long for those days. But the reason I'm bringing
this out is,in looking at this--and I've been through the Emerald Lakes community on the back side of that
Page 29 of 100
May 1,2014
fence. It's not obtrusive in the evening. So what I want to do is say that these are flat-panel fixtures without
cutoff shields. They are at 25 feet in height.
I think if we were to look at what's been put in the PUD,the one modification I would suggest is that
any fixtures within 30 feet of a residential property line would be limited to 15 feet in height.
When you look at what the sight line would be from the homes--the front door of a home,which is
going to be 60 feet away from a wall and landscape area, if you have a 15-foot fixture in that 30 feet, it will
not be visible. When you get out beyond 30 feet,as that vegetation grows to an 18-to 20-foot height,the
25-foot fixture will not be directly visible.
In addition,we have also increased the number of trees along the rear of that buffer as part of our
PUD by 50 percent. So instead of adding one every 30 feet so that maturity will kind of grow together,just
as it has in this picture right here,there will be 50 percent more trees. So the rate of obscuring the view is
going to be faster and better.
I believe staffs recommendations arc all aimed at compatibility. And I understand that we're
grabbing for tools to try and get our arms around something,but I just want to point out very quickly,then I'll
conclude,that this PUD has built into it a great number of compatibility elements that are well in excess of
what the Land Development Code requires. For example,our required minimum building setback from the
rear property line adjacent to the residential is 100 feet.
What I've just offered for fast food with drive-through would increase that,effectively,to 200 feet. If
the fast food with drive-through has to be within 300 feet of Airport Road and we have a parcel that's 500 feet
deep,we've now pulled that another 100 feet away. So that particular use,which I think staff has concern
about,would he 200 feet from the rear property line.
We also have a 35 percent maximum building coverage on the site. The LDC has no maximum
building coverage. We have no dumpsters or compactors within 100 feet,per the PUD.
We have a limitation on lighting,and I've suggested we refine that,that the lighting within 30 feet of
a residential zoning be limited to 15 feet in height.
We have,as I mentioned,a 6-foot wall to the rear of the property between us and the residential with
a Type C buffer,and we have added 50 percent more trees in that buffer in the PUD than required by code.
Building massing,which we've discussed briefly,is addressed in the LDC. And just so you know,as
the building gets larger in the LDC,the massing articulation changes. Any buildings over 40,000 square feet
has to have a 10-foot articulation in the wall and similar articulation in the roof line.
So the idea that there's a mass of building that is a wall back there is addressed in our Land
Development Code,and it does increase with the size of the building. We certainly would be subject to that.
Capping the maximum size on the retail uses avoids the site being developed as a single superstore.
And,quite candidly,it makes it very difficult to develop even if it were just two end users on the commercial
side.
And the restriction on drive-through establishments is fairly significant when you look at similar
zoned properties on arterial roadways.All of these are intended to address compatibility.And I believe
they're sufficient,appropriate, and certainly I know there's one person here from Emerald Lakes who may
wish to speak and address any other issues.
But,with that,I will conclude my comments and answer any questions as best I can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we do,we first need to take a break. And as I announced in the
beginning of the meeting,between 11:00 and 11:30 I wanted to get into the Walgreens--or the--we moved
that forward on the agenda. So when we come back from break,we'll have to pause on your review and go
into the Walgreens hearing.
I hope--don't expect that to take too long,but more than likely after Walgreens we will be taking a
break for lunch. Whenever we finish that one,we'll take an hour break for lunch.
And so the rest of your presentation and discussion probably have to occur after we get done with
those two items.
Sorry for the interruption,but you'd be interrupted by lunch anyway,so--
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chair,Ms.Ebert,the disclosure. I just wanted to remind--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Page 30 of 100
May 1, 2014
Diane,have you have any disclosures?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,only staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,let's take a break till 11 after 11:00. That's an easy one to
remember. Then we'll come back,do Walgreens,then take lunch after that.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everybody. Welcome back from break.
When we started break,I was reminded or asked that there's a speaker here from the adjoining
property at Buckley's who wanted to be able to speak before she had to leave,and so we're going to
accommodate that request,and then we'll go right into the Walgreens.
So hack to the original one we started with a few minutes ago,which was the Buckley's PUD and
GMPA. I believe there's a lady here from Emerald Lakes. And,ma'am,if it's you,come on up and identify
yourself for the record.
MS. RUSSO: It's me. Good morning. Phyllis Russo,president of Emerald Lakes Association. I
appreciate your time. I'm going to make this very short and sweet.
We,I,support all the recommendations as written by Tim Hancock and Bruce Anderson. We've
worked closely with them;we're comfortable with them,I've said this at the last meeting;support everything
that they have recommended. That's bottom-lining it for everybody.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just so we understand,because we--when we vote on this,we've
got to take into consideration staffs recommendations,which differ than what Mr.Hancock wants.
So you have no concerns about the hours of operation?
MS. RUSSO: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the fast food limitation for 300 feet back from Radio Road--or
Airport Road works for you?
MS.RUSSO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the size that--a maximum size of 100,000 square feet works for you?
MS.RUSSO: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much.
Anybody else have any questions?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,I have a question for you. Will you be satisfied if this is 21 acres
of commercial?
MS.RUSSO: I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I--that's--that was my comment,because they can do
that. They can do 21 acres of all commercial.
MS. RUSSO: I don't think they'll do anything that we sit down and discuss and make it acceptable
for us residents at Emerald Lakes. I'm sorry,but I don't believe that. We've worked closely with them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'm not sure--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm just--what I guess Pm saying is, it's--they can do either/or.
MS.RUSSO: Yes.
CONTAISSIONER EBERT: So you will not be here,and if this is passed the way it is,it could end
up being—
MS. RUSSO: It could. It could.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, okay. That's all I wanted.
MS.RUSSO: But I trust that it's going to go the way it's best for everybody. That's all I can say at
this point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I thought that the preference from Emerald Lakes was commercial
over residential.
MS.RUSSO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm not sure why you would--they wanted--the residential was going
to be multistory--
MS.RUSSO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SPRAIN: --and I think the concern was looking down on their--
Page 31 of 100
May 1, 2014
MS.RUSSO: We absolutely want the commercial. We do not want three-story residential or
anything like that,that is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought was the direction.
MS. RUSSO: Sony.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much.
Does anybody else have anything?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We appreciate your time,ma'am. Thank you.
***Now we're going to move into the last item on today's agenda,which is PTJDZ-A--no,I'm sorry
RZ-PL20130001302. It's the Walgreens Naples rezone located at Pine Ridge Road east of Airport-Pulling
Road.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike?
COMMISSIONER ROSFN: Nothing.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Myself,I had met with Bruce,and I don't know if anybody else was in the
meeting offhand other than staff. I can't remember if he brought somebody with him or not,but we talked
about the various issues we'll bring up again today.
Karen?
COMMTSSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brian'?
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette?
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce,it's all yours.
MR.ANDERSON: Thank you,Mr. Chairman.
My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel&Andress law firm here on behalf of the
co-applicants,the YMCA of the Palms and Southeast Investments, Inc.
1 want to introduce to you the key players on this one. Here at my right is Mr.Dan O'Berski. He's a
YMCA board member and the hoard coordinator for the YMCA on this project. Also with me today is Jason
Cruise,the vice president of development for Southeast Investments.
I'm going to ask Mr. O'Berski to share with you the YMCA's rebuilding plans and expansion plans
and why they are seeking this zoning change and selling this parcel.
So I'll turn it over to him. Thank you.
MR.O'BERSKI: Again,my name is Ilan O'Berski,and I am on the board at YMCA and pleased to
be a part of that organization.
As you-all,I assume,are aware,we had a true tragedy in the loss of the fire with the YMCA that has
hindered what we've been able to do.
We believe that,ultimately,it's going to turn into a really great blessing for both the YMCA,its
members,and the community as a part of the long-term strategy in facilitating both our operations and our
mission,and a major portion of our mission lands with our children and families.
And all in all,on our 20-plus-acre site,we currently have and had a split children's facility and
children's services,that a component of the children were in the main building,a component were in the
Teddy Bear Museum and,simultaneously,with the 120-plus children that we serve,we have approximately
two-for-one in versus a wait list. So we have close to 250 students that are on our wait list to get into the
program.
So we have a desire as a top-rated facility and child service and as a mission to the community to
continue to serve the children of this community.
Page 32 of 100
May 1,2014
The Teddy Bear Museum at the time was very intentional in acquiring that for the services for the
children. As they've grown in both quality and service,its not ideal to have two different facilities where
were moving back and forth.
The property itself was planned as a Teddy Bear Museum, and so it's not an efficient use of space
either,so we have to have more teachers per children than is required,which causes a significant burden on
cost and operations.
We want to expand our childcare facilities.And a long-term strategy is to do all of our rebuild and
servicing without debt and to have a more--and an improving financial position for the Y so that it can be
here for a long,long time.
The sale of this property is a large part of that strategy. It will allow us to pay down our debt
substantially and work towards a stabilized plan that comes in line with what we're doing with the rebuild.
What I've shown here is the realignment and the strategy that we're having for the rebuild. By the
grace of God,we've been able to raise close to 75 percent of the funds required for this.
Hopefully you've seen we've been able to remove the gym. We're in for our permits,and we're
hoping to be breaking ground and have this open soon,as soon as possible. But we also are not going to
proceed in a debt fashion that could hinder long-term stability.
So as you can see,we're moving some of the operations on the fitness facility portion to the east
versus the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the walk-around mike,unfortunately,if you're going to
move around,sorry. That picks you up so anybody watching on television can hear.
MR.O'BERSKI: Okay,great. So previously this was the main entry. And,I'm sorry,this is where
the light sits and most of the entry and exit had occurred. That facility access,obviously,created a significant
log jam because people would be coming in,dropping off,picking up and so forth.
Our primary entry is going to be moved down here,which facilitates more parking. This is the
current plan that we have.
We're hoping that by the time we start construction there will be room for another gym to provide for
more aftercare services and facilities for children,sports and so forth.
This area here is one portion that remains from the fire or after the--this is a completely redone
locker room,and these facilities are going to be for some of our partners and our administration.
Long-term strategy is to continue to come up with a single plant that we can serve the children in,
and hopefully-- we're expecting to be able to build something that would facilitate close to 300 children
versus the approximately 120 that we can serve currently.
Again,as a whole,this is the strategy, and the sale of this property is a large portion of the need that
we have in order to facilitate debt reduction and stabilization of the Y.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Any questions related to the rezone portion of this?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: An unrelated question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is O'Berski Irish or Polish'? You don't have to answer that.
MR.O'BERSKI: No,no. We're Polish all the way and came in a little confused,so we like to play
with people.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,we've been totally off topic now,so thank you.
Is there any other questions of the--this part of the presentation'? Okay.
MR. O'BERSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce,did you have something you wanted to tell us about the actual
rezone? I understand the need for the Y,but that really isn't relevant to the rezone application,so--
MR. ANDERSON: Well,I wanted you to have the benefit of the background of--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
MR.ANDERSON: --why this was occurring.
This property is 179-acre--or 1.79 acres.It's on the west side of the Y,and the YMCA itself is
zoned CF,community facility.
Page 33 of 100
May 1, 2014
And on the east--on the west side of the property is the Sports Authority,and it is zoned C3.
As Mr.O'Berski shared with you,the proposed Walgreens site is the site of the former Teddy Bear
Museum.
This property is located in the activity center at Pine Ridge Road and Airport. And the Growth
Management Plan states that the full array of commercial uses are permitted in activity centers.
The property in question is currently zoned Cl,and the request is to allow C4 zoning to permit a
greater variety of uses.
It is anticipated that this property will be developed as a Walgreens.
In a meeting with Chairman Strain,he asked that we consider lowering the allowable building height
to 50 feet,and my client is agreeable to doing that.
We believe this application is very straightforward,and we respectfully ask for a recommendation of
approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR.ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there questions of the applicant? Mike?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Mr.Chair--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: --I have a fast question on the transportation side. I see on the aerial
the Teddy Bear--and I'm very familiar with the site with Sports Authority and Teddy Bear Museum. Will
there be an interconnection of the parking lot where the Teddy Bear Museum was to the light,you know,
where the existing light is?
MR.ANDERSON: Yes. Yes,there will be.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay. Thank you. That was my only question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now I've got staff questions,so--okay. With that,well go to staff report.
Mike?
MR. SAWYER: For the record,Mike Sawyer,project manager for the petition.
You have a copy of our staff report revised April 17th as well as the draft ordinance,copy of the
NIM meeting notes,and then the application.
I do note list off on Page 3 where the staff report notes surrounding zoning and land uses, land uses
are all correct;however,to the west we relied on the official zoning map which indicates that the parcel for
Sports Authority is C4. It's been pointed out that it was approved as C3. So I note that discrepancy.
We are currently, I believe,working on getting those zoning maps revised to reflect the actual--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Might have to--we're waiting for a reading from the County Attorney's
Office as to the findings in regards to that C3 use. Once Miriam gets an opinion on that from the County
Attorney's Office,the maps will be changed.
MR. SAWYER: Other than that,we--even given that we are not seeing any issues with the balance
of the staff report that's before you,I do have the development standards if we need to look at the differences
between C3 and C4.
With that,we arc recommending approval of the petition,and IT answer any questions if you have
them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? Mike,in regards to the discovery of
the C3 for the Sports Authority,your staff report under your planning and zoning review on Page 8 noted that
it was finding it consistent,and part of the discussion was that it was C4 zoning next door. Does your
position change at all because it's C3 now?
MR. SAWYER: I still don't see a major difference between the two. We were actually looking at
this because the site is, for lack of a better term,self-limiting because of the size of it--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SAWYER: —and that there are some use differences clearly between C3 and C4, some of
which are actually square footage related.Certainly,there is a height difference.
Page 34 of 100
May 1,2014
Above and beyond that,we are not seeing any compatibility issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Page 11 of the staff report,No. 13,at the top of the page there's
a sentence that says the proposed end use is a Walgreens pharmacy,which requires a C4 zoning district
designation.
How did you arrive at that? I mean, C3 allows drugstores,and Conditional Use 17,where you're
restricted by square footage,excepts out drugstores from that provision. So couldn't they have done this in a
C3 zoning?
MR. SAWYER: That may actually be an error in the staffreport. I apologize for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I just--either—in that meeting that you weren't able to make,
I meant to discuss that with you ahead of time.
MR. SAWYER: I apologize. I didn't make the meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I believe they could get in a C3 zoning because I--and according to the
conditional use,they don't have an except--they're excepted out for square footages. So I guess my question,
then,to Bruce is,why do you need C4 over C3? I think I know what your answer is,but I'd just like to hear
it.
MR.ANDERSON: What is my answer?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'lI let you say it. Never ask a question you don't know the answer to,so--
MR.ANDERSON: Well,as I said,to allow a greater variety of uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're going to put a Walgreens there. This is called the Walgreens
Naples rezone.
MR.ANDERSON: We did not title it that. That was how staff,you know, advertised it. That's why
I wanted to be clear that it is planned for a Walgreens,but--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.ANDERSON: That's all. The--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got community facility to the cast.
MR.ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got Cl to the back and C3 to the west. You'll be the only isolated
C4 district in the whole piece. And C4 has some additional uses,but I believe most those uses are more
intensive than you can fit on this little tiny piece. So I'm wondering what's wrong with C3.
MR.ANDERSON: I want to check here to make certain that the Walgreens at that--the small
liquor facilities that are usually part of the Walgreens--they typically have a separate entrance--that that
would not be prohibited in C3.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray,do you know if it's--since you're the zoning director.
MR.BELLOWS: No,there's no prohibition. It would be allowed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The Walgreens,as a typical stand-alone like they have throughout
the county with a liquor side of it and the medical side of it,there's no--if they were to go and build this
under a C3 zoning,would they be able to have all the potential that they are expecting?
MR. SAWYER: Mr.Chairman,if I might,I think part of the issue that I've got is simply the
wording. And the way I put 13 together with my explanation,I believe what I actually meant to indicate was
that Cl doesn't allow the Walgreens use and that the C4, in fact,does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SAWYER: 1 didn't make it clear that C3 would also work. So,again,my apology.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I--staff,you,apparently,then,didn't have any problems with all the
myriad of uses in C4 going in this location.
MR. SAWYER: No. I think part of that certainly was because we were under the impression,
incorrectly apparently now,that adjacent to it was already C4.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the activity center,though, allows a full array,up through CS.
MR. SAWYER: Up to CS, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce,that's fine. We'll leave it C4. I don't think there's anything in C4
that is more intense than the C3 that you're going to be able to get away with on that parcel because of its
size,parking,and setback requirements.
Page 35 of 100
May 1,2014
So,with that in mind--hut,see,you'll have to--by going C4,you'll have to adhere to the C4
standards for setbacks and other things,which C.3 I can't remember if the standards there are a little more
lenient,giving you more buildable area or not. But you're going to be--because C4,with its more intense
uses,may have more intense setbacks. As long as you're okay with that,then I'm fine with it.
MR.ANDERSON: Yes,sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Unless there's no objection,I'll withdraw my concern.
Okay. With that,is there anybody from the public that wishes to speak on this matter?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion from the Planning Commission? And I
assume it would be subject to any staff recommendations but also a height limitation of 50 feet,if that's the
motion maker's desire.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll make the motion for RZ-PL20130001302 to move forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that include a height limitation?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: With staff--yes,with the 50-foot regulation,which they agreed to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr.Rosen. Discussion? All --
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I had one question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I just want to make sure that the preserves that are already on that site
are to remain. I just want to clarify that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think there's any--is there any preserves on the 1.79 acres that are
part of this PUD,or is it actually the piece behind it?
MR. SAWYER: We have checked the platting for this whole development,which also includes the
Sports Authority portion as well as the roadway.There is an easement that does pull over onto this portion of
the site,but that will have to be addressed at time of Site Development Plan--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SAWYER: --as far as,you know,how much of that, if any,can be--can be used.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there's a preserve behind this?
MR. SAWYER: There is a preserve,yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That preserve that's shown on the tax assessor's maps as a separate parcel.
MR. SAWYER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a 1.79 parcel in front of the parcel;is that a true statement?
MR. SAWYER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That preserve behind it is not going to be touched?
MR. SAWYER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And there won't be any impacts to it. That's what was kind of unclear
in the staff report on Page 8 was the potential preserve impacts were not evaluated,and that's what caused my
question.
MR. SAWYER: And 1 think that actually goes to that portion,that easement that comes onto this
parcel--
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay.
MR. SAWYER: --that is actually shown as an easement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Summer's here. Maybe she can help correct it. She ran up here for a
reason,and that's probably it.
Go ahead, Summer, if you don't mind trying to help us out here.
MS.ARAQUE: Summer Araque,natural resources department.
So if you look at the plat for this property,the preserve acreage for this subdivision goes onto this
property in question that's being rezoned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ARAQUE: So we have a big chunk of it on that parcel to the north of this,but that--some
Page 36 of 100
May 1,2014
portion of that preserve does go onto this property,and they would need to do either an off-site preserve or
not touch this in order to make up for that. So I've had discussions with Bruce on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that gets more to Charlette's question.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. And that's important to me,and I think it might be important
to the Y itself because of the quality of life with all the children in your facility and all the people there,but
I'll leave that up to the applicant to see whether or not that's possible to be preserved in that spot or not.
MS.ARAQUE: Yeah. You can see one of the--I think one of the site plans shows how those
impacts could occur,and 1 had that discussion with Bruce. And my understanding--I don't want to speak for
them,but my understanding was that they were most likely going to be using the off-site preserve option.
They would have to compensate for all of that preserve in that subdivision,not that it would all be
impacted,but they would need to compensate for that,because you cannot leave less than one acre of a
preserve on a site.
So we've had that discussion, and they are aware;meaning Walgreens is aware of that.
CONLVIISSIONER ROMAN: And that's the essence of my question. Will that preserve--
MS.ARAQUE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: --Bruce,be maintained on that site?
MR. ANDERSON: It may not be,that small portion. And like Summer said,we would have to
mitigate for that. I mean,mitigate far more than the area we would be impacting.
And I'll ask Mr.O'Berski to address about the Y.
MR. O'BERSKI: Just with regard to our desire for the site plan and so forth,the buyers have worked
hand in hand with us to identify an appropriate site plan that the Y is happy with,and the Y is continuing,
actually,to expand our children involvement with the preserve that we have,both with--
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I would think so.
MR.O'BERSKI: Yeah. So were very happy with the site plan that they're working with,and we
plan on continuing to work with thetn as they proceed.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: What's your thought on the preserve itself,though? .lust the small
portion on that site,does that have an impact on you--
MR.O'BERSKI: No.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: --and what the children are using the preserve for?
MR.O'BERSKI: Not at all,no. Our focus is--we have on--I believe we are on 18.9 acres
remaining,of which I believe close to nine of that is pond and cypress and preserve on our site.We're
actually building a bridge in some of the--to be able to work and be within that preserve on site. So we're
not concerned with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else,Charlette?
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So the answer was that the portion that goes into this property may or
may not be preserved;is that the answer,Bruce?
MR.ANDERSON: That is correct. They're going through the site plan process now.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Are you attempting to try to maintain as much of it as you can,or
what are your thoughts on that?
MR.ANDERSON: I mean,we're trying to impact as least as possible. I mean,whatever they do,
even if it's just,you know,a square foot,then they have to mitigate for a much larger area anyway,so--but
the bulk of the preserve area that is outside this property is left intact.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,we had a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion was to approve--recommendation of approval with the
limitation of a 50-foot height limitation.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If none,then we'll call for the vote.
All those in favor,signify by saying aye.
Page 37 of 100
May 1, 2014
COMMISSIONER CIIRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
Thank you very much.
MR.ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was probably going to be the quickest item today on the agenda.
MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR.BELLOWS: There is no need to come hack on the consent agenda for this item,right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,there is not. I didn't hear anybody ask for it,so it will deemed no.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. Thank you for reminding us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,appreciate that,Ray.Thank you.
***Now we'll go back to the Buckley GMT)PUD rezone that we previously started on. We left off
with Mr. Hancock's presentation.
Bruce,you'll need to take your conversation outside,if you don't mind.
Tim,I know--I think you finished up. I just want to double-check to make sure if there's nothing
you had wanted to add or before we see who's next or go into our questions.
MR.HANCOCK: Mr.Chairman,only for the record. We discussed at our meeting with staff taking
a look at the conditional uses,and I didn't know if you wanted me to broach that issue with you or if you
wanted to--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,we can probably take it in order. I have a list of ones that you shouldn't
use but,as a--there's a bunch of conditional uses.
Since you are including all permitted and conditional uses,in taking a close look at some of those
conditional uses like the homeless shelters and bowling centers and things like that,I'm sure the people
behind didn't count on that kind of stuff.
MR.HANCOCK: And nor did we, and we're happy to have that conversation. I think some of those
also may tie into when you look at how hours of operation apply to the uses in the C3 category, if you take
drinking places out and if you take out coin-operated laundries,all of a sudden some of those
operational-hour issues also tend to get set aside as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,I've got about--quite a few of them on a list of they shouldn't apply.
MR.HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can get to that as we get through the documents we have to review
here today.
Did you finish up,other than that,your presentation?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir,doing my best to keep things short for me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anybody else on your team here that needs to speak today
before we discuss things with you'?
MR. HANCOCK: I will raise one issue that Mr. Sawyer discussed.
In the PUD on Page--and this deals with the buffer. I raised--the PUD has been amended to
require 50 percent more trees in the rear landscape buffer. Mr. Sawyer raised a concern,and 1 think a simple
clarification will address it,and that is this: A Type C buffer already has two rows of staggered canopy trees
as a requirement. It's a pretty thick buffer by itself And so if we were to add 50 percent more and they were
canopy trees, it would create a crowded condition and not actually be a good growth opportunity.
It was our intent to supplement with trees,not necessarily canopy trees, in other words,palms and
Page 38 of 100
May 1,2014
things to kind of till in those gaps and give it some variety.
So on Page 13 of 14 under Exhibit F,development commitments,that landscape buffer commitment
is under Item 1 under landscape buffers.And I think if it read at the end,the minimum number of trees within
the buffer shall be increased by 50 percent,comma, inclusive of palm trees or similar varieties,that takes us
out of the issue of trying to shove canopy trees in where they won't grow in a successful manner.
And Mr. Sawyer appeared fine with that modification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Question. My memory of that rear property line is that its a
row of very thick--it's either areca or fishtail palms,maybe 30 feet tall,can't see through them at all. You're
going to put your stuff up against that?
MR.HANCOCK: We're going to be behind the arecas. They are having some problems with the
arecas and some sections of it dying off,and they're replacing it. So I think they're almost kind of counting
on our buffer to give them--while our buffer grows and matures,they then have the opportunity to replace
theirs and still not have a visual issue.
COMMISSIONER CIIRZANOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll remind the panel,this is an adoption hearing for the GMP portion
and then a rezone for the PUD portion,and were hearing both simultaneously,but we'll vote separately on
them.
So with that in mind,does anybody have any questions from any of the large booklets of
documentation that we've got on this project? It probably takes up half the books that you received.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Mr.Chairman?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Oh,I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,no,go ahead.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I'm unclear on the applicant's--applicant's feelings towards the
recommendations of staff on Item 1,2,and 3.Could you--could the applicant discuss that one more time,
your position on the recommendation;I'm sorry.
MR.HANCOCK: We don't like them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much do you not like them?
MR. HANCOCK: But I will try and be a tad bit clearer. Hours of operation, I believe that's best
addressed by what we deem to be compatible uses and incompatible uses,and Commissioner Strain has
alluded to just,for example,removing drinking places. That addresses an issue of something that may be
open late at night that would be incompatible. So I think by addressing the land uses,that's where we best
achieve the compatibility.
The hours of operation, I think,are arbitrary and present difficulty when you start looking at certain
uses that are reasonable even to operate beyond those hours.
Secondly,the cap on 50,000 square feet of individual retail commercial users is not acceptable to the
petitioner. We would like to stay with the language that was agreed upon at the Growth Management Plan
amendment transmittal and hearings at this body and the Board of County Commissioners of 100,000 square
feet. As you heard from the neighbors,they are comfortable with that number as well. We find 50,000
square feet to be extremely limiting and overregulatory with no stated basis.
Thirdly,fast food restaurants prohibited;we would like to retain the allowance for one fast food
restaurant with drive-through. Beyond that,other fast food restaurants would be allowed but they would not
have drive-throughs. And,again, I cited examples,for like--a Moe's,for example,would be a fast food
restaurant.
And,again,we don't have any concerns exhibited from the neighbors with those types of uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that take care of--
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yes,thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's all the documents.I--well,I'll move forward with mine,and then
Page 39 of 100
May 1,2014
if any of you get into--hear issues that I'm bringing up,we can further dive into,that's fine.
And I want to--I want to take it in somewhat of an order with the highest ranking to the lowest,and
we'll start with the staff report for the GMP.
I originally had a question concerning the attempt for the applicant to remove the residential as a
mixed use. I didn't see what it would hurt to leave it in. I have since learned that that was a commitment they
made to the neighborhood behind it, and that seemed reasonable,then,from that perspective.
Did comprehensive staff have any issues with that?
MS.MOSCA: For the record,Michele Mosca,comprehensive planning staff.
Staff does not have an issue with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
On Page 2 of the Exhibit A to the staff report for the GMPA,I pointed out you have an error in the
word-- in H,did you make a record of that previously?
MS.MOSCA: Yes,we did. Also,the applicant put it on the visualizer. We're in agreement with
both II word--changed the word"for"to "from."
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS.MOSCA: And then also the new revised M to add the words"with fuel pumps."
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And in the--he was referring to the language in the PUD when the
said that, and I wanted to make sure we correct the language in the PUD,because the way he restated it was
that it would be convenience stores where the fuel pumps would be prohibited. Really,it's convenience
stores and convenience stores with fuel pumps would be prohibited. So any form of convenience and
convenience--well,that's what it says in the GMP.
MS. MOSCA: Originally in the GMP staff recommendation,we had recommended the prohibition
on convenience stores.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct.
MS.MOSCA: Subsequent to that,we had the meeting with the applicants,and we discussed
convenience stores with fuel pumps.
So the convenience store is the primary use.The fuel pumps,obviously,are accessory to that.
Staff is comfortable if the applicant,based on the directive from the board to go ahead and transmit
that subdistrict text--if the applicant is going to include convenience stores,provided they don't have the
gasoline service pumps.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the clarification is,then,convenience stores are okay,but
convenience stores with pumps are not okay.
MS.MOSCA: From a staff perspective,we'd prefer no convenience stores. But,again,based on
discussions,if the intent was convenience stores with fuel pumps,staff will accept that language.
MR. WEEKS: Mr.Chairman,can I weigh in?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You're going to help clarify what she said;you'd probably be used to
that.
MR.WEEKS: Moving on. The SIC code classifies these differently. A convenience store without
food pumps is considered a grocery store;with the fuel sales,it's categorized with gasoline service station,
That was the way I looked it up in the SIC code. So that's the distinction in the code—SIC code between
those two uses.
As Michele said,I mean, we don't support the petition at all,if you remember from transmittal,but
we believe this change to make the prohibition applicable to convenience stores with fuel pumps meets what
the board's intent was in transmitting that language.
CIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: That prohibited gas stations and convenience stores. We think that convenience
stores with fuels pumps is what was intended by the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this is the adoption hearing,and so most of my questions are
already addressed at the transmittal for this project. But now I'm--I've finished with Michele.
We can move into the PUDZ unless somebody else has questions.
(No response.)
Page 40 of 100
May 1,2014
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well go right into the--
MR. WEEKS: Question,please. Did you want the staff presentations to wait till after this discussion
and do both the plan amendment and rezone?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. These were supposed to he questions of the applicant at this point,
because Tim just finished his presentation,and then I was going to--the remainder will--then usually staff
comes up after that.
Michele,are you going to be here this afternoon anyway? Is there a need to get your presentation
done before lunch so you can go--do you have other things--other places to go or--
MS.MOSCA: I do,but I will be here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we're not going to rush through that. We'll go into the rezone
application.
One of the things that I've noticed in the rezone application,Tim,is the pointing out that the GMPA
encourages physical pedestrian integration of commercial and residential uses but the PUD does not require
it.
Is there a reason you wouldn't want to put a pedestrian integration to the north and south or at least to
the south,to the library and the--1 suggest we should have a full interconnection there,but apparently that
has--a citizen in front of the BCC was concerned about that for some reason. Can you clarify all that for us?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir. To answer the first question,we show on the master plan currently in
the PUD future pedestrian connections both north and south. To the north more problematic because I
believe the property to the north has a small preserve on that property line. So the likelihood of that
happening is not very good.
To the south,I think that's an open opportunity. And we show it on the master plan as an intent, so it
would be addressed at the time of SDP or platting.
With respect to a vehicular connection to the south,that was something that carne up at the board.
The history on that is that there is a resident who represents--indicates he represents a group of homeowners
on Orange Blossom and raised a concern that vehicular connection to the library would put more trips on
Orange Blossom.
I don't personally agree with that logic. I think if you're going to or from this site from Orange
Blossom,you're going to go to or from the site from Orange Blossom whether you go through the library site
or not.
However,the board requested that we remove the vehicular connection from the project to the library
site. That really was the extent of it,sir. I don't have anything else I can expand on.
We are fine either way and leave it to this body to make whatever recommendation you feel is
appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I'm bringing it up is we have requested,demanded,
pushed, shoved private developers all over the county to require intersections. We do it as--from the same
language in the GMPA,and we turn around and,for the one reasonable interconnection to a
government-owned site that would allow people to move from that site to the shopping center and hack and
forth--and to be honest with you,we use that Orange Blossom quite frequently,my wife and I--and to be
into the library and then be able to drive right up to the place to the north would be real convenient.
I'm real puzzled as to how we can ask people in the future to restrict their properties when we're not
even allowing it through one that's as obvious of a good thing as this.
And I understand that one resident from somewhere in the neighborhood--down the road,which is a
public road, and it's a connector road between Goodlette and Airport--doesn't want people driving on that
road,but that's what the road was put there for.
And if you don't go down that road from an interconnection to the library,you're just going to drive
out on Airport,go down,take a right,and go back on the same road again.
So I'm real mystified as to why that seemed relevant. And maybe if we take a closer look at it from
this board's recommendation,the BCC can take a second look at it and maybe find another solution.
MR.HANCOCK: And, sir,if I may,I think one additional element of that--because I don't want to
shortchange the transportation review. If we were to come in at SDP and show that connection and the
Page 41 of 100
May 1,2014
number of trips that would be projected to use that connection created a safety issue on the library's site, I
believe transportation review staff would have the opportunity at that time to say,wait a second,we have a
problem,this may not work; whereas,if it says we can't do it,that decision can never be made.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you were at that meeting,was the issue of safety on that site brought
up,or was it strictly the use of Orange Blossom?
MR. HANCOCK: My recollection was there was a comment about concern over safety,and it may
have come from the dais. But I am--I'm trying to remember that. I'm sorry. I have not reviewed the
minutes, and--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if it's unsafe,we shouldn't be doing it,but I think transportation and
others ought to weigh in on that and maybe provide that additional information for the record so it's clear.
MR.HANCOCK: And,again,until they know the use is coming in,they may not be able even to
make that determination. So I think it's a question of volume and use,and that's something probably better
made at the SDP or plat level.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way,we are going to take our break in about five minutes. I
just want to get as many questions as we can. Under--
COMMISSIONER CI IRZANOWSKI: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I would like to agree with what you just said about that
interconnect. I live right around that corner. I use that site all the time,and I would like to see an
interconnect there.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: It just makes sense to me as well,that that interconnection be
something that--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think having--like we get,we get a lot of comments on the fly,and you
don't get all the information when it happens like that. That's the pwpose. This is being heard as a transmittal
and adoption. So maybe with the adoption review,if our recommendation includes taking a second look at
that interconnection,transportation staff could provide additional information to the board for their
consideration in regards to that in more detail,and that might be the way to look at it.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Mr.Chairman,that's--and that was the purpose of my commnent
during the previous petitioner regarding the Sports Authority/Teddy Bear Museum connection with the
YMCA as well, so I agree.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,Tim,one question. I also notice that the maximum floor area
ratio of.518 has been removed and is no long practical due to the changes in the water management design.
I wasn't concerned about your floor area ratio as much as I am about--you always had to have water
management,so what--how did one factor to the other all of a sudden?
MR.HANCOCK: The previous site plan,which was very building intensive,achieved that floor
area ratio because they were using vaulting of stormwater underneath the parking surfaces. That practice is
no longer something that is permitted on a project of this size and location;therefore,we would have a more
traditional water management approach which,in essence,reduces the buildable area on the site.
That's why the floor area ratio's been removed. It's been replaced with a maximum building
coverage. Again,not in the LDC,but something we wanted to put in there to avoid an overbuild situation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think what I can do is--so we'll break for lunch right now,
and we'll come back at 1 o'clock and resume with your project,wrap that up,and then we'll go into the final
one.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Mr.Chair'?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Before you break,just for the record, as I mentioned to you previously
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're leaving at noon?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: --yeah, I'm leaving at noon;however,the record's going to show I'm
present at the meeting. And I just want to make sure that since I will not be here for this afternoon and the
Page 42 of 100
May 1, 2014
petitioner that will be coining up this afternoon that I'm going to recuse myself on,I just want to put it for the
record that 1 was going to recuse myself. I'm not sure how to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no. The record will show that you're not here,because when you
come back we'll make--once your seat's--when there isn't a body in your seat, one of us will think of saying
something.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay,good. I just want to make sure I'm covered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMIVIISSIONER ROSEN: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN STRALN: Thank you. And with that,we'll take a break till 1 o'clock and resume at
that time.
(A luncheon recess was had,and Commissioner Rosen was absent for the remainder of the meeting.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There we go. Welcome hack,everybody,from lunch.
When you left,we were moving into the discussion or questions concerning the Buckley GNU)and
PUD rezone applications,and we will resume that as soon as Mr. Hancock can unpack his paperwork. It
looks like he did. Okay,Tim.
I think I was asking--oh,by the way, let the record show that Mr.Rosen had to leave for business
elsewhere,and he will not be here this afternoon.
The--my questions are going to center around the PUD,so we'll start with Exhibit A. And right on
top of Exhibit A I have this note that says,review Heidi's language.
Now,the reason I now know that's here is Ileidi made a note to me that the package we got didn't
have all of her possible changes to it,and so she had some,so I figure we'll start with hers,if that's convenient
for you,or do you want me to go on with mine first,then go back to yours?
MR.HANCOCK: Mr.Chairman'?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR.HANCOCK: Actually,Mr.Anderson identified those two changes that were part of the last
request for legal services. They were the ones he put up on the visualizer that were highlighted in yellow.
There were two of them.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it?
MR.HANCOCK: Ms. Ashton,are those the only two--those are the two I'm aware of. The one
where it said"or nonresidential"and the other was a change to the master plan where we inverted the 700 and
1,200.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes,those were the two changes.
MR. HANCOCK: Those were the two Mr.Anderson put up,and we're very clear on those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,good. Then what we'll do is if,Heidi,you see anything as we go on,
just interrupt me,and we'll put any other corrections you have,but as long as that's the only two.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Exhibit A,and Page 1 of that exhibit,there's--under principal uses,you
had included essential services and water management facilities and related structures.
1 know you cleared it up on one further down,but I didn't remember hearing you saying those No.3
and 4 weren't needed because they're already required or allowed by the LDC,so we could take those two
out.
MR.HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Kay, I guess you're--or somebody's making notes from staff so 1
don't-- I'm not going to re-read all these in any kind of motion that's made.
Page 3 under Commercial C--
MR.HANCOCK: Mr.Chair,if 1 could back up.One other point you made was under R,temporary
uses,to renumber that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. Oh,and I think you may have answered it previously, but
just,again,temporary uses would be dictated by the LDC as far as how we define how temporary they are--
Page 43 of 100
May 1,2014
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --the ones that are allowed and everything else,because you didn't mention
--you didn't have standards for those,so they'd fall back on the LDC.
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 3,commercial uses,this is where we get into the
commercial uses. You're asking for all the allowable uses through C3 and the conditional uses. Have you
had time to look at the conditional uses?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And any of those that you think you can live without,Tim?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes,sir. The coin-operated laundry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the number of that is?
MR.HANCOCK: Number--it's actually number-- it's the second conditional use of C3 zoning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm going to use them--when we do the stipulations,I'm going to
read them by number, so—
MR.HANCOCK: Let me go to my--oh,thank you,Bruce.
Conditional Use No. 11,homeless shelters.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about 3,4,and 7? I mean,do you need bowling centers,
coin-operated amusement devices,and drinking places'? Because I thought you said you didn't need drinking
places because you've got restaurants.
MR.HANCOCK: The short answer is no,but let me just--let me be clear about this.
CHAIRMAN STRAL 1: Okay.
MR.HANCOCK: Okay. So 3,bowling centers,we have no problem with deleting that;4,
coin-operated ammsement devices,the only concern I have there is a facility like a Dave and Buster's that has
a restaurant and a gaming component in it,whether that would be considered coin-operated amusement
devices. I believe it would qualify under a different use than this, but I'm looking to Mr. Bellows to see if I'm
ballpark on that.
MR.BELLOWS: Can you repeat the question?
MR. HANCOCK: What we're looking at is if we eliminated coin-operated amusement devices,I
mean,those were the arcades that we went to as kids that don't exist anymore,but for something like a Dave
and Buster's where there is a game component plus a restaurant. Would this apply to that?
MR.BELLOWS: No,it would not. Those arc deemed accessory type things to those types of
restaurants. The Chuck E. Cheese is what Kay was--
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Are we on C3?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes. Like a Chuck E. Cheese,for example.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Commercial C on Page 3,second--or third paragraph where he
references he's going to include all the conditional uses in this application. So now I'm questioning the
conditional uses that are under the C3 zoning district.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Under C3.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR.HANCOCK: So what we're going to do is we're going to--a list of conditional uses that are
not permitted as the MID,I guess,is the list we're creating now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right,2,3,4,7, 11.
MR. HANCOCK: Two,three,four. Seven,drinking places,we are fine with that; 11,homeless
shelters. While it appears elsewhere,I think it's a clarification that needs to be made.
If it's problematic,motion picture theaters,we're right down the street from one,but I don't see it
being an issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't--I mean, I don't know why anybody would care about--they're all
enclosed,so I didn't have an issue with it.
MR.HANCOCK: Yes. Twenty-one,soup kitchens.
CHAIRMAN STRA-LN: Now,what about social services? I don't know what that includes,and
sometimes it gets into pretty exotic stuff,so--
Page 44 of 100
May 1,2014
MR.HANCOCK: What I can do,sir, is,as there's continued dialogue,let me pull up on my phone
that SIC code and make sure that it doesn't preclude things such as office type uses under social services. But
if its something like detox programs,you know,and that nature,certainly we'd be willing to exclude those
from this location. I just need a little clarification on that SIC code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So would you read those numbers off again,Tim,so I get them
right.
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir. Under conditional uses of the C3,the following would be prohibited:
No.2,ancillary plants;No.3,bowling centers;No.4,coin-operated amusement devices,which Ms.Deselem
would not include a Chuck E.Cheese. She's never been to a Dave and Buster's,but well work on that.
Number 7,drinking places;No. 11, homeless shelters;No.21,soup kitchens;and No. 20,social
services,and I will come back and clarify if that is problematic after I've had a little more time to look at the
SIC code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great,thank you.
Okay. That gets us--let me see where I'm at here. When we got into your--down on the same
page,when you previously-- like C2, it said SIC Group 5411,convenience stores only. You didn't mean
convenience stores only now;you meant convenience store if they had fuel dispensing facilities,right?
MR.HANCOCK: Correct. So under--on Page 3 of 16,under Item A2,it would read SIC Group
5411,convenience stores with fuel pumps only,and that also would read--that same language would apply
under Item A3 where it says SIC Group 5411,convenience stores with fuel pumps only.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under the next page,which is Page 4, I believe you already
corrected all this. B 1,2,3,and 5 were not needed, so they won't be listed;is that correct?
MR.HANCOCK: One,two,three,and five,correct. There will only be two items remaining under
B, accessory uses currently reading as 4 and 6,and they'lI be renumbered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then we get to the standards table,which is on Page 5. I
understand the changes from buildings to unit,and then your lake setback will be zero feet from the
maintenance easement.
MR. HANCOCK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: And I'm sorry--will read 20 feet or zero feet from the maintenance easement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,how do you decide which one to use then?
MR.HANCOCK: Well,I can't think of a situation except when we have a bulkhead immediately
adjacent to the building on the lake.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have a bulkhead and you have your--you don't have a maintenance
easement where the bulkhead is,so you'd be able to go right to the bulkhead,which is probably a reason why
you'd put the bulkhead in,if you want some close-to-water dining or something.
MR.HANCOCK: And that's covered under Item 3 under Exhibit B,development standards. So I
see 0 feet from the lake maintenance easement is fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. That covers all the situations.
We cleared up the issue with the underbuilding parking. There is not going to be any.
MR.HANCOCK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm moving--on the master plan,you're going to take out the required PUD
setbacks,the development standards,and what else,planning notes?
MR.HANCOCK: And deviations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And deviations.
MR.HANCOCK: Because they are contained in the document.
That would leave open space requirement and land-use summary,because the summary in itself does
not call out the open space requirement individually. So those will be the two elements remaining on the
master plan there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And on Page 13,you just said, I believe previously,that No.3,
outdoor lighting,any lighting within 50 feet of residential property line outside the MPUD will be limited to
15 feet in height. Didn't you just say you wanted to go 30? Because you gave us 50. Why would we take 30
Page 45 of 100
May 1, 2014
now?
MR.HANCOCK: Because I realized that 50 was extraneous. It was excessive. If you want to leave
50 in,that's okay. I just-- I looked at a real-world example of it,and 30 feet would be shielded either way.
You wouldn't see it from the vegetation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you don't mind 50, I'd rather not change the document if we don't
have to.
MR.IIANCOCK: We can leave that. And the one suggestion I would make there is under Item 2--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,yeah.
MR.HANCOCK: --I would say lighting within 30 feet of the perimeter of the project will utilize
full cut-off shields. That--when you look at the light spill of a fixture,if you're beyond 30 feet with a flat
panel fixture,you don't have light spill that goes more than 15 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you're still going to have to do them all flat panel fixtures. So
how are you going to get more light spill than that anyway?
MR.HANCOCK: This is specifically to determine which fixtures are required to have full cut-off
shields. The ones on the perimeter of the project,having cut-off shields--which,again,the ones at the
library currently do not--actually create more of a zero wall,if you will,for a spill effect. So what I'm
saying is,flat panel everywhere. The ones on the perimeter of the project will have full cut-off shields.
And I'm giving a dimension because you mentioned that--what does perimeter mean.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep.
MR.HANCOCK: So we're going to say within 30 feet of the property line we'll have full cut-off
shields.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under transportation,Items 2 and 3,so if we didn't say,No. 2,additional
site and off-site improvements as required shall be addressed at the same time of site development plans
permitting,that means you wouldn't have to address--I mean, it's this extraneous language. I'm wondering,
do we need 2 and do we need 3?
MR. HANCOCK: In my opinion,no,we do not need 2 because I've never had staff give me an
excuse not to address off-site improvements.
And,again,No.3 is actually in the Land Development Code anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So why don't we just drop 2 and 3. It's more information that only
gets in the way and certainly can cause confusion down the road.
And that is the last issues I had on your MID for now.
MR.ItANCOCK: Mr. Chair, if 1 may.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR.HANCOCK: Prior to recommencing the hearing,Ms.Russo,who spoke previously,apparently
she was concerned about her response to Ms.Ebert and her possible lack of clarity in that.And she went
home and actually typed something up,handed it to me with her signature here,which I would like to enter
into the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And she mentioned it to me. I suggested she give it to you for
disbursement. But instead,why don't you just read it for the record and provide a copy to the court reporter.
MR. HANCOCK: I will. And I only have one copy,so that's probably the best way to do it.
MR.ANDERSON: I gave it to the court reporter.
MR. HANCOCK: Oh,the court reporter has it. Apparently we had two copies.
The letter reads as follows: I want to be clear on my position for the use of the Buckley property. As
a representative of the residents of Emerald Lakes,we want the property--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Slow down,Tim. Terri's got to type as fast as you talk,and you're worse
than me sometimes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's hard to beat.
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you for the reminder. We want the--that I'm worse than you,I meant.
As a representative of the residents of Emerald Lakes,we want the Buckley property to be built for
commercial use.
I realized that my response was somewhat vague at first,and it shouldn't have been. The property
Page 46 of 100
May 1,2014
values of Emerald Lakes would be increased dramatically by seeing commercial buildings constructed on the
Buckley property site.
The residents can walk to have a cup of coffee,do some banking,et cetera,as they do when they
walk to Stonewood Restaurant,Pete's Pizza,mail something at the UPS store,or have an ice cream to(sic)
the property Fountain Lakes that is situated on the other side of our community near Airport Road.
Convenience and location have been paramount to the success of our community,and we want that
to continue.
When I left the session to make a doctor's appointment,1 realized that the strength of my answers did
not match my intent. That being said and,for the record,I repeat that we have the utmost confidence in the
recommendations Tim Hancock from Stantec Engineering,and Bruce Anderson from Roetzel&Andress
have proposed.'They have worked closely with our community to make sure any concerns that we have are
addressed and have done so with extreme diligence.
We want a commercial site built on the Buckley property. 'Thank you.
And I was clear in the discussion with Ms.Russo that she does understand that it can be 100 percent
commercial,it could be 100 percent residential,it could be a mixture of the two. It has also been their
preference,as they stated to us,they would rather see commercial there,but we've never been ambiguous
about--that it could be residential. The primary change being it just can't be both anymore on the same
parcel.
But 1 wanted to read that into the record,and the court reporter does have a copy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have one other question we probably should talk a little bit
about,and that's this staff suggestion that we go to 50,000 square feet as the maximum-size building.
We have--are you familiar with our architectural standards?
MR.HANCOCK: I am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since you were the originator of those.
MR. HANCOCK: They were much smaller when I created them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well,they've many pages now. But that detail has provided a good
opportunity to keep a style for Collier County that I think everybody in the end sees as better,although they
may not recognize why. So I like the architectural standards we have. I think that for all the complaints we
get,we end up getting a better product,and the county as a whole has a better image.
Your buildings,even though they could go up to 100,000 square feet,will be like all buildings in the
county. They will fall into those architectural standards. Part of that, when you get to a larger building, is to
have a sizable stepping forward and back articulation of the facades. And in this particular case,you've got
all your Airport Road facade, and I'm not sure if the others are going to be any more primary,but you'll
definitely have secondary.
So for that reason I don't see as much of a concern with the limitation on the size beyond what you've
already expressed the supply. And maybe you can comment on that. I mean,your articulation of that facade
is going to break it all up. You can't have a flat--like the Toys R Us and Sports Authority that actually
originated the need for the architectural standards. We can't do that anymore.
So from that purpose, 100,000-square-foot building might actually appear just like any other size
building because of the way they could be joined together and have the different front and backs. Is that a
fair statement from your perspective?
MR.HANCOCK: It is,and I think you've encapsulated somewhat of our position very clearly.
The other thing to remember is we're talking about retail buildings,unlike office buildings which
routinely will go three,four,five stories or greater.
Retail generally--and there may be some exceptions out there,and none come to mind immediately.
But retail,generally,is at most a two-story building;90 percent of the cases is a one-store building. And the
two-stories are rare. I think of some fumiture stores that have an upstairs,but most retail buildings are
single-story buildings.
So with that understanding and with the application of the architectural standards and the landscaping
code and the fact that we have shared some sight line style exhibits with the residents based on the maximum
height of the building and their view angle and that they were comfortable with that, I think to bring that
Page 47 of 100
May 1, 2014
number down to a number that,candidly,may make some people feel better about what's built there but in
the end will only have the potential impact of restricting reasonable uses,such as a furniture store,which
would be a good neighbor--I think we've got enough regulations in place,and I think the 100,000 keeps us
below that superstore level,which was the intent,and were very comfortable with that. More than that,I
think,becomes an undue restriction.
CHAIRMAN STRALN: Okay. '!'hank you,Tim. I think that's all.
Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant?
Go ahead,Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim,I have some concerns with this project. It's probably what you
removed from it. In reading the notes,you removed model sales facilities. You also have no residential
builder involved, is one of your notes. You removed the flexibility to replace residential or commercial to
make it either way, and your requirement to access all of the commercial building being internal was
removed.
Those were kind of in the original,and now you can enter from, like,three different places on
Airport. Is there going to be,like, a deceleration lane? Is there going to be something where they can go in
with this? Can you explain that to me?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,ma'am. In looking at the PUT)master plan,which I believe is Page 10 of the
PUD document,you will see on Airport-Pulling Road a primary central point of access. The aerial for the
property,which is on Page 6 of 17 of your staff report. And I'm sorry, it's difficult to see here even if I put it
on the visualizer. But that main entry point is there for a reason. It's because there's an existing directional
median cut.
Based on the size of the project,if it were to be developed predominantly or fully commercial, a turn
lane on Airport Road would be required as a decel into this site. It would be a right-in,and it would be a
right-out or a northbound left-in.The turning movement we would not be allowed to have there,despite my
client's best wishes, is a left-out.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Left-in.
MR.HANCOCK: The people at Lakeside would like very much to have a traffic signal at this
intersection,and we discussed it at the transmittal hearing with this body. We would like that,too. The
problem is the spacing between Orange Blossom and the entrance which goes to Piper's Grove,to Emerald
Lakes,and to Fountain Park is too close for that to be executed safely.
So the entrance will be pretty much--we know what it's going to look like. And,yes,ma'am,the
degree of development we're talking about would require a turn lane.
Even if it were all residential at that number,it is highly likely that it would trip a turn lane
requirement. I live in a neighborhood with only 94 homes,and we have a turn lane, so--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know.
MR.HANCOCK: --on Livingston Road. So,yes,a turn lane would be required.
The north and south access points,which we show as right-in and right-out only,those would he
subject to permitting at the time of SDP or plat. We think they're good dispersal points. But,for example,
depending on the relationship to the property to the north,that may or may not have a turn lane. That will be
determined by transportation review staff at a later level,at a development order level.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And the other thing is the--you don't like the time on this
where it closes at 11. How late would you like to see this open?
MR.HANCOCK: I don't see a reason,candidly,with the list of permitted uses,for there to be a time
limitation on the project.
When you go through the list of permitted uses,I think those that could create an incompatibility
because there is a nature or history of late-night operation have either been removed or restricted.
My concern is riot what we know. You know,it's what we don't know. For example,a fitness
facility. They open at 5 a.m. So I can easily say,well,the time restriction just won't apply to a fitness
facility. What about a walk-in clinic?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: There's one down the street.
MR.HANCOCK: There's one down the street.And I think with Obama Care coming,there's going
Page 48 of 100
May 1,2014
to be more.
What are the things we don't know? The problem we have,Ms.Ebert,is that in these zoning
documents hours of operation as a broad-based limitation without knowing what use it applies becomes
cumbersome.
if you go to the north at the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Airport,there is the gallery
shops--or Galleria Shops there. I'll point out to you that there are no hours of operation limitation on that.
It's a much larger project.
And as you go to the north and you pull out on that street,there are homes right across the street. So
within Collier County,we don't have a history of limiting iting entire commercial PUDs to these types of hourly
operations even if they are adjacent to residential. I think where it is appropriate is when you--well,it's been
a limited case,and I think this body's seen it on churches,for example,being concerned about,you know,the
peace hours and then that type of thing.
So my concern is what we don't know. And I don't know who we're precluding with those hours of
operation. If a retailer wants to go here but three to four times a year they have a Black Friday type sales that
goes beyond those hours,they would be precluded by zoning. They can't even get an exception to it.
So it's a hurdle. And,candidly,the reason this property's still vacant is because there are just too
many hurdles to develop the property as it's currently permitted. And so,in good conscience,I cannot
suggest that we should accept that hurdle.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is--I still am a little concerned because you have all residential,really,
right around you. I am familiar with the area. You have Stan across the street. But you have Piper's
Crossing,you have Emerald Lakes,and you have the ALF right next to you. I really consider that residential.
And you cross the street from the Ai.F and you have a corner activity center with thousands of square feet in
all that area.
My concern is that you're going to flip this.I don't know what you told your neighbors,but I just
have a feeling it's--and we're going to end up with an activity center in the middle of a block 500 feet from
an activity center.
I really would kind of hate to see that happen. I just--I am not in favor of strip malls,and this is--
this is what fin thinking that is going to happen to this.
So I just want to let you know my feelings on this. The board can do as they wish on this.
MR.HANCOCK: Well,if I may,you raised two points that I think can--I can offer some
clarification. The second point you said was your concern was strip malls. The Growth Management Plan
language for this project that you approved and transmitted limited the project to no more than 50 percent of
the built commercial square footage may be in combined spaces. That was specifically written in so that this
could not become one strip mall or one shopping center.
That was based on a concern Ms.Mosca raised about the space to the north that still has not fully
recovered,end-line retail. We don't want to compete with that. And,frankly,if we were competing with
that,there's not much of a market at this stage because of sonic of that vacant space in the area. So we
anticipate this being an aggregation of multiple commercial buildings if it goes the conunercial route.
So it is prohibited from being one strip center. So hopefully that can give you some peace on that
item.
"The second item I think that is critical here is that looking at the impacts to the residences,currently
the amount of square footage we're talking about is zoned and permitted. They already could have this
amount of commercial square footage.
What changes is the style and character,the old,what I'll call,entertainment district approach that
this was modeled after, something more like a 5111 Avenue or a Mercato on a smaller scale. What the
residents made clear to us is they see a far greater incompatibility with restaurant row and a Main Street and
an entertainment style district occurring in this location versus a Kohl's or a Dick's Sporting Goods or--
there's a shop I became aware of called Christmas Tree shops. Never seen them before in my life.
Apparently they're likes a Michael's crafts,but they're larger.
We had very specific discussions with the residents saying,look,these are the types of businesses
that can go in here at this square footage limitation. Are you okay with that? The answer was yes. Because
Page 49 of 100
May 1,2014
they know what they have now,and they see this as an improvement.
I hope that gives you some comfort. I don't know that I can answer all of your concerns.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I did see earlier today where it looked like the Greek Orthodox
Church was here. But being stuff went on so long,they left. I would have liked to hear their comments,
because it is pretty much of a residential,you know,neighborhood the way it is now,and that's--
MR. HANCOCK: My guess is they were concerned about parking during the festival,which this
site has been used for some years.
And, like I say,l lived in Lakeside for some years. To call this area predominantly residential,
there's a lot of residential;there's a lot of nonresidential. In addition to the library to the south,you have the
Italian American Club,which has got commercial zoning on it. You've got five acres to the south of that with
commercial zoning on it. This is really more of a hybrid area.
But,again, I don't think I can resolve all of your concerns,but I wanted to at least address those that I
think we have taken an effort to accommodate those concerns to the degree we can in the current PUD
document.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Tim.
Anybody else have any questions of Tim at this time? Go ahead,Charlette.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes,I have a question.
How did we decide to handle the interconnections?
MR. HANCOCK: I think that's a little bit of an open book. I did jot down some language,if--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it is,and I--we haven't--were still going to hear staff report and
everything,so I was going to discuss it towards the end,but we might as well discuss it now.
I asked--or John Podczerwinsky and I talked at lunchtime,and he indicated that staff would have no
way of evaluating or would not generally evaluate the internal life safety issues of a project such as the library
project. That's not what they do. They look at the roads. So to try to understand what the issues may be
there,I'm not sure how we would approach that.
I also pulled up the library site plan and zoning atlas to see if they had any requirement to tie in,and
they do not. They are a conditional use,not a PUD. So there was no requirement to tie in,which puts them
in the same category as most other projects in the county that don't have the accommodation or the necessity
by ordinance to tie in.
So based on that,it does change it a little bit. If its the--it's property owned by parks and rec,and if
they don't want a tie-in for safety reasons,I don't believe they're going to get one. It does--it seems to make
logical sense to have one there,but if the board has already determined one's not to go there,I'm not sure,
with the conditions I have found,there's a way to tactfully make that happen.
MR.HANCOCK: I want to be clear that we as the petitioner are not particularly driven one way or
the other on this issue. More to the point that Commissioner Strain just indicated, I recall now,after
attending an event where there was--the library parking area was being used for that event,where the bus
dropped you off on Airport Road to get from the sidewalk on Airport Road to where your car was. If you
walked behind the library,I don't believe there are sidewalks back there. It's an access drive aisle only.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is.
MR. HANCOCK: So even if we're to put a pedestrian connection there,we're going to be dumping
people off into drive aisle where there is no sidewalk.
I was on the site this morning,and as you get between the library building and the Clerk's Office,
again,to the rear of the property,there's no pedestrian--and there was no reason to install one. I'm not
saying anybody missed something,but--so I think we need to encourage. And we are happy to provide a
pedestrian connection where and if it makes safe and practical sense,but I certainly don't want to preclude the
fact that when--for us to put a sidewalk over to the library and dump people out onto a drive aisle could be
more problematic than having tlrem at least go out to the sidewalk within the right-of-way where access
internal to the site is planned. So not just from a vehicular,but even from a pedestrian standpoint, it may he
problematic.
CITATRMAN STRAIN: And I tend to agree after doing the research at lunchtime. So as much as T
Page 50 of 100
May 1, 2014
think it would be a good thing to have, I don't know how we can get there at this point.
MR.HANCOCK: And,candidly,I wanted it because it made sense to me to connect commercial
and institutional uses. It just makes sense, but it has to be programmed from the start.
CI-IAiRMAN STRAIN: There is a parking lot on the Airport Road side of the library building,and it
is a two-way parking lot. So the connection, if made,would have to go into there,but that would route the
traffic all around the front of the library instead of the back which,again,may be a problem.
So,unfortunately,the design of that south building,the library building,may not accommodate it as
easily as we had hoped or I had hoped,at least.
So I don't know what to do to encourage it. I don't know how we can at this point. May not be a
practical solution.
MR.HANCOCK: I think if we indicate that it's encouraged where practical. We have used that
kind of language,you know,with staff in the past where,you know,that's worked out fairly well in the past
on other projects.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: It just seems like a missed opportunity to me,but I know all the
complicated aspects that have been surfaced today regarding the issue,but it just seems a missed opportunity
in so many ways to connect and not make all the traffic go back out on Airport-Pulling.
MR. HANCOCK: I cannot disagree with you,but I'm afraid the existing conditions do make it
problematic.
CII JRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what to do with it at this point. I like the idea of the
interconnects because--I mean,I would use it;otherwise,you're just going to go back out on Airport and go
back down and make a right on Orange Blossom,and that seems the wrong way to go.
You know,they've got"the pedestrian connections are encouraged to all perimeter projects" in the
language,but that doesn't help the vehicle part of it. Maybe it will come back up for discussion in front of the
board,they'll find a way to do it between now and then,but I don't know if it's anything we should he
recommending because I don't know how to get there.
MR.HANCOCK: I've failed in my desire to even create a one-way connection from the library to
the commercial site to try and open some of that up,because,really,that's the one that's most problematic. If
someone's on the library site and they want to go to this site,they've got to go out onto Orange Blossom,to
the light,make a left,turn left in.
But,you know,you can put all the one-way signs up you want in the world;nobody really has to
follow them.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And the other thing is,depending on what kind of businesses,if this
does go commercial,there are going to be folks that go to the library that are going to want to go and frequent
those businesses,and they're going to do exactly what you just described.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ironically,when I asked the question of why it was taken out,and 1 heard
there was apparently a person that complained from a neighborhood down to the west,I didn't know if there
was any review associated with that. It was just,hey,I don't like this here,and my neighborhood doesn't like
it, so take it out. They would be probably one of the people benefiting the most,because anybody that would
turn into the library to come into the commercial area through that instead of going and queuing up that light,
left-hand turn lane,can only make their access to Airport Road easier,not worse.
And if they think they're going to stop traffic on Orange Blossom, it isn't going to have any impact
on it at all,because the people going to Orange Blossom would still just go out on Airport to go to Orange
Blossom.
So I'm not sure what the gain was by the neighborhood thinking it was a bad thing for them,but that
wasn't discussed by this board,and I don't think anybody from the neighborhood is here.We'll certainly ask,
and we'll go from there. I don't know what else to do at this point.
Anybody else have any questions of Tim?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not,let's go to staff report.
MS.DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record,Kay Deselem with the zoning department.
You do have the staff report in front of you,revised 4/7/14. And I won't belabor the issues. I will
Page 51 of 100
May 1, 2014
jump right to where we're in disagreement,pointing to Page 9 of 17 of the staff report and noting that one of
the things that Tim said in his presentation was that they're also concerned about what we don't know,and
that's exactly where staff is.
We've got a bubble plan in front of us,and we just don't know. We have no idea what's going to go
where,how the buildings are going to be oriented,what's going to be front,what's going to be back,and so it
kind of leaves us open. We just don't know. We feel that the--it leaves the neighborhood vulnerable to that.
And as far as the conditions that are listed on Page 16, I would have to disagree with Tian when he
says that PUDs do not normally have hours of operation limitations.
'fwo things--two different projects come to mind. The Golden Gate Estates shopping center and the
Brooks Village,and I'm sure there's others.Those are just the two that do come to mind.
And 1 know in the Golden Gate shopping center it was due to abutting residential uses and concerns
of the residents that Iived in the area.And 1 think it's appropriate here as well.
Now,I think the language might be improved as far as how it's written. It might include some
limitations just to being open to the public,whereas,that would allow employees to be in the building and
working if they so desired, and it would be limited to commercial uses.
Now,whether you would want to further limit that and separate commercial or,I'm sorry, office
from retail,that might be appropriate as well,because I think it's usually the retail that has more impact on a
neighborhood.
But I think 7 o'clock in the morning to 11 p.m.,in my professional opinion,is appropriate. That's
more of the time when people are up and about. They might have small children they've put to bed but,by
and large,people are up and about those hours.
I do understand that some of the limitations that have been agreed to today as far as the uses do help
that situation. Remember when staff was writing this,there were still those uses in here.
As far as the square footage limitation,he said that our--Tim,being he,had said that our particular
number was arbitrary. Well,I've not seen anything in what I've looked at to prove that 100,000 square feet
was any less arbitrary than 50-.
I was trying to come up with something between what was allowed in the original document,the
GMP document,of 15,000 square feet and something between that and 100,000 square feet. And I thought,
with a shopping center of this size,that 50-was a reasonable limitation,not knowing where,again,anything's
going to be or how it's going to be oriented. We just have that bubble to look at.
The Condition No.3,some of the things I've heard today that Tim said I think can change staffs
position on that. I think we can agree to the one fast food restaurant with a drive-through if it's limited to
within 300 feet of Airport--I believe that was what he offered--and then any other fast food establishments
would not be permitted to have a drive-through.
So 1 think we've come to at least a little bit of an agreement,but I welcome any questions that you
might have,and I'll try my best to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody? Stan.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKL Yeah. Can you make it so that the drive-through can open
earlier?When I hit McDonald's at 6 o'clock,I'm never the first car there;I'm fifth, sixth. You know,people
get up early,and they hit that because they're going out somewhere.
MS. DESELEM: That's a good point.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And it's not--that noise is not going to wake me up as much
as the Publix in the other direction that gets their food deliveries. And when my windows are open in the
winter,that's what I hear, so--and that's four or five in the morning.
M.S. DESELEM: We were concerned about the noise from the drive-through,the old, "Do you want
fries with that?"kind of thing. But that seems like it might be appropriate if it's limited to that one fast food
restaurant. Maybe a 6 o'clock hour might be appropriate. I don't know when McDonald's opens. Some are
24 hour, I believe.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOW SKI: Yeah,I think so.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question,Kay. Would, like,a Starbucks with a drive-through
be considered a fast food?
Page 52 of 100
May 1, 2014
MS.DESELEM: I believe so. I'll look to Ray to clarify that,but I believe so. Is that considered a
fast food establishment?
MR.BELLOWS: Which one?
MS.DESELEM: Starbucks.
MR.BELLOWS: I don't believe they're classified the same way. Starbucks is more of a cafe
drinking place. I think it's not true fast food in that regard. They're different SIC codes,I believe.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So as this is written or as proposed to be written,then that allowed for
a fast food with a drive-through and,say,if they got a business such as Starbucks that wanted to have a
drive-through for coffee,that both would be permitted on this cornunercial property?
MR.BELLOWS: 1 think we need to double-check the SIC codes. I think they're different,but I'd
have to check again.
MS.DESELEM: We're working on it,too,so--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have a definition for fast food?
MS.DESELEM: I think we do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't recall one.Because,I mean,Publix could be fast food,because they
serve sandwiches ready to go. That's pretty fast. I mean,so--
MS.DESELEM: Well,but that's the accessory use to Publix. That the not general.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But where's the definition to separate them out?
MS.DESELEM: Did you find something?
MR. HANCOCK: We have a definition in the code,if that's--
MS.DESELEM: I thought we did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't remember one,but--
MS.DESELEM: Yeah. As far as SIC codes,I'm sure that the version that we use,which is about 20
years old,doesn't anticipate Starbucks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,it doesn't anticipate electronic stores, it doesn't anticipate automotive
vehicles. It's pretty old.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Horse and buggy?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,it's terrible. It's an'87 code that's never been updated.
MR. HANCOCK: Tim Hancock,for the record.
LDC Section 1.08.02,under definitions,restaurant/fast food--I'm trying so hard to speak slowly--
reads as follows: An establishment where food prepared served to the customers in a ready-to-consume state
for consumption either within the restaurant building,outside the building but on the same premises,or off
the premises and having any combination of two or more of the following characteristics.
Now,we can define some stuff here,can't we?
A,a limited menu,usually posted on a sign rather than printed on individual sheets or booklets;B,
self-service rather than table service by restaurant employees;C,disposable containers and utensils;D,a
kitchen area in excess of 50 percent of the total floor area or; E,a cafeteria or delicatessen shall not be
deemed a fast food restaurant for the purposes of this Land Development Code. I,just realized my house is a
fast food restaurant.
But to answer the question--so,for example,when we think of fast food,our mind goes to
McDonald's,Burger King,Wendy's,et cetera.Boston Market,Polio Tropical,these still qualify under this
definition as fast food restaurants with a drive-through. A Starbucks or a Dunkin Donuts is a coffee shop
which is under eating places. So it would be a separate business with a drive-through.
That's why we capped the total number of drive-throughs at four,because there are some that--a
pharmacy can have a drive-through;a bank can have a drive-through. So that's the reason for the
differentiation of fast food is--but you could technically have a fast food restaurant,Polio Tropical,and next
to it could be a Dunkin Donuts.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And my point of the question was we're focusing on a drive-through
only as it relates to fast food being 300 feet from Airport-Pulling,and what I was trying to determine is,if
you would have other drive-throughs on that property,would they he 300 feet from Airport-Pulling,or would
they be somewhere else on the property?
Page 53 of 100
May 1, 2014
MR. HANCOCK: There are some other drive-throughs that are not as dependent on being adjacent
to being arterial. For example, Suncoast Federal Credit Union. You know,they have drive-throughs in the
two locations I can think of that are actually behind the building. You don't even see them from the roadway.
Some pharmacies--and even some groceries stores now will have drive-throughs pharmacy lanes next to the
building, so it could be in the hack or on the side.
So that--I think the one that is most concerning and I think--1 agree with staff on this from a
drive-through component--hours of operation and volume alone is fast food. And That's the one where we
chose to restrict it.
The others,even a Starbucks,you know,high volume but,you know,it's not typically a 24-hour
operation. So the fast food is the area where I chose to focus.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this is staffs report.
MR.HANCOCK: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate your help,but we really want to get staff before we give you
any more airtime.
MS.DESELEM: Yeah. He did jump up to respond,more or less,to the question.
Yeah,Mike Rosi clarified that a coffee shop is,indeed,an eating place,which is under SIC Code
5812, so that clarifies that that is not a fast food restaurant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you--does that mean you're finished with your staff report?
MS. DESELEM: Yes. I'm ready to respond to any questions,which is what I was doing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other questions of Kay?
Did you have something,Diane? Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I just really agree with you,Kay,that we don't know,and it's a
bubble plan. I just don't have a good feeling with this. And we all have--I think 100,000 square feet--
going from 15-to 100-is a huge jump. So I see where you picked out the 50-on that. I can go along with
the drive-through. That doesn't bother me.
MS.DESELEM: We would have been willing to entertain some specific exceptions to that from the
applicant had they proposed any,but up to this time they haven't.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if the applicant wanted to build a building,he had--he would have to
break it up into whatever sizes were the allowable maximum. Say he built a 70,000-square-foot building,
he'd have to have at least two tenants or more in that building;is that right?
MS.DESELEM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty--by your standard.
MS.DESELEM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty and then 20,000 or 25,000.
MS.DESELEM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If he wanted to build a 100,000-square-foot building, by his
standard,he could put one tenant in it.
MS. DESELEM: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If he wanted to build a 162,000-square-foot building,he'd have--he could
have any number of tenants he wanted.
But my point is,this whole property could be built as one building. What do we care how it's used?
MS.DESEI,EM: It's a matter of the orientation and the sizing and the impact that that could possibly
have on the neighbors.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to be that way--
MS.DESELEM: Three stories high. He says in his presentation that most retail businesses are one
story high,but at no time did be offer to limit the retail uses in the project to one story.He's still asking for
three-story structures.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there's not going to be any living quarters. You're suggesting he's
going to potentially do the three stories of retail?
MS. DESELEM: That's potentially what he could do,yes.
Page 54 of 100
May 1, 2014
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that retail would be set back 100 feet from the neighbors to the
east,which is the only residential tract.
MS. DESEI,EM: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The point about the larger building,our architectural standards are
still going to apply,whether it's a little building or a bigger building. And I'm not sure there's a big difference
in the way it appears from the outside versus the square footage one tenant uses over another.
So you had something else you wanted to add?
MS.DESELEM: Yes, if I may. She was kind enough to--she,being Michele,was kind enough to
provide to me the urban designation,urban mixed-use district,Buckley mixed-use subdistrict--that's a lot to
say. And what it actually calls for--and I'm quoting--the activity centers to the north and south provide for
large-scale commercial uses while this subdistrict is intended to promote convenience and intermediate
commercial development to serve existing and future residential development in the immediate area.
And that's where staffs looking at. And I think anything larger than 50 square--50,000 foot would
start drawing in people from around the area,and that's clearly not the intent of that subdistrict for Buckley.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean,I drive by there to get to Lowe's and Costco and places like
that. So if this was considered neighborhood commercial, I wouldn't be able to stop there because I'm not
from that area?
MS. DESEI,EM: Oh,they might let you stop.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See,that's the difference.I don't think that the size of the building is going
to make any difference who drives there.They're going to go there because it's going to serve what they want
to buy. And you're in an area that's already quite congested. You're right,you've got activity centers north
and south. It's in the urban area. It's got all the services,and it's got a road that has the capacity.
Personally,I don't see where it makes a difference whether it's 50,000 or 100,000 square feet for the
building,so--anyway,that's my thought on it. Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Kay.
Are there any speakers from the public registered,Ray?
MR.BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the public want to comment on this petition?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anything else from staff?
(No response.)
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw you were anxious with a bunch of paperwork, so I figured I'll give
you the chalice.
MS.MOSCA: Again,for the record,Michele Mosca with comprehensive planning staff.
No, [just actually wanted to provide that subdistrict text for Kay consistent with her recommendation
of 50,000 square feet cap on those buildings.
What I do--I just want to quickly put on the record that comprehensive planning staff is not
supportive of this amendment. Staffs opinion is that the data and analysis that was originally provided with
the application does not warrant or support what they're proposing.
[also want,just for those who were not on the Planning Commission previously,to understand how
this particular subdistrict originated.
It was touted as a pedestrian scale,mixed-use development. There were limitations on the square
feet. The maximum retail that they could have on the site--and I have to check my numbers--was 92,225
square feet. So what the application is doing--the amendment allows for the combination,the combining of
the office square-feet limit and the retail square-feet limit to allow up to 162,750 square feet.
So there is a big difference there. It's not just a matter of a switch from retail to a different style of
development,and I wanted to make sure I put that on the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Page 55 of 100
May 1,2014
With that,does the applicant wish to have any final concluding remarks or rebuttal'?
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Hancock and I both have something to say.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.ANDERSON: First of all,for just a little bit of a history lesson. Back when the Buckley
mixed-use subdistrict was first approved,the homeowners'association in Emerald Lakes sued the county
because they didn't like what had been proposed. They lost,and I think a compromise may have been
worked out.
But they were here today,spoke fully in support of this application,and they're the most closely
affected people of anybody,and they want this to go in. We worked very closely with them to make sure that
their concerns were addressed. And,you know,these discussions about compatibility and things like that,I
mean,those are important,and they've been factored into consideration with a lot of the restrictions that are in
there.
Now,Kay referred to this as a shopping center. And I've got to remind everyone,again,there's a
limitation on how much of the building can be in one building. It's 55 percent--50 percent. So you can't
have a true strip shopping center there with that kind of a limitation.
And the most--under worst-case scenario for a commercial building,you could have one that's
100,000 square feet and another that's 62,000 square feet;otherwise,you know,they could be any number of
buildings.
And if we've learned anything from the recession it's that we need to maintain some flexibility to
respond to the changes in the market. And we would just ask you to factor that in,the fact that,you know,
we have neighborhood support for what's proposed and have agreed to significant development restrictions.
And I ll let Tim address a couple other things. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Bruce, I've got some suggestions trying to seek a compromise for--
and as you guys finish up, I'll ask you both to comment on these from your applicant's viewpoint.
You were going to make some concluding remarks,Tim?
MR.HANCOCK: This is a page out of the ITE,Institute of"Transportation Engineering
Transportation Manual. This is a furniture store.'Hie yellow line is 100,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Zoom out maybe.
MR.HANCOCK: Most of them are all under 100,000 square feet,and they have a certain trip
generation that is similar among that grouping.There are a few outliers beyond 100,000.
But the reason this exhibit's important to me is that,according to staff's interpretation of what
intermediate commercial is,that dot is intermediate commercial;that dot is not.
There's no evidence in the record to say that a 55,000-square-foot furniture store is incompatible.
And, in fact,the only evidence we have is this,which shows a grouping under 100,000.And when you get
well over 100,000,the dynamics change. That's why we have the 100,000 cap.
There are other examples. I won't bore you with them,but they apply to department stores,home
improvement stores,and so forth,and they all follow a similar trend. And I think it's important to understand
the 100,000 is significant for a reason.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any final questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim,I've been listening to some of the other Planning Commission
members and,of course, staff and their arguments,and one of the things that Michele correctly pointed out is
that you've talked about the retail. And while you suggested that it--retail is customarily single story,you've
never committed to that. Is there a reason?
MR. HANCOCK: Other than a two-story furniture store,which I have personal experience with--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you--and here's a suggestion to get this to a compromising
position.The people behind the facility were more concerned about residential because it was going to go on
top and be higher and possibly,potentially, looking down at their houses,which I don't blame them. It's a--
Based on the size of your project and everything, is there any reason you couldn't limit your height to
two stories,which would be,basically--you're at 45 --three stories,45 feet,so you'd be two stories,35 feet.
MR.HANCOCK: You mean throughout the entire project?
Page 56 of 100
May 1,2014
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the retail.
MR. HANCOCK: For retail.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,office,lockup,things like that,is not a problem,but the ones where
you'd have people viewing to the back and milling around on an upper floor,do you really need an upper
floor for those purposes?
MR. HANCOCK: If I may. Mr.Bellows,one of the things we had is--again,we had a fitness
facility,a national fitness chain approach us about this site at one point, They're not under contract,so I don't
want to speak about them as an absolute reality. But they were a three-story facility. I personally have never
experienced a three-story fitness facility in my life or seen one,but obviously they exist.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not retail,are they?
MR. HANCOCK: They're not. And so there's this big volume of information out there called"You
don't know what you don't know." And my gut reaction is to say I don't have a problem with a two-story
limitation on retail because 1 haven't seen three-story retail in town,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I never have either,and that's why I'm wondering. Maybe we're worried
about something that you don't need or isn't practically going to happen,so why don't we just say that and be
done with it.
MR. HANCOCK: What I am willing--unfortunately,the client could not be here today.
I do not see a difficulty with limiting retail only to two stories but letting all other uses apply to the
development standards table as presented here today. I will reserve the right to be extremely corrected by my
client between now and the next hearing if that's not the case.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we're going to--you're going to have to come back for consent. So
that next hearing will be the 15th of May.
MR.HANCOCK: If that--it's not the neighborhoods that are worried about three-story retail; it's
the review staff. So if that makes everybody happy,I am happy to go back to my client and say,this is what
we agree to. And if he,you know,skins me alive,well,we'll come back and talk about it at consent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I need to ask the county attorney a question. If we vote today and we
stipulate a limitation for retail to two stories,does that preclude us from opening it back up to vote on it again
at consent?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. You wouldn't open it up again at consent,
CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: Okay. Well,that poses a problem for the dilemma that Tim just posed to
us.Yes.
MR.ANDERSON: Mr.Chairman,you could continue the hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mind doing that,but you usually scream bloody murder.
MR.ANDERSON: Continue the hearing and consent--continue the hearing and consent all at the
same time if there's just this one little--one or two issues that we need to confer with our client.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you guys don't mind that I think that would be a real good solution to get
us past that point.
MR. ANDERSON: We could do both at the next hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that.
MR.ANDERSON: Thank you.
CIAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as the rest of the board doesn't.
So let's finish the issues that we have,then.
You were going to check one of the conditional uses,No.20. Did you confirm that? Do you want to
do that by consent?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes. We-- I would,because on my phone,even with these wonderful reading
glasses, it was not terribly easy to navigate,so—
CHAIRMAN STRALN: Okay.
MR.HANCOCK: But,yes,Issue No.--or Conditional Use No.20,to remove--yes,I'd like to
address that at consent,since that's the direction it appears we're going to take.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you've already agreed there will be no underground--
underhuilding parking,right?
Page 57 of 100
May 1,2014
MR. HANCOCK: that is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lake setbacks will be measured from the ME,and they'll be 0 feet from the
ME'?
MR.HANCOCK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to remove a lot of data that's in the document that isn't needed
and from the master plan,and there's a lot of cleanup language. We'll see all that at consent.
Fast food restaurants. We're not going to have any fast food restaurants that--outside the 300-foot
distance from Airport Road. You explained that some of the restaurants you wanted to use and wanted to
have drive-through for weren't fast food. Do you have a problem with limiting your fast food drive-throughs
to one fast food drive-through restaurant?
MR.HANCOCK: No,sir,but I need to request a clarification.
We are happy limiting fast food restaurants with drive-through to one only. If we're not allowed to
have any other fast food restaurants,that means a stand-alone--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I was only going at the drive-throughs. You can have another fast
food restaurant. It just can't be a drive-through.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes. I--yes. One only one fast food restaurant with a drive-through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that drive-through,do you have a limitation on the fast food
restaurant that would be the drive-through for the hours of 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.?
Stan's got to get his coffee on his way to canoeing in the morning,and I wanted to make sure it
opened early enough so he could do that.
MR. HANCOCK: Again,I'm going to have to look at those hours of operation with my client and
their real estate consultant to see if that presents a problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the last thing I have made note of, other than the discussions
we've had today,you're going to put in 50 percent more trees inclusive of--I mean,similar to palm trees and
other varieties and they'd be added to the rear buffer along the residential portion of the project.
MR. HANCOCK: 'That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are the bigger notes that I made. We made a lot of changes to
the small stuff throughout the document that I'm assuming staff made notes of and we will pick up when it
comes back for final vote and consent.
So with that,does anybody else on the Planning Commission have any other issues?Charlotte.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes, Mr.Chair,does that mean that we're not including the
hour-of-operation restriction recommended by staff in our consideration? 1 know you singled out the fast
food restaurant for Tim to consider,but does that mean that the hours of operation for all the commercial, 7
a.m.to 11 p.m.,that we're not including'?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's up to whoever makes the motion. My intent here was to throw
some issues on the table to try to address the concerns I've heard from various Planning Commission
members,because I don't know if there's a need to restrict all businesses on this property. I mean,there are
some businesses that don't--aren't offensive. I don't care if they're open 24--
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And that's my point. I think it would be overly restrictive to just
blanket hours of operation on commercial businesses on this property,and that was my concern. That's why I
asked the question,because you just--you know,this--the business may need to open at five or,you know
- f could see where, if we wanted to limit it,we could say no 24-hour operations on the property. But to
stipulate a specific hour of operation, I think, is overly restrictive.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Like the fitness center that may or may not be there,they open at
earlier hours.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think those are good things to open at an earlier hour. The more
people that use them the better.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. And there's some that are 24 hours,as you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'd hate to see us get into the whole project.
There is a project,as Kay correctly pointed out,that I'm familiar with out at Golden Gate Estates that
Page 58 of 100
May 1, 2014
was justifiably restricted, because if you live in the Estates you know that you don't have the white noise
background that you have in the urban area. You don't have traffic on roads 24 hours a day. It's quieter. And
anything out there travels blocks.
I hear a church five or six blocks away every time they have cars coming in or people speaking.You
don't hear that in the urban area. So there is a difference the way the noise is buffered and drowned out in the
urban area.
So I'm not sure the comparison to an Estates neighborhood is a good one for a 24-hour setting.But
that's why we did that in Golden Gate Estates.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: They're spoiled.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And we don't want Stan canoeing like a bear in the morning. We need
him alert.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't do coffee.It just keeps me awake all day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,whatever you do--whatever you need at 6 o'clock at the fast food
restaurant.
Well, I think with those things on the table and considerations by this panel and you,by the time we
get back for consent we can rehear both the GMP and this consent issue--and then the PUD when it comes--
on a continued basis to May 15th.
Does that work for the applicant? So you guys are requesting a continuation to May 15th?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes. And we will make the requested changes in the PHD document and provide
you--staff with a strikethrough underline of those changes so you can see them all specifically in the
document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. HANCOCK: And then if any of these suggestions today are objectionable to the applicant we
will deal specifically with those at time of consent to make the best use of your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And,you know,you need to weigh in on the comments you've
heard from the various members of the planning commission,because the best way to go forward is with as
strong of a consensus as you can,as you know well.
Heidi,did you have something?
MS.ASH'I'ON-CICKO: Would you like to take a vote on the GMP amendment?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me--
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Or can--
MR.HANCOCK: None of these suggested changes to the PUD really have an impact one way or
the other on the GMP amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,they don't. We could finish with that one.
It's--yeah,I'm looking at it right now.There's nothing here with the exception of the--we had two
corrections,one is grammatical,one is further clarifying convenience stores with gas pumps,and there is one
here,your Type C landscape buffer,the doubling of that,but that can be handled in the PUD. That doesn't
need to be in the GMP. And--
MR.HANCOCK: Correct,because what were proposing is over and above what is required in the
Type C. So the GMP language does not preclude that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see here why we couldn't do the GMP language now.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This also says no vehicular interconnection.
CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: Right. Go ahead. David?
MR.WEEKS: Since it's been a while,David Weeks, comprehensive planning staff for the county.
l have one question. The--what was placed on the visualizer for the plan amendment identifying the
three changes,I saw something that looks like a fourth change but it was not in red,and that was a new
Paragraph P regarding lake setbacks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ms.Homiak just had a question about interconnections,right?
MR. WEEKS: If you don't mind,just to finish,because that is a Paragraph P,but the Paragraph P of
what was approved for transmittal is that prohibition on a vehicular interconnection to the property to the
Page 59 of 100
May 1, 2014
south. So that vehicular prohibition is missing and replaced by this--I just want to get clarification.
MR.HANCOCK: In technical terms,that's what we call a screwup.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
MR.HANCOCK: Actually,I'm looking at that language,and I'm wondering where it came from.
So obviously there was a whole different document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather avoid the confusion of having two documents come
separately and then approving one now and finding we've done something later on. Why don't we just get
clean resubmittals of both languages,both documents,and then we're starting with a clean start--
strikethrough start, at least,at the next meeting. I think that would be better for everybody's understanding.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you,yes.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I think so,Mr.Chair. I think definitely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Karen,did you have something else you wanted to bring up?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay.
MR.BELLOWS: Mr.Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir.
MR. BELLOWS: I would like also to--since we're going to continue the item to discuss with the
applicant the possibility of a prohibition of outdoor entertainment or music as opposed to more restrictive
hours of operation,just to have that discussion. We'll bring that back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good idea.I mean, I never--I appreciate you bringing it up,
because my assumption was that these were going to he enclosed buildings,and we could have--
MR.BELLOWS: Like Stevie Tomato's.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. You're right. So I think,Tim,that's something to seriously
consider, and we will make sure that's on a point of discussion for next meeting.
MR.HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I--we need to have two separate motions,one for the
CiMPA amendment for continuing to the May 15th meeting and one for the rezone for continuing to the May
15th meeting.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make that motion,if they will accept this,to continue it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You made a motion to continue the GMP portion of this--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --issue to the May 15th meeting?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Made by Ms.Homiak.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: All in favor,signify by sayings aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
And by the way,that will be a time-certain for 9 o'clock in the morning;you'll be first up.The next
one would be the PUD rezone.
Page 60 of 100
May 1, 2014
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A similar motion?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,to also--
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Hi second.
CHAIRMAN STRALN: Motion made to continue to May 15th,seconded by Charlette.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
MR. HANCOCK: And that would be time-certain at 9:03?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,9 o'clock,9 o'clock.We'll see you guys then.
Now,let's change--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No,he meant it would only take three minutes.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Can we take a break here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it will take longer than three minutes.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: How about a break?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. We'll take a 10-minute break and come back at 2:21.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everyone will please take their seats,we'll move on to our final
two issues today,as long as I can bring them up.There they are. We have two items we'll discuss
simultaneously and vote on separately.
***The first one is an adoption hearing for the GMT'amendment for the Olde Florida Golf Club
property. It's PL20130000365/CP-2013-4,and it has a companion rezone,PUDZ-PL201300001374. Both
of these have different titles,but I think they're the same thing,and hopefully that will be part of the
explanation we get.
So with that,anybody wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court
reporter.
(l'he speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures from the Planning Commission members.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I talked with Ms.Jenkins and with staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I met with the applicant's representatives once or twice. I don't
even know how many times now, it's been so long. I have received an email from Jeffrey Cone,and I think
there was one other email in there from somewhere, if I remember correctly. I passed it on to everybody, so
it's on record.
Okay. Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich.
COMivIISSIONER DOYLE: I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: 1 spoke with Nicole Johnson,Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,that's the other thing.That's the other thing;very good. I spoke to
Page 61 of 100
May 1, 2014
Nicole and got an email from her,too.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark, if I could amend what I just said,I did speak to Mr.
Yovanovich. He's got so many things going today, I confused which project I spoke to you about.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this is--this project--I've been on this Planning Commission
now for quite a few years,and this one's like a piece of Scotch tape,you just can't get it off your finger when
it sticks to it. I don't know how many times you've been before us changing the routine on this project,but
let's try it again today.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. Good afternoon. For the record,Rich Yovanovich,and this is just
my first time,so--
I have two petitions in front of you today,and I have two different--I have two consulting teams.
You've heard the first petition,which is the Comp Plan amendment for the portion of the property which is
the Olde Florida Golf Club,and I have on for you an aerial.
Basically,the Olde Florida property is this 554 acres to the east. This is Golf Club of the Everglades.
The first--so that petition you already heard at transmittal,and that was to change the designation
from neutral to receiving. And I believe you all recommended unanimously to go forward with that change,
With me are Bill Barton,Jeff Perry,To Trettis,and Ray Piacente,all with--Mr. Barton used to be
with the predecessor to Stantec--hut with Stantec to address any comments or concerns you may have
regarding that.
I wasn't planning on going into a lot of detail since it was unanimously recommended to change from
neutral to receiving.
And at the time we went through that process,we told you we would be back at the adoption hearing
with a companion PUD petition which with me today on that petition are Bill Barton,Mike Hunnican
(phonetic)with Pulte;Anita Jenkins and Josh Evans with J.R. Evans Engineering,and Shane Johnson from
Passarella. And the common denominator here,besides Mr. Barton,is Jeff Perry with Stantec to address
traffic concerns.
What we're here to do is to do a PUD that actually incorporates all of the property on the visualizer,
both the Olde Florida Golf Club property as well as the Golf Club of the Everglades property plus this
20-acre parcel that is part of the application.
The PUD encompasses approximately 835.7 acres of which 281.7 of those acres,the Golf Club of
the Everglades property plus the McKlenan(phonetic)property,are already designated receiving.
Under today's Comp Plan,those 281.7 acres could be developed at a density of one unit per acre for a
total of 282 units.
The Olde Florida Golf Club property,as I previously mentioned, is approximately 554 acres. Its
current density under neutral would be 111 dwelling units but going to receiving,assuming it's approved,
would allow for 554 units on that property. For an overall total possible density on the property of 835.7, 836
units.
The PUD is requesting 750 dwelling units,a little lower than the maximum that could be allowed on
the property.
And I think it's important to understand as we're going through this--through the petition is that
under today's Growth Management Plan,with the neutral and receiving lands,you could develop up to 393
dwelling units on the property today without the Growth Management Plan amendment.
So it's not 750 new units that are being proposed;393 of them are already allowed under the Growth
Management Plan. It's the delta,really,that the Growth Management Plan amendment for Olde Florida is
generating for the property.
The PUD allows for a mixture of residential uses,and I'll go through the PUD in a little greater detail
in the master plan. And it allows for two golf courses to remain. The way the PUD is structured--let me put
the master plan up now.
The way the PUD is structured is basically the Olde Florida Golf Club property will stay exactly as it
is today,except it could have up to four units that would serve members on that property,and then what is
crosshatched,this portion of the property here,would be a residential development of up to 746 residential
dwelling units together with an 18-hole golf course. So you'll still have the two golf courses that exist today
Page 62 of 100
May 1, 2014
and up to 750 dwelling units on the entirety of the property.
If we maximize the density to the full 750 units,we would need to acquire 583 TDRs because,based
upon the one unit per five acres that could be generated from the property,we could only get 167 base units.
So the remainder will have to be acquired through TDRs.
The property owner--current property owner doesn't own sending lands,so they're in the market to
buy TDRs. This isn't one of the projects that we talked about earlier where they control both.It's actually a
project that will be acquiring TDRs.
The staff report at Page 9 contains an error regarding the amount of jurisdictional wetlands on the
property. It says we have 69.71 acres of jurisdictional wetlands,and the correct number is 32.73 acres.
Earlier this week I met with Mr. Strain,Heidi,and Kay to go over the PUD,and there were some,I
think,clarifications that came from that meeting,and I think the most productive way to go through that is for
me to take you page by page through the strikethroughs and underlines based upon those discussions.
T think I got them all,Mr. Strain and Heidi and Kay,and if I miss anything,I know you'll let me
know.
There are actually no changes to Page 1.That's the list of permitted uses in the PUD.
Page 2 is a change to the principal uses that are allowed on Tract G,which is the Olde Florida
portion of the property. Okay. That's where we can have the four units for the members.
And there was a concern about what close proximity meant,so we struck that language and got a
little more specific. Basically,that says that it has to be on the west side of the clubhouse.And I'll put the
master plan back up to show you where that means. It basically says the cabins are going to--that the
residential units are going to have to he here. That's the west side of the clubhouse. So hopefully that
language gives enough specificity as to where those four residential units can go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And let's try to discuss these as we go through so we haven't got to go back
over it all again.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Got it.
CHAIRMAN S TRAIN: It says the tract--it refers to tract--these units should be located in close
proximity to the existing clubhouse facilities and west of the easternmost clubhouse building. Clubhouse
buildings are shown on Exhibit C.
MR.YOVANOVICII: Tract G--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that Exhibit C,first of all?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes,this is Exhibit C.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tract G?
MR.YOVANOVICH Tract G is the Olde Florida Golf Club property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha.
MR.YOVANOVICH: That's the clubhouse we're referring to,so the four units have to be in this
area right here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So by dropping that language that we talked about--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --that just limits it to that area?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. And I don't think we have any changes to Page 3.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,we do.
MR.YOVANOVICH: We do?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4B.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Ycs,we do;you're right. Unlike Mr. Hancock,I'm trying to adjust to
bifocals. And he has--under B we wanted to clarify. There was a question Mr. Strain and others asked
regarding how would the golf club--the golf cart pathways impact preserves and,basically,the existing golf
cart pathways will remain where they are so there will not be any additional impacts to the preserve. So that's
why we clarified it to say"existing."
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your master plan that you had on here,could you put that back up.
Page 63 of 100
May 1,2014
Maybe I'm not reading everything correctly, so you can help me.
Then this only applies to the eastern golf course because the western golf course you're rerouting
apparently the whole golf course and going to change all the--
MR.YOVANOVICII: It applies to both. It applies to both,but only the existing cart paths can stay
in the preserves. So the question--the concern was,are we going to build new cart paths in preserves,and if
we're building new cart paths in the preserve,will we be reducing the acreage of the preserve?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR.YOVANOVICH: So by limiting it to just the existing cart paths that are going through the
preserves,there will not be the risk that will be damaging native preservation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this-- B,then, is--put that-- if you can that language--it just says
existing--okay. I,imited to existing--
MR.YOVANOVICH: You're right,you're right.I'm in Tract--yeah,Tract P is on both.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tract G?
MR. YOVANOVICH: P,as in preserve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,he's right. It's in P,okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep.
MR.YOVANOVICH: All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,the next one's more complicated.
MR.YOVANOVICH: And I--do you have another copy? Because I won't be able to read it from
--thank you. I got nothing.
Okay. This is--maybe we should start with the next page first because that's the footnotes,because
that will help with the table.
There were-- ignore that strikethrough. It stays.
Anyway,we had some questions regarding the footnotes that we went through at our meeting. In
No.2,there's a modification to where we measure the setback. We had originally--we changed it to be
consistent with a later footnote where we'll measure the setback and go down to zero to the lake maintenance
easement, and then we added a comma because it was supposed to be golf course,comma,lake,and it be--
we had measured to top of bank, but we modified that to the lake maintenance easement and for open space,
and then we made it clear that that zero setback for open space doesn't apply to preserves because we have
got a preserve setback of--and I'll --it's actually going to be 30 feet instead of the 25. That's in the table,but
I'll take you through that later.
So we want to make it clear that you couldn't go to zero next to a preserve,which is also considered
open space.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,it made it clear you couldn't go to zero.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You cannot. What'd I say?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you said you could go to zero.
MR.YOVANOVICH: No,could not. You're listening.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Once in a while.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Footnote No. 5 created more confusion,and since we're not going to have
any allies,we just decided to delete Footnote No. 5,which creates some renumbering. So former 7,new 6.
We were asked for corner lots to--since you can have a side setback,I think it was down to six feet.
At our meeting it felt that a minimum setback of 10 feet would be better,so that footnote was revised to
address a setback of a minimum of 10 feet near the side of the--the less--I forget--what's the exact
wording? I can't read it--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corner lot.
MR.YOVANOVICH: --the non-primary road. Thank you.
And then we get down to--that's really the only change. Eleven's going to stay in because we do
have two setbacks that relate to multifamily that we'll talk about when we go hack to the table.
It will be--yeah,we'll have to fix the numbering when we come back at consent,but we'll make sure
that and the table correspond to the numbering,based upon what we're showing you today.
Page 64 of 100
May 1,2014
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave the footnotes, let me make sure I understand all the
corrections. Number one,my reference was to the details that the measurement wasn't from the right-of-way.
So are you Ieaving 1 like it is and removing those detail pages?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. We're going to get to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number 2 you corrected. Number 5 we took care--well,No. 5,the
only question was what if we didn't have a paved alleyway, like we don't have in a lot of cases?
MR.YOVANOVICH: 'bat's correct. And we didn't want to get into that--since we're not having a
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,that's the one you dropped,okay,I'm sorry.
And then 8,accessory pool--accessory pool enclosure/screen lanai setback may be reduced to zero
feet when attached to a common privacy wall,but that's only going to end up applying to duplexes and
townhouses.
MR.YOVANOVICH: When we get to the table.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well,I'm just trying to go through my notes so it's taken care of.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 9 is--I thought it contradicted Footnote No.2.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. And that's why we went to lake maintenance easement,correct,is 9
had lake maintenance easement as the zero.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And No. 10,that is--what are you--we already addressed this issue, I
believe,in the LDC. You can intrude what appurtenances into setbacks. What is this doing?
MR.YOVANOVICH: We mentioned that,and we couldn't find it in the LDC. We're not intending
--I don't think we're intending to make any changes from what the LDC already provides,but we were
unable to find it in the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then it's a deviation.
MR.YOVANOVICH: So,during a break,if someone can send us to that section,we'll look at it and
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's a footnote to one of the standards tables,and it talks about all the
exemptions from setback requirements.
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah. We'll send them the section number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because if it isn't in the LDC and you're trying--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Then we have to ask for a deviation.
MR.BELLOWS: No. It is in the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought,okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I know that there's something in the LDC. I just don't know what it says and
want to make sure that we're not asking for anything different.
MR. BELLOWS: It allows for bay windows or chimneys or roof overhangs,stairways,and to
encroach into various yards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David?
MR.WEEKS: Mr.Chairman,just for the record,because we're looking at a strikethrough/underline
document,you are making reference to item numbers,and I believe you were referring to the existing item
numbers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I always refer to what I have in my packet.
MR.WEEKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's--all my references will always he to that,because stuff that
comes in afterwards, I can't review it and then use it. So that's what I was referring to.
MR.WEEKS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark,on this No.9--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't like your mike today,do you?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,no. On No.9,is the lake maintenance easement still 20 feet?
Page 65 of 100
May 1, 2014
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From control elevation in all lakes,yes.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it has to be set back 20 feet from the--well,it says reduced to zero
feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,its zero feet up to the maintenance easement,but the ME is 20 feet
back from control elevation. So they already have a built-in 20-foot setback.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Twenty foot,okay.That's what I had a question on. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now with that we can go to the--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Now we get to the easy one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. I probably should zoom in a little bit unless you-all can see it. Well,
maybe not. Okay.
We tried to show all of this by strikethrough and underline. So let's work top down. Minimum lot
area,that was an adjustment,I believe,made based on conversations with Ms.Ebert and between you and
Anita going from 2,800 square feet to 4,000 square feet;is that correct?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's a little better.
MR.YOVANOVICH: When we go down to where it used to say minimrun site depth--you with
me?That goes away,and we've replaced that with one of the comments that says we really don't have a clear
setback from the PUD boundaries. So we've inserted clear setbacks from the PUD boundaries,and that's
what we've replaced in that line.
And we've put 15 feet for,basically,single-family types of uses. For multifamily,we're proposing
30 feet except if you go greater than two stories,the footnote that I--stay as Footnote No. 11,which will get
renumbered,requires that it be 300 feet.
So that's where--and then we had a 65-foot setback,and that really deals with the existing clubhouse
for Golf Club of the Everglades so that's--that's what that column relates to.
We--going down to the front yard and rear yard setbacks,those numbers really are dealing with
basically renumbering and creating the changes. Then we go down to side yard setback under--it used to
have a Footnote No.7,which was for the corner Iots--whoops. Is that right?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
MR.YOVANOV1CH: Yes. So that would now be--that's going to be the 10 feet instead of the six
feet. That's why that footnote would just apply there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then your No. 8 footnote has to--it applies to the duplexes and the
townhouses,because that's where you'd have the common wall for your accessories?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. And I missed--was that there? Is that the new 8? Yep. We have
that there. It's going to be the new No.7.
When we--trust me on the renumbering.You'll see we moved --we struck the 7 on the side on side
yards—trust me. You can trust me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: All right,so--it's not good when even I can't not Iaugh.
So on the side yard setback for principal,we struck the 7 and limited it solely to the duplex and
townhomes,if you work your way across.
And for the preserve back,instead of 25 and 10,we're at 30 and 15,which is consistent with our fire
mitigation plan. And I think that's everything on that table.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Yes,it is,at least all the notes that I had.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 1 think you've gotten through the table and the footnotes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Then we have the master plan.Then we go through the--and that's a
four-page series of documents. Mr. Strain--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stay on the master plan.You've got your--I know John Podczerwinsky
approved three entrances onto Douglas and two onto Vanderbilt Beach extension, but I'd like to make sure
the record gets that corrected to what you're really going to use. Remember the arrows?
Page 66 of 100
May 1,2014
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah,l do,and we didn't make any changes to those. I thought you were
going to talk to John and make sure he had looked at that--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I am--
MR.YOVANOVICH: --hut[will --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's one of those things that we were so busy since--I mean,you came in,
what,Tuesday? And I didn't get a chance to talk to him yesterday because I was wrapped up in--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Let me put the aerial back up and show you. Yeah,we're going to still use
them. Yes,we're going to still use them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like to understand how--
MR.YOVANOVICH: You have--this one serves the clubhouse,the existing clubhouse,and it will
stay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Because we'll have members that are not residents.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR.YOVANOVICH: And so these two accesses really serve the clubhouse and the maintenance
facility--and the court area,okay,so those are staying.
Then you have another one further up,which is tier the maintenance facility,and that's staying to
serve the maintenance facility,and then you'll have the main entrance here. That will actually be serving the
residential community.
CHAIRMAN STRALN: Okay. Then on--
MR.YOVANOVICH: So those three--those four accesses we just--we talked about the other day,
Mr. Strain,will be staying for the purposes that they currently serve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we're going to--what about the main road? Where is it going to
connect?Because it doesn't show a connection.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was assuming that's where it was going,but there's no arrow. But that's--
you're going to make a correction to show--
MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll put an arrow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,otherwise,John's not going to let you connect.
MR.YOVANOVICH: We'll make sure we have the arrows.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR.YOVANOVICH: But the other existing arrows are staying as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And at some point when we get to staff report,I'm going to be
asking John to verify he counted on those entrances,the various turn lanes or other requirements, if there are
any,what they will be,so we'll do that,though,when staff gets up. Okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: You got it.
These are the typical cross-sections. What we did is--and the question was,are any of these--this
data down here regarding,you know,the six inches of limerock base,the question became was this--are
these deviations from the code.They're not,so that information's really not needed. This is really just to
show you the reduced right-of-way width cross-section from the 60 to the 50 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And remember the questions from the Douglas Street section;the
property line there is in the middle.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. And the sidewalk will be on our property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it will be dedicated--
MR.YOVANOVICH: And we have--later on we have a provision that requires us to dedicate
whatever Douglas Street right-of-way doesn't currently exist,and we'll do that at first plat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that will include the sidewalk?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah. It will he road right-of-way-- it will be a road right-of-way
dedication.
Page 67 of 100
May 1,2014
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sidewalk that you are showing that does extend into property that
you've already supposedly dedicated,the sidewalk is on that dedicated portion of that easement,not off the
easement onto your private property.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want the sidewalk to follow--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --the dedicated portion.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I got it,yes. It's going to be-- it will be in the dedicated road right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because you could restrict the public otherwise,and that's what I'm
concerned about.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand. That's not what we're doing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: We've made sure that we have revision dates on all of the pages. And then,
finally,we all agreed that Page 4 of 4 would go away.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back up. That little detail up on the upper left-hand corner,that shows the
sidewalk directly on top of the curb,which means there's no freeboard between--or safe area between the
sidewalk and the curb. And I asked that you--somebody check that,and when we get to staff comments,
Stacy's here,so she'll be coming up and commenting on your sidewalks,I hope,unless she doesn't want to,
which I'd still ask her to come up anyway.
But I want to make sure we've created a safe space--as is customary. In cases where it's squeezed
and can't be done,then we have to make exceptions. But is this an exception,or is there a reason you can't
leave some distance?
MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's for this area right here,right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct.
MR.YOVANOVICII: I'm going to let Josh Evans--
MR.EVANS: Hello. Josh Evans,for the record. There's an existing ditch there we're still trying to
accommodate. The only reason that we squished it up next to the F curb is that we're space limited;
otherwise,we'd prefer to have the space between the curb and the sidewalk.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How deep is your ditch?
MR. EVANS: I don't recall exactly how deep it is,but--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you bring a topo back by consent?
MR.EVANS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have to delay the vote then because of that.
MR.EVANS: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's an important factor. The people out there have to have a safe
sidewalk to get to where they've got to go,and to put a sidewalk directly on top of a curb is not the best thing
in the world.
So do you have anything--do you have any engineering topo with you or anything at all that you
could--
MR. EVANS: Yes. I have the ERP plan. I could get that out and take a look at it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind? That will be--we can continue on while you find that.
That would be helpful to see.
If it's a shallow ditch and just a cut swale, ft's not a problem for you to move it. If it's a deep ditch
and it's got a lot of width to it,then that's another problem.
I was waiting for you to find it,yeah,then we can put it on the overhead,and we can see for
ourselves how hard that ditch would be to deal with.
MR.EVANS: This section--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's only--you're 12.77 to the bottom of the ditch.
MR.EVANS: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're 13.2 to your road. I mean,that's not even a foot. So you can't
re-cut that swale and move it over?
Page 68 of 100
May 1, 2014
MR.EVANS: Oh,we definitely could.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR.EVANS: We would just have to--you know,re-grade it and--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With a box blade and--I mean, it's not that big of an effort for a project the
size you've got going on there.
MR.EVANS: Okay. I think it's okay that we can agree to two feet between the sidewalk. We've
just got to re-grade that swale.
CIIAIRMAN STRALN: It's not a big swale. 'Thank you. 'That's what I was trying to find out.
MR. EVANS: Yep,thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, Richard,the next page was 4 of 4. You were going to delete
that entire detail.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. It has too much discrepancies from the standards table,so that's
a good thing.
MR.YOVANOVICH: And then I think--jumping ahead. We didn't have any changes to the legal
description. We didn't have any changes to the Exhibit E,list of deviations. Exhibit F--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit F--
MR.YOVANOVICH: --I think we're going to have to deal with staff on that one,because I think
they may have some requested changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a--I talked to Kris Van Lengen with utilities,and there's going to
be a change needed to 2A.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes,and I think I have that language. We're going to be more specific. In
concept,basically,we're agreeing to stub out a water line--right, Kris--to a certain location that can
ultimately be connected to Mockingbird Crossing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And you've agreed to that.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because you'll add that language in'?
MR.YOVANOVICH: We'll add that language in. Thank you,Mr. Strain.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Where is that'?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The northwest,okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: And here's the language we're proposing for the right-of-way for Douglas.
And we'll do it at the--timing-wise,we'll have to add that—we'll do it at the first p1at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If fin not mistaken,that's the same-size easement that appears on the other
side of the street,too.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I think there's 30's on either side.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I think that is the last specific change we need to discuss. I do know that
there was a memo flying around about the fire mitigation plan and getting a little bit more specific.
I think there's some--and I wasn't--quite honestly,I wasn't sure if that was the final version that we
got on Tuesday that you handed to me,because there was some discussion about there might be further
revisions to not only the fire mitigation but also Paragraph A,which I think dealt with planning,3A. And we
didn't get anything further.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's dealing--because I--the fire mitigation wasn't my issue,but
somebody was dealing with it.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,Corby had--if you'll--in the staff report,staff is recommending that
we come up with a very specific list of plants in the PUD. What we had proposed was let's go to a resource
book that tells us what kind of plants to use and how you--what the spacing would be required,because if
that resource book changes or there's more plants that come along or if plants come off the list,I don't really
want to come back and say, I want to use this plant instead. And,oh,guess what? I've got to go amend the
PUD. I didn't think we needed to get that specific in the PUD document to identify the specific planting
materials that can be used around the house or in the 30-foot area.
Page 69 of 100
May 1,2014
So we had gone back and said,hey,we've got a manual,we've got a textbook,basically,a resource
book that we would agree to use. I don't know that that ever was agreed to. And then there was a whole host
of additional revisions that came about regarding--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are those? Do I have them? I mean,because I don't remember
seeing therm. If we don't have them,they're not being considered by this board,so what's the issue?
MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm just saying that I-- I'm not prepared today to agree to--there was a
memo that was handed to me--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: --at our meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know,but--I remember that happening,but as I--
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --recall saying,if it's not been given to this board, it's not a consideration of
ours. And if it should have been given to us, it should have been in the packet at the time frames in which
staff produced the packet,so--
MR. YOVANOVICH: I appreciate that. I just didn't want--I didn't want anybody to think I ignored
the memo.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope.
As far as the issue of the fire prevention being addressed in this document,are you comfortable with
the way it's addressed currently,or is there some objection?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We were fine with the language that's in front of you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's fine.It's ironic that we have a fire prevention requirement
of your project,but you're surrounded by the Estates and multitudes of other projects that have no such need
for such plans. It doesn't make quite a lot of sense,but I understand how it happened to get there.
Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Rich,this is a requirement for the lands that you're using. I think
it's a great requirement,and you have to deal with the state--
MR.YOVANOVICH: We did.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: --and with the forestry department on this particular thing. I think it's
a great selling point for this community. 1 think every development with large preserves should be fire wise,
and that's what this really is. It is a fire-wise community,and the forestry department is 110 percent for this.
MR.YOVANOVICH: No--and we did. The code required us to do a fire mitigation plan,which
we met with Dan Summers at the county and the right people at the state,came up with the plan,and we've
submitted it to the county. So it's there. The plan's there,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And it's consistent with what is in our packet.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct.
CIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's what I'm concerned about.
David,John,Heidi,who's carrying on conversations that they would like to share with us? No?
Okay,David.
MR. WEEKS: I'll start. First of all,I'll --acknowledging that you don't have this information in the
packet,and if this petition is voted on today,then,of course,staff will just bring this up at the time of the
board's hearing fully understanding that it's difficult for you to have stuff presented to you on the fly,and T
think you have a policy of not accepting that.
We've been working back and forth with the applicant past the time--I believe still with the
applicant,past the time that the staff report was due. I know,internally,we've been working on the language
further specifically to the wildfire prevention and mitigation implementation in the PUD,which is Exhibit F
of the PUD under No.4,emergency management.
I think it's fair to characterize the changes that staff has been working on in two ways. One is for
clarity--rewording,wordsmithing for clarity,and I'll say legal format since Heidi helped with some of it.
Secondly,changing some"should"language to"shall." The Wildfire Prevention Mitigation Plan is
something--as was just mentioned,it's something that the applicant is required by the Future Land Use
Element and the LDC within the receiving lands to work with county emergency management and the
Page 70 of 100
May 1, 2014
Forestry Service to prepare that plan and have it approved.
But that plan,in and of itself,is not a regulatory document. And as such,it does not have regulatory
language. It doesn't say,you shall do this. It will say things like"we encourage"or"you should" and so
forth.
So to implement that,the staff position is we need to put it into a regulatory format. So,whereas,the
applicants language will say so and so types of plants should be used,staff would say shall be used.
And I will say that we agree with the applicant. We're sensitive to the notion of an explicit list of
plants that could change over time, and the language we have proposed came from them. We might have
tweaked it some, but it makes reference to a document from the Florida Forestry Service.
So,therefore,that document, as it might be modified,would be applicable to this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the LDC is supposed to implement the policies and objectives of the
GMP,why don't we just--so that everybody can fairly be apprised of what we're expecting of them,instead
of seemingly redo it almost on a case-by-case basis,put the program's demands or needs and implement the
language into the LDC for those areas that require it.
Why are we,every time it comes up,having to go back and forth with this? Why don't we just make
it part of the Land Development Code if that's the--if that's the direction we seem to indicate in our GMP.
MR.WEEKS: Certainly,some parts of it could, such as the plant-- list of plant species.Certainly,
that could be,but some of these are project specific. For example--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 30-foot setback,for example, is that standard?
MR. WEEKS: From preserve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR.WEEKS: So far it has been. My concern would be to--I'm thinking if we put specific
regulations into the LDC and said that's all there's going to be,that we are bypassing,then,the State of
Florida's review--the Forestry Service review which might identify a circumstance which we have not
accommodated in the LDC. We're not the experts. We at the staff are just looking at it from the standpoint of
what has been agreed upon by the Forestry Service,we implement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,what dominates,the Forestry Services policies or standards or our
Land Development Code and ordinances?
MR.WEEKS: Well,ultimately,it's going to be Collier County's. Because only the County
Commission--I mean,the County Commission ultimately makes that final decision. And that wildfire plan
is a plan,but it's not a regulatory document. So only the board adopts the regulation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're trying to now make it a regulatory document so that it can be
incorporated into this PUD.
MR.WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm suggesting is that everybody that's in this same bind for properties
that this is applicable to, why don't we just incorporate that into the PUD in some format. For those standards
that do apply,whatever the Forestry Service wants to add to it,that would have to be on a volunteer basis,
like it is mostly now,because it's non-regulatory.
I mean, it's something to consider. I think if--the more we develop east of 951 and the more of this
we get into,were going to be reinventing the wheel,almost,at every application,and I don't think that needs
to be done that way,and I'd rather not surprise the landowners with things they don't know about and can't
read about.
Anyway, it's a consideration.
MR.WEEKS: I think it is,especially when it comes to trying to implement these wildfire plans for
non-zoning petitions,that is,for example,a plat. A zoning document is not being approved.And so the more
we would have-- I mean,I agree with the concept,as much as possible,put it into the LDC.
CHAIRMAN S'l'RAIN: Just one of many things that still has to be done.
MR.WEEKS: I would say--I want to make one comment;I want to make sure it's clear. The
preparation of the plan is something required both in the GMP and the LDC. That's not a surprise to the
applicant,or should not be.
But the specifics of the implementation,that could be--potentially could be a surprise to them.
Page 71 of 100
May 1, 2014
They might think,well, I've got my plan,I'rn done,and the staff perspective is,well,that plan is meaningless
if we don't implement it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And therein lies the problem.
MR. WEEKS: Right. And their perspective,typically, is,well, again,the permissive language as
opposed to mandatory.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other questions of Richard before we go to the
staff?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Urn--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I hesitate to do this,but I'm going to do it anyway. There was a--we also
met with some local residents to talk about the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have some questions from one that we're going to walk through piece
by piece,but I was going to have staff come at them first,but you're more than welcome to.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'll--let me do it this way,because I'd rather throw it out on the table
as to how we got to where we are.
One of the concerns that Mr. Cone had and--is he still here? There he is--was sidewalks on
Douglas as well as sidewalks on Vanderbilt Beach Road. And he wrote you an email.
And just so you know,we obviously have the sidewalk on Douglas,and Douglas is going to be a
private road. it is a private road.
We'll put the sidewalk in on our property,and we're going to be maintaining Douglas as part of our
project even though it serves more than just our project. We've got that commitment. And so we've
addressed--we believe we've addressed his concern about sidewalks for Douglas.
The next comment came about the desire for a sidewalk/pedestrian,whatever, path,whatever you
want to call it,basically from where Douglas Street ends,which is on our western boundary of the property.
The request was made that this project extend a sidewalk from Douglas all the way to where the
sidewalk currently ends at St. Monica's,I think it is,or--it's a Catholic church.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: St.Agnes.
MR.YOVANOVICH: St.Agnes,thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the one I listen to from my house five blocks away. Yes,I know which
church you're talking about.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. We thought that was a little aggressive,a little--and,actually, staff in
one of the earlier comments said they wanted us to do that,and we responded we don't think that that's fair,
but we're willing to work. We're willing to work with the county on coming up with a solution,and it really
didn't go any further than that. And as you can see in your staff report,there's no requirement for us to build a
sidewalk from Douglas all the way to where it currently ends at St.Agnes.
But we are willing to participate in a program that hopefully will get Mr.Cone and others what they
want,which is a continuous sidewalk. And we're willing,on the south side of Vanderbilt Beach Road,to
extend the pedestrian path to Massey Street,which is basically the halfway point.
It's kind of small,but--and it actually doesn't pick up. But Massey Street actually goes to the
eastern boundary or Vanderbilt Country Club,which is,essentially,right here,okay.
The Vanderbilt Country Club PUD required Vanderbilt Country Club to pay in lieu for a sidewalk
either at-- I think it was-- I got the exact language here,but they were either supposed to do it at their first
right-of-way permit or anytime otherwise deemed appropriate by the county.
I don't know if they have made that payment in lieu yet. Let's assume they have. If they've made the
payment in lieu,there's money there for the county to build a sidewalk in front of Vanderbilt Country Club.
If they haven't paid,they can go ask Vanderbilt Country Club to pay what they're obligated to pay.
And then the next owner of the property immediately to the west of the Vanderbilt Country Club is
Collier County. They have a water plant there. So 1 would think that Collier County ought to build that
extension.
So there is a mechanism for there to be a pathway all the way out,and we're willing to go above and
beyond the minimum required.
Page 72 of 100
May 1, 2014
I wanted to throw that on the table,because we think that that's a fair solution to the neighbors'
concerns and that we're willing to participate in a solution.
So I know you were going to ask staff about some of that stuff,but I wanted to make sure I threw
that out there early,because maybe it could shorten some conversations regarding addressing concerns that
were raised.
I will also point out that there's not a lot of homes currently in that area using Vanderbilt Country
Club,basically,from Douglas west. And I've got an aerial. And I--my best count of the homes that are in
that area, including this home right here in the corner, is there's a total of 10 homes. So I think that what
we're proposing is more than fair to serve the residents.
That--this bigger piece right here,this is all rural fringe mixed-use district receiving lands. My
guess is that some day is going to be bought and developed,and that developer would have an obligation to
put in a sidewalk when that happens. But we're willing to work with the county and the residents to have
something in place sooner.
CIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm going to--we have staff specifically here who deal with
the pathways. We're going to get an update from them on what's needed and how the pieces fit together,so
we'll probably have more comment after that happens.
MR.YOVANOVICH: But I just wanted to get that out there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Rich,did you say the north side or the south side of
Vanderbilt?
MR.YOVANOVICH: South. Yeah,there's a ditch on the north side that we don't want to have to
deal with.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So they have to cross the street to get to the
sidewalk?
MR.YOVANOVICH: And there'll be a stop sign there, so that shouldn't be a problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wouldn't come to any conclusions yet,and I want staff--that's why
I asked staff to be here today. And I figured this was the direction he was going to go,so I figured I'll have
staff here to see if there's a better way.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can't outsmart the fox.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant while Rich is up there?
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I have one. Just--Rich, what's the distance between where you're
willing to go to and to where the requested sidewalk is?
MR.YOVANOVICI I: I think it's a half a mile,what we're willing to go,and it's a little over a half a
mile to--another half a mile to connect the dots,when you're talking about the Vanderbilt Country Club
property and what the county owns for--
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: So at this time there's no pedestrian walkway for about a mile?
MR.YOVANOVICH: A mile,maybe a little bit more than a mile. Yeah,mile--between a mile
and a mile and a half,my understanding.
COMMISSIONER DOYI,E: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're asking for up to 750 units,right?
MR.YOVANOVICH: No,I'm asking for an additional 260.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the total number of units you could build on your property?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Today?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. What you're asking for.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Seven fifty.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're asking for up to 750 units?
MR.YOVANOVICH: No,I don't think that's what we're asking for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,with 750 units, it does have an impact for a need for a sidewalk for
sure,so we'll have to figure out what Stacy's going to hopefully tell us all about when she gets up here.
Thank you,sir.
Does staff want to make a presentation? Well,how about the staff presentation?
Page 73 of 100
May 1, 2014
MR.WEEKS: I'll go first with the Comp Plan amendment. Staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the hardest one you've had today,David,
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question, David.I seem to have forgotten the information.
What is the preservation requirement on neutral lands, and what would it be--on receiving lands it's
40 percent,as I recall.
MR.WEEKS: One moment,please. You're correct that it's 40 percent for receiving,60 percent for
neutral,but I think there may be a second limitation. For example,a certain percent hut not to exceed a
certain amount. I want to verify that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While he's--while you're looking that up--
MR. WEEKS: And I don't have it with me.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: That's okay. You answered the question I had. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay?
MS.DESELEM: Somebody suggested I should go as fast as he did with his.
But for the record,Kay Deselem with zoning.You do have the copy of the staff report dated last
revised on 4/18/14.
And we are recommending approval of the application with the caveat that we work through the
issues with GMP people,the comp planning people,and we are recommending denial of Deviation No. 1,
seeking to have a sidewalk on one side.
We arc recommending approval of the other two deviations. And if we can work out issues with
comp planning regarding their position on the wildfire issues,then staff would recommend that it be found
consistent with the Growth Management Plan and recommend approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: Other than that,I'm available for questions. We also have Kris Van Lengen,John
Podz, Stacy Revay,and Summer Araque here if you have questions for their area of expertise.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of Kay?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay,I-- Stacy would be the person I'd like to talk to next,if she
doesn't mind coming up.
MS. REVAY: Good afternoon. Stacy Revay,for the record,pathways reviewer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think everybody here probably has seen you before us before,
nor your expertise. You handled the sidewalks and collections for sidewalks and determining if projects need
sidewalks and all those good things for Collier County.
So could you tell us all about the sidewalks for this project both internal,Douglas,and Vanderbilt
and connections to 951 so that we get a full picture of what's there,what's anticipated,and what--where the
missing pieces are.
MS. REVAY: I can speak to the sidewalks internal to the development. The deviation is seeking--
the development is seeking a deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02,which requires sidewalks on both sides of
the roads internal to the development,and staff does not support this deviation.
The GMP also,Policy 7, I believe,encourages smart growth policies,walkability,pedestrian flow,
those sort ofthings. So to suggest that we approve the deviation would go against the Land Development
Code.
Also,on Vanderbilt Beach Road there's currently a multi-use pathway that ends at--it's on the north
side of the road,so I believe putting it on the south side of the road could cause some kind of conflict as time
goes on, People are going to want that connectivity all the way to the church. Also I believe that there's a
Publix or some kind of a shopping something around there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was a Sweetbay. There's a Winn-Dixie shopping center there now.
MS. REVAY: I'm sorry,excuse me--Winn Dixie there, so--I know we've gotten numerous emails
from people in that community who are concerned about the connectivity from one point to the next.
If the board approves the deviation for the sidewalk on one side, 1 would encourage you to allow a
10-foot or wider multi-use path on only one side of the road,because this is 750 units,possibly. That's going
to be creating a lot more pedestrian,possibly bicycle activity,and we don't know if there's going to be kids
Page 74 of 100
May 1, 2014
living there or--you know,we don't know what kind of families might move into this development,but there
-- ifs room for a lot of people to be walking and biking in this development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's talk about the internal piece first.
MS. REVAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They submitted a justification to Deviation No. 1. The justification
rationale said the following: Buyers within the developer's multiple communities throughout Southwest
Florida have shown the majority prefer the option of no sidewalk in front of their home.
Did they provide you with any data showing the total number of buyers and their homes and showing
that 50 --greater than 50 percent have that preference?
MS. REVAY: Staff does not have any information or any studies or information that shows
anything of that sort.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they didn't--they provided no justification,then,in
documentation form--
MS. REVAY: Correct,and--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --for their justification?
MS.REVAY: If you look at--I think this is Page 2,so--Exhibit C,it shows the cross-section for
AA or A asterisk--asterisk dash A asterisk.It shows that there's plenty of room for sidewalks on both sides.
So that's another--another reason I would not recommend approving the deviation.There's plenty of room,
and the justification doesn't show us that we should approve the deviation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now let's move outside to--let's start with Douglas. They're
proposing a sidewalk along Douglas to confect to a sidewalk that now is not going to be connectible on the
north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road as opposed to being on the south side of Vanderbilt Beach Road. Are
you familiar with the area from your perspective? I mean--
MS.REVAY: Mildly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you--there's--there,apparently,is a swale along the north side
MS.REVAY: There is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --that they don't want to disturb. Is it undoable to put a sidewalk there,in
your opinion?
MS.REVAY: In my opinion,no,that's not undoable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because moving it--and the sidewalks that would go along the
Vanderbilt Beach Country Club side and the sidewalks that may or may not exist by the church--I don't
know if there's any there or not.I should but--I pass it every day. I just can't remember right now. Are they
on the north side or would they be on the north side or would they be--they'd be on the north side?
MS.REVAY: It's on the north side, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So everybody else is putting them on the north side.
MS.REVAY: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we get to some point,we'd have to go across that roadway,which is--
1 mean,1 drive that. It's fun because there's no police out there,and there's hardly any way to stop anybody
from going 60 miles an hour.
MS.REVAY: And it will get faster as the road widens.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,I agree. So we'd have to cross somewhere,you know,hack down on
the south side,then cross somewhere else to get hack to the north side. I'm not sure why that's reasonable.
Now--and the south side seems to be a problem right from the get-go.
I think that's all the questions on--oh,money. 'they're providing it down to Massey. And I know
you--I sit in preapps with you,and you collect money from everybody,faithfully. Everybody gets hit.
Is there enough money somewhere? Will we know the county can cover the costs or force
developments that have the commitments to cover the costs for the sidewalk from Massey to connect to
wherever it has to go?
I thought I asked you that a couple months ago,and I thought you said there was,but I can't
remember right now.
Page 75 of 100
May 1,2014
MS.REVAY: I guess it would depend on when you would want the sidewalk to be built.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before they get their first--well,I don't know. At some point. It's not--1
guess its not really contingent on their project. But when they put the sidewalk in,we would need to connect
to it.
MS.REVAY: If they were to put their piece in--right. And so what you're saying is if they were to
put their piece of sidewalk in,whether they went to just their property line or all the way to Massey,and if we
picked up at Massey and then continued onto the church--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. REVAY: --there may be funding available in the future--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,but we've got to--
MS.REVAY: --to complete it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --put the piece in there the county owns. The church,then-- it sounds like
the church already put a piece in.
MS.REVAY: Right. And I think--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then the Vanderbilt Beach Country Club,if their assessment is right--
and I haven't read the language yet,but they're committed to put a piece in,or they've already paid in lieu of.
MS.REVAY: And that's where Pm going to defer to John.
But L did want to say,before I leave--is that the piece that Collier County would need to put in on
their property,I believe is just about a quarter of a mile. So I believe we would have some sort of funding
that would--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the issue has been raised strongly by citizens. I know that some
have spoken even to their commissioners,so it's going to have to be resolved either at our level or at the next
level up. So l'd rather just package it up as best we can to the commissioners to explain to them how it's
going to fit together. So the more we can put down now,the better off we'll understand it. So thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Before Stacy leaves--can I talk to you a minute on this, Stacy?
MS.REVAY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: On the inside of the community--and I'll be very honest with you,I
am very much for these pathways because putting in a 5-foot sidewalk does nothing. Runners will not run on
cement. They'll run in the street. Bikers will not go--well,they just don't. And it's always sidewalk,slash,
bike path.
The multi-use path,I would rather see a 10-foot--bituminous,even in the community--pathway so
everyone can use it and stay out of the--I mean,I'm just very in favor of it.
And if you will even notice on Irnmokalee Road--and the county is going to get more stern with this
deviation within the communities,all the developments. They're going to start saying,no more sidewalk on
one side. And I think it's good because people living in these communities are more active now,and they
prefer these pathways. You can go out in front of Immokalee Road and just see it out there. You can see it in
the communities. So--but I understand the county is going to start cracking down on this;is this right, Stacy?
MS.REVAY: If there's a constrained right-of-way and there's an absolute reason to have the
sidewalk only on one side,then it makes sense. When there's enough room and enough space to have a 5-foot
or 6-foot-wide sidewalk,or even on Vanderbilt Beach Road,you know,having a sidewalk back of curb
where there should be a 2-foot,maybe even 3-foot planter strip or utility strip, as we might call it. It makes
good sense to continue that,to continue that direction and encourage the use of these--of the pedestrian
infrastructure.
And any APA or planning magazine or safe routes to school or any of those websites or
organizations,good planning requires sidewalks on both sides of the road.
And with new developments coming in,it should be a requirement that they abide by.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. John,maybe you can help us out. What is the--just out of
curiosity,because the cars on Vanderbilt Beach Road--I mean,I mentioned earlier how fast--it is--that is a
fast road. I drive the end of it,but they're flying down that road. What is the speed limit on that road?
MR.PODCZERWTNSKY: Oh,you've tasked me with a question I can't exactly give you data for.
Page 76 of 100
May 1,2014
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Forty-five.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah,the speed limit should be 45.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: is it? Well,I don't think--very few people are driving 45 on that road.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Are you asking about the average speed travel or just the posted speed?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if you know what the average speed travel is,it's got to be higher than
that.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's why I--
CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: And that's what concerns me for location of the sidewalk close to the curb
as well as having crosswalks to get to the sidewalk. It's going to be difficult to expect people to stop when an
area is as isolated as this.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: In addition,the recent direction that we've gotten from our traffic
operations department is that mid-block crossings are outright discouraged. They don't like to accept them--
they don't want to maintain them,and they feel that it's an unsafe scenario when they propose them,you
know,when it's proposed by either the county or a private developer. So we try to avoid them at all costs, so
--that's about the mid-block crossings,if it's--
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How would you set up a mid-block crossing? Just a--
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: On a 45-mile-an-hour road,yeah,it would typically be piano keys.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --piano keys or what? No stop sign,no nothing?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Correct,no stop sign.
COMMISSIONER CIRZANOWSKI: Why bother?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,there's no lights out there either. I mean,the place is pretty--
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's almost a racetrack in parts,but--okay.
As far as traffic patterns--and you've seen the ingresses and egresses they need in the project. Did
you count on that many when you reviewed this?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I can't recall exactly how many I counted on,and here's why. Both
Douglas Street in today's current condition and the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road along their property
frontage are privately held. So whatever they would like to propose for their private access points they can
propose within their development.
Those private roads,they're allowed to have a little more leeway than they are on a public road.We
won't govern that for access management.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about from Vanderbilt Beach Road onto Douglas;can that have a left
turn lane,or is that something you can't control?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That is something we can control,and that would be based on traffic
warrants.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,traffic warrants or traffic study?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you've got one. You don't have the other. So based on the traffic
study,do you need a left-hand turn lane onto Douglas?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: I'll put it this way. If the traffic shows that the warrants are met for the
left turn lane there,yes,it would be required. And that's something we would handle at the time of plat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Yep. Now,I do want to bring to the panel's attention that Vanderbilt
Beach extension is planned,and it's in our five-year CIE right now,for future roadway widening. What's in
the Capital Improvements Element today is simply planned for right-of-way acquisition, 50,000 per year for
the next five years.
We don't have any design or construction plans in place at the moment that are going to be
implemented. So those will be--those will be beyond the five-year plan if and when they're implemented.
So right now is just acquisition of the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: John, if anybody builds a sidewalk in front of somebody
Page 77 of 100
May 1,2014
else's property,when that person comes in,the sidewalk is there,do you collect money from them?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: No,we do not. Lets say,for example,the county was to construct a
sidewalk in front of someone else's property,we do not retroactively pursue payment from that development
or from that landowner for that sidewalk that's been installed. We typically only require payment in lieu
when there is an active project that shows a sidewalk is going to be installed at that property frontage or when
the developer has--or the property owner has a responsibility through the Land Development Code to
provide sidewalks and perhaps they can't--or perhaps it's beneficial to them not to--beneficial to the county
for them not to.
COMMISSIONER CIIRZANOWSKI: So if this owner were to build a sidewalk in front of other
people's property on the way down,he would never be reimbursed for that,and the other person would never
have to pay any money or build a sidewalk?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: It's an interesting question,but as far as the rules are applied,T don't
believe that they would be reimbursed for that.
COMMISSIONER CIIRZANOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John,the TIS, do you know if it was primarily for multifamily or
single-family,or how was that laid out do you know?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: If I recall correctly,it was looked at as single-family.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this will be primarily single-family buildings,which means
you're going to be looking at 2.4 persons per household based upon county standards,so you're going to have
1,800 people in that development.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,750 times 2.4 is 1,800.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would mean you're going to have--I mean,the sidewalks are
obviously going to be necessary,and having those people that want to walk or bike down to the Sweetbay or
--which is now Winn-Dixie. I just can't see them crossing Vanderbilt Beach Road back and forth to get onto
the sidewalk system. That all should be on the north side of the road.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: This is the reason that staff has requested the sidewalks to be installed so
that it provides connectivity to the development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you time the sidewalks?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: How do we time them?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: In teens of?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's acknowledged that the sidewalks are going to be required,at what
point are they required?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Well, in this case when warrants on the roadway--overall,the roadway,
are met and I don't have that data in front of me at the moment. But when you reach a certain level of
background traffic,that's when roadway improvements are required.
We've already reached those levels to put us into the planning process to widen this roadway. As you
know,Vanderbilt Beach Road,the widening process and the extension process of this roadway has been
delayed per board action and per staff action. Its been indefinitely delayed. That's why we're only in the
right-of-way acquisition process.
But the need is acknowledged for this roadway to be widened and extended in the future,and that
will include sidewalks when the county does make it to that project in our queue.
So we feel at this point the warrants are met for that,but we don't have the funding to provide or the
political ability to provide that roadway and that sidewalk at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,somehow I'm not getting to where I need to go.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to figure out what it's going to take to get sidewalks to connect to
the point that's shown here by the church,which is to the west of that water plant.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Correct.
Page 78 of 100
May 1, 2014
CHAIRMAN S'1RAIN: I believe the water plant sidewalks are going to be put in whenever the
county feels it needs to,which I'm assuming could be pushed politically once the sidewalks go to that point
from the east. Then from the east it looks like we can get sidewalks in to Massey. Now it's the point from
Massey to this treatment plant.
Do you recall--I don't think Stacy was here when the Vanderbilt Beach Country Club was
permitted; I don't know if you were. But do you recall what the requirements are or how that's being put
together?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: I do,actually. It was before my time,but Mr. Van Lengen is very
helpful, in the back,and helped us look this up in the CTS system,the Commitment Tracking System.
And under Vanderbilt Reach Country Club,the PUD for that project,I believe,it's Letter B in their
transportation commitments, it does say that they shall provide a sidewalk along their frontage.
I then checked with Laurie Beard in our commitment tracking--you know, she's our PUT)
monitoring person,and she said that,in her opinion,what has happened was that the county has agreed at
some point to accept--in lieu of the sidewalk construction itself,we've agreed to accept additional
right-of-way that's been provided where that sidewalk and roadway will be widened.
So I'm not privy at this point to the details of that transaction,but that's what I'm told has occurred.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's kind of a responsibility,then,to put it where the Vanderbilt Country
Club was supposed to?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the county's going to cover it from Massey to the church.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe so,yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we know how large of a sidewalk is there at the church level now?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: At this point,no. But I would assume if it's compliant with the LDC,it
should he 6 feet wide.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then what would be reasonable,then,is that the applicant puts
the sidewalk in from their project to Massey Street 6 feet wide on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road,
then the county would pick it up the rest of the way to make the eormection to the church,it would seem.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: I believe so,yes. We would pick it up during the Vanderbilt Beach
extension widening. If we could accelerate it faster than that to provide the sidewalk today,I can't give you
an answer for--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's a policy decision the board can decide on.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at least the board will know what the conditions are they have to deal
with.
MIZ.PODCZER NSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to get to.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody? Stan.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: John,what's your experience with discontinuous sidewalks,
gaps in sidewalks?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: When the sidewalk ends,l tend to trip and fall in the grass,but--
COMMISSIONER CHR7ANOWSKI: Yeah. So whatever goes in had better all go in at the same
time?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: That would be the recommendation, We try and make sure that the--
that the--when there's a capital project or a project sponsored by a developer,we try to make sure that the
timing of those projects coincides.The county certainly doesn't like to see a private developer spend money
and install a walk that will just get ripped out at a point in the future,maybe five or 10 years down the road or
less when we go to construct that roadway ourselves.
So we do try and make sure to coordinate those plans. Again,we don't like to duplicate effort,and
we don't like to see money wasted on either side.
So--but in this case,since we have an indefinite schedule for Vanderbilt Country--or, I'm sorry,for
Page 79 of 100
May 1, 2014
Vanderbilt Beach extension, then I really-- I'm at a loss to make sure that our schedule is--you know, is
compatible with theirs.
So the developer,obviously,would like to move forward,I'in sure,before our schedule would move
forward in the future.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But if you guys don't put your sidewalk in,their
putting their sidewalk in is kind of worthless.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Understood.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have anything else of John. Does anybody else?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not of John.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks,John.
Stacy,a 6-foot sidewalk would be consistent with the church,then,from your understanding,and the
6-foot sidewalk would meet the requirements that you would normally have requested in this area?
MS. REVAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 'that's all I wanted to make sure. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for Richard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Richard,could I please ask you some questions?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Of course.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're--I'm looking at the Douglas Street,and I see one,two--okay,
three,even though there isn't an arrow,for the entrances there.
MR. YOVANOVICI: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I see the maintenance,I see the loop road,and I see the other
one on the existing golf course. So you've come up with an extra one here. You've come up with four?
MR.YOVANOVICH: There's one along Vanderbilt Beach Road.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,but that's not Douglas.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I said there were four in that area.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh,okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Three of them on Douglas,then--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And then the two on Vanderbilt,okay. Going into that,there is
a sign deviation. And I went to the--Diana and tried to get this. And you're asking for deviations. How
many signs are you really asking for? Because you automatically get two on your road going in,and you
automatically get two on Vanderbilt Beach.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're asking for two additional ground signs.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And where do you want to put those?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Deviation No.3,correct?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh-huh.
MR.YOVANOVICH: And on the master plan,here's where Deviation 3 would be,here and here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: You automatically get one on the three over there,on that entrance.
You can have one that goes into Everglades,and if you want to divide it,it can go into Olde Florida.
MS.JENKINS: Anita Jenkins with J.R.Evans.Dl help. What the code allows for are entry signs at
your primary entryways.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
MS. JENKINS: So our primary entryways are the loop road,and so the entrances to the golf course
clubhouse facilities are not really considered the signage for the PUD for the community.
So what we're asking for--two signs at the entryways,one on Douglas,one on VBR,and then
signage at the corner there of Douglas and Vanderbilt,so--just to help with way finding so they could see,
you know,go on up the road, go on down the road.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So you get your two,so you really--you want two at this
corner of Douglas and Vanderbilt?
MS..IENKINS: Yeah. And we say two because there may be,like,some type of fencing or wall
Page 80 of 100
May 1, 2014
along the perimeter there,so they may have a sign along Douglas there on the wall,for instance,and a sign
on the wall at Vanderbilt there.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MS.JENKINS: Potentially.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And then the one on Vanderbilt, when you enter there,one will say
Olde Florida and one will say Golf--or Everglades?
MS.JENKINS: Right.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That--I just was trying to understand. As long as you're there,
Anita,Pin going to ask you some questions.
MS.JENKINS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: When I called you on this, because it looked like two different PUDs to
me,they are going to put up a fence,you told me,from the northern boundary all the way around to the
southern boundary. I think I have it highlighted here, but that will be a fence within the--on the residential
golf course side?
MS.JENKINS: Yes,ma'am.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And that is to keep the-- 1 don't know if it's to fence the people in or
fence the animals out.
And you originally had 260 acres. You got 20 acres—you added 20 acres in December,so you have
the 280,and you purchased 228; is that correct? And so you have 508 acres on this side?
MS.JENKINS: On that side,correct.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And on the Olde Florida,that leaves them 328 acres.
MS.JENKINS: Approximately.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. They're going to keep two separate golf courses.
MS.JENKINS: Yes,ma'am.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Neither one is bundled;is that correct?
MS.JENKINS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But I also noticed in the notes when you originally came in in July on
comp planning that you want to do 750 now,but in the plan you can do 833; in fact,you can do 836. It was
833 because you didn't have the 20 acres or something.
My concern is Everglades cannot stand on its own as far as preserve and as far as open area.Taking
in the preserves--taking in the preserve on the 508 acres,you would have to have--for your 25 percent,
you'd have to have 127 acres,and at this point you show that you have 37.9 and then the 503,so you have
32.92. So that's all the acreage you have as far as preserves.
On the Olde Florida site is where all the preserves are. They have, what, 130-- 138 acres?
My concern is--and you can always amend a PUD. They're going to come along and amend this
PUD;I just know it. And they're going to want the other 90 units or 85 units. So they sell the golf course.
You can sell that to anyone,right? And these homes,then,these other homes would go on-- it shows,like,
164 acres,which is the golf course on that side; is that correct?
MS.JENKINS: There's only four homes proposed for the golf course.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I understand there are only four homes proposed now,but in the PUD
it already is kind of saying you can amend the PUD,and in here it says there was 833 possible,and you want
to retain the TDR credits. So I'm saying in my mind,okay,they're going to retain the TDR credits,that's
what you're asking for,and you'll--they'll come back at a later date.
MS.JENKINS: I'm not sure I'm following you about coining back for a later date. We do have to
attain TDRs to be able to develop over 167 units on the property.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Correct,correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they weren't retaining them not to use them. They're retaining them to
use them for what they're currently asking for. If they have to come back even for one unit more in the
future,they've got to go back through this entire process all over again. So--and they could come back--
anybody in this county could come back on any land they own for anything they want at any time,so that's
not a basis for reviewing.
Page 81 of 100
May 1,2014
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's correct,but they're--but at this--and you're right,Mark,but
they're using all the acreage as far as preserves on the Olde Florida site. And it makes sense,because they're
not using them,so you've got 138 acres here. I'm just saying,Everglades could not stand on its own on the
508 acres.
Rich,what it looks like is like almost two separate PUDs,and I understand you're going to think I'm
crazy,but you need one to support the other.
MR.YOVANOVICH: That is absolutely no different than every other PUD in Collier County.Let's
look at-- if you go to Pelican,probably one of the very first PUDs that,unfortunately,also is a DRI, but you
have--that entire property works together. This is no different. This entire property works together.
The preserves--if you look at Golf Club of the Everglades, it's pretty easy to see,there are no
preserve left.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: There are none,no.
MR.YOVANOVICH: There are no preserves.
So the entirety of property,they do rely on each other, So if we were to come forward later with an
amendment,I still have to meet the preserve requirements for the entirety of the project. I still have to meet
the open space requirements for the entirety of the project.
So there's going to be a limited ability to--I'd have to come back and convince four out of five of
you to give me more density, I'm assuming I'd have to get rid of one of'the two golf courses because I don't
know where else you'd fit it,because the preserves are the preserves. They're not going to change. And I'm
going to go through a public hearing process,and I'm still going to have to meet the open space requirements
that apply to the rural fringe mixed-use district;Pm going to have to meet all those requirements as I come
back through the process.
But,yes,absolutely this project works together.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I just--when I was looking at this,I was thinking something
different,because they have 328 acres on that side.
As long as you are standing up there,I have a question as far as--and I know you changed it in the
PUD to put 40 feet wide because,you're right, I said to Anita,2,800 square feet,my house is bigger than that.
And I don't have a big house, I can tell you that.
But when you have a 35-foot property wide and 65 deep and you have 6-foot setbacks,so you take
off 12 feet,that's 23 feet. T just could not see a single-family home. But what I also did was I went and
pulled some PUDs from right around you--and I'm only going to do the single-family,because I know that,
you know,you're doing other ones,too.
Vanderbilt Country Club for single-family dwellings,minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet. And
Twin Eagles south,minimum lot is 6,815.They're all either 47,52, and 67 by 145 deep.
Tuscany Cove is 6,000 square feet,60-foot wide for their single-family detached,and the smallest
was 4,500 with Bent Creek and 1,000 square foot.
So I just--you're not--it's really tight in there,and I just wanted to say it's--if you bring it up a little
bit,that helps.
MS. JENKINS: And after our conversation,I did go back and talk to Polte,the client,and their
smallest product is a 40-foot width,so that's where the 4,000 came from. So if they put their smallest product
type in there,it would be 4,000 square foot.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Lot width is 40 feet.
MS.JENKINS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: On their smallest. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have questions of any staff member'? Go ahead,
Charlette.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. I have a question for Rich.
Currently,if I understand this correctly,the property is neutral lands in the rural fringe;is that right?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Part of it.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Part of it. Could you outline what part of it?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. Down the line,this(indicating).
Page 82 of 100
May 1,2014
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. So currently the neutral lands wouldn't be eligible for any
transfer of TDR credits into the property? That's why you want to group these together as a PUD to be
receiving lands in order to have the density credits transferred in;is that correct?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,the bottom-line answer is yes,but I can go back through the entire
presentation as to what this neutral land looks like from a species and wetlands standpoint compared to--you
know what,let me do that.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,you know,Rich,I don't think you have to because 1--
MR.YOVANOVICH: We're totally surrounded--we're totally surrounded by receiving land.
Everything around us is receiving lands.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And also in talking with staff,I understand that they did it from an
aerial perspective,and it's not necessarily in the quality of the habitat.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But that's part of you being able to get the TDR credits that's
necessary for the project density that you're looking to do.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And when I said,if you were to look at today,before the Comp Plan
changes,we have 281 acres of receiving lands,we would be allowed to go up to,as a matter of right,200--
actually it's 281.7--I think I get to round up to 282--for density on the receiving lands. I have 54 acres of
neutral lands. You divide that by five,that comes to 111. So I would be able to do 394 units under the
current provisions in the Growth Management Plan.
I think that we have more than shown that this land,this land that I'm referring to,the Olde Florida
portion of the project,meets all of the characteristics of receiving lands and,frankly,is surrounded by
receiving lands. And we've not had an environmental group or staff disagree with characterizing this land as
receiving land.
So with that comes the ability to bring in TDRs which,again,in order for the sending lands program
to be successful,you need receiving lands.
So we are providing a benefit to ourselves as well as a benefit to the overall program by having lands
that are receiving lands that we'll go out and buy TDRs from sending land. So we will buy, in order to max--
if we go to the maximum density--and I don't know where my notebook went,but it's well north of 500 units
of TDRs for this project.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And neutral lands have,as David mentioned,a higher threshold for
preservation requirements than receiving lands,so that's another tradeoff here.
But what I do think was positive is the fact that you agreed to certain provisions in the PUT)to help
facilitate that wildlife corridor. And I appreciated that partnering in terms of the size of the fence,what type
of fence,and that kind of thing.
The one question that I have is in the Olde Florida Golf Course itself. I've been out there;I've played
golf out there. And it's beautiful habitat out in the Golf Course of the Everglades and that whole area. You
consider at this point that golf course,Olde Florida Golf Course,part of the habitat that's adjacent to that
wildlife corridor; is that why you put the existing cart paths and maintenance roads to stay as-is?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMiVIISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Essentially,the Golf Club of the Everglades-- I'm sorry--Olde Florida
property is a wildlife corridor.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And it is--by leaving that as it is,I think everybody,from the environmental
perspective,has said that this is a good project.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And the transit fence now,or the better-quality fence where the
wildlife can move through,is a positive step,I think. And then moving the houses over to the other side of
the golf course facility as well that you mentioned,those four houses.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions of anybody on staff?
(No response.)
Page 83 of 100
May 1,2014
CHAIRMAN S 1 RAIN: Okay. With that,we will go to the public speakers.
Are there any registered speakers first? Is there anybody here wishing to speak on this item?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rich,you don't have anything to rebut.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Nobody's talking from the public?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Oh.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: What about the deviations?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,I would like to--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to have a lot of discussion,so--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,I don't have any public to rebut.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But I tell you what,we need to have a serious discussion about these
sidewalks. What you're proposing is not going to work,so somehow--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Which--you've got to help me. Can I deal with one type of sidewalk at a
time'?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Let's start with--the most important is the external,from my
perspective. If someone buys into that community,and they--well,first of all,you've already committed to
having sidewalks on both sides of all the roads shown on the master plan; do you agree?
MR.YOVANOVICH: On the master plan?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Internal?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR.YOVANOV ICH: Let me--hang on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put that one up. You've got cross-sections AA on all those roads. And my
assumption is--
MR.YOVANOVICH: No,that is not correct. If you look at the cross-section,it says we can put it
on one side. It fits. There's no question it fits. Okay. We can fit two sidewalks in the road,right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Then let's back up then. If you're going to go rely upon that
cross-section that you've got there as being allowed to be put on one side,then that contradicts-- Stacy's--is
Stacy till here?
John,you need to fill in for Stacy. You don't look like her,but you can fill in for her.
MR. PODCZERW'INSKY: Again,John Podczerwinsky,for the record. I know I'm not as attractive
as Stacy,but I'll do my best, If I put a nice smile on my face,it might help.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I asked earlier if the cross-section on Page 2 of the graphic description,
which is after the master plan,is consistent with the LDC, because I thought why do we have it in here if it
needs to be a deviation. I was told it's consistent with the LDC,okay.
And then Stacy says the LDC requires to have sidewalks on both sides of the road. Now we're
finding out that because of this graphic it apparently is not consistent with the LDC.and it doesn't require
sidewalks on both sides of the road. So where are we at'?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: No. It's actually the deviation that is not consistent with the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is not?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct.
MR.YOVANOVICH: The deviation.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: And,basically,what the LDC calls for--and I'm going to paraplu-ase it
for a moment. The LDC. says you may have two 5-foot sidewalks,one on each side,within your private
development or, as an option,you can provide one single 10-foot-wide pathway in lieu of those two 5-foot
sidewalks. The deviation that they're seeking is to do a single 5-foot sidewalk on one side of the roadway.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Or--let me--Mr. Strain,I think you and I may have--this road to here and
all the way over here,sidewalks on both sides.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: The other roads we're asking for the ability to do one sidewalk 5 feet in
Page 84 of 100
May 1, 2014
width.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other roads. Where are the other roads?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me do this. Let me put up our ERP plan,okay. Where'd it go? I have a
picture of Josh and his family 1'd like to show you first. Go with the sympathy factor and move on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: This is the ERP plan, Now,I think we have all on many occasions and many
projects on euI-de-sacs,have said,do you really need a sidewalk on both sides of the street on a cul-de-sac.
And I would like to quote Ms. Ebert when she said that these 5-foot sidewalks,nobody uses them. Correct?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's correct. They don't. Inside the community,they do not.
MR.YOVANOVICII: Exactly. And my point is,I can't imagine on any of these streets,if I had a
front door that fronts a 10-foot-wide pedestrian path--you're not selling that to anybody. I can't imagine I'd
be the one who would buy that lot with a 10-foot-wide sidewalk pedestrian path running trail.
So I have an option of going down to five feet on each side of the--we're not talking about the major
roads. We agree the major thoroughfare/road,whatever you want to call it,in the project will have one on
both sides.
It's the more neighborhood-type roads we're saying you don't need more than a sidewalk on either
side.
And 1 will--you know,I know we talk about how great sidewalks,theoretically,are,but I will tell
you,all of Olde Naples,you don't have any sidewalks. People walk in Olde Naples,people ride bicycles in
Olde Naples,and they get along fine in Olde Naples without sidewalks. We're not saying we want no
sidewalks. We said we want one sidewalk.
I live in Pine Ridge,and there are some streets in Pine Ridge where you can really get up a head of
steam. We have no sidewalks on the south side;we have no streetlights. People are out there walking all the
time.
If you want to move into a community that has walks on both sides of the street that you've already
said aren't really used,you can go to another competitor's community,or wherever you want to go. We're
saying that we believe it's unnecessary to have sidewalks on both sides. Most people like to have a sidewalk.
They just don't want it to be in their front yard. They don't mind walking across the street on a small local
street to walk across the street to get to the sidewalk,which will eventually get you to our major roadways
that will get you to the sidewalk on Douglas,that will get you to the sidewalk on Vanderbilt Beach Road.
We're not saying we want an unsafe walkable community. We're saying it's unnecessary on the smaller
streets to have a sidewalk on each side.
CONLVIISSIONER EBERT: Rich, I guess what I'm saying, inside the community the only ones who
really use the sidewalk are the ones who are going to go out and walk the dog. Your hikers do not use the
sidewalk,and we're getting more and more people riding their bikes.
And on your sidewalk,you have slash bike. If you want to put--and they have it in the Quarry.If
you want to put a bike lane in the street,that's fine with me,you know,but it just seems like every deviation,
the developer is trying to do less and less.
And I understand, and I have--I'll be honest with you,I have gone to transportation because
pathways/roadways are very important. And you've got the street so narrow inside these commnities,you
have--you only have 20 foot--you only have 20 foot of bituminous plus the valley gutters. You have to
almost stop.
And on yours it shows 20 feet. If somebody's passing,I mean--that means nobody can be in the
street except the two cars,and that never works out inside a community.
So that's why I'm saying that. If you'd be willing to put a bike path--I don't know how John feels
about it,but--
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,before we go that far,maybe what we could end up doing is,you've
got two different road systems to the extent they're shown on your master plan versus this plan. The master
plan that's in your PUD shows a--more or less the collector portion of road system. It doesn't--it eliminates
MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't show all the spurs off to the small neighborhoods.
Page 85 of 100
May 1, 2014
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All the small neighborhood cul-de-sacs.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's shown on the master plan, if it had sidewalks on both sides,that
would meet, at least, some standards for the inside of the property. It doesn't add much to it,but it gives you
the ability not to put them on the cul-de-sac,which is inconsistent with what staff wants,but at least you're
halfway there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And,Mr. Strain,we don't have a problem with,on the roads that are on the
master plan, a sidewalk on each side.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets us to a first possible compromise,but the real hard part's
going to he the next,and that's the road--the sidewalk system that needs to go along Vanderbilt Beach Road.
It makes no sense putting it on the south side of the road,putting the people through that dangerous--
perhaps,dangerous,and 1 think it is,crossing that would have to go across Vanderbilt to get to the sidewalk
only to go back over to the north side again to pick it up where it is currently terminated,or where it would go
to maybe at Massey Street.
So we need to put the sidewalk along the north side. It needs to match the width of what's already
started,and it needs to have at least a 2-foot clearance.
So what are your-- I know you're going to object to it, but you need to consider it,so--
MR.YOVANOVIC11: Mr. Strain, let me--there's one thing I don't know,and maybe John does
know. Is that a public right-of-way from Douglas to the west,and is there right-of-way--is that swale on the
north side of the road,which is probably going to be a significant expense to address?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Is it--one,does the county have the rights and,two, it's a significant expense
to deal with that swale.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's find out. John?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: My understanding is that from the-- it would be from Douglas Street to
the west that that is public right-of-way for Vanderbilt Beach Road. Also,my understanding is that we have
or are in the process of acquiring right-of-way to make that roadway footprint wide enough for the future
six-lane road,six-lane/four-lane. I have to double-check my lanage on that,but it's--
MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm sure Mr. Strain knows what it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know what it is now,
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: In any case,the right-of-way is the county's right-of-way. And Pm
going to step outside the box a little bit here and say that since we know that what we're asking the developer
to install is not likely going to be a long-term permanent answer,permanent solution,there may be--and I'll
have to double-check this with our road and bridge department--there may he an allowance where we could
go with a lesser standard on the construction materials used. It may not need to be concrete. The sidewalk
may not need--may not need to meet the same roadway grade conditions that the county would have to
meet.
There are a few exceptions to the typical rule that the county follows that the developer may be able
to do that would be to a lesser standard than we would typically follow and would be a cost savings to them.
At this point we haven't had an opportunity to really sit down to a table and discuss that,but I'm sure
that county staff would be open to discussing that, if that's the direction that the panel would like to take.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And how would you tic the creation of the sidewalk that would have
to be put in by the applicant to a time of the project?Now,you're looking at 750 units times 2.4 is 1,800
people. You've got some existing,although small numbers in nature,but you still have the existing people on
Douglas,and I'm not as concerned about what's in front of their project, because people in the project could
use a sidewalk going down Douglas to get to Vanderbilt.
But from Douglas westward to Massey,the timing of that piece--because once the timing of that
piece is worked out with the applicant,more than likely the county's going to have a lot of pressure to
complete the rest. And I know we have a very active commissioner in that district,and Pin sure it's
something he would be looking at as well.
So with that in mind,we could,theoretically,see a sidewalk in at a reasonable amount of time,
Page 86 of 100
May 1, 2014
depending on how the trigger would be for the internal--for triggering the one from Douglas to Massey.
MR, PODCZERWINSKY: I hesitate to say yes because I don't know of any money that's
specifically set aside for that at this point.
As I said,with Vanderbilt Country Club,my understanding is that we've accepted right-of-way that
we would have had to purchase.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we've collected--
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: In lieu of--correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --money. So one way or another,we have the money. Now ifs just a
matter of saying,the time has come. It's needed. We need to put it in because the connections are there.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: I'd have to discuss that with my management and see if that's the
direction they wish to go with their budget.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the word"management"means a lot in that case. And hopefully
they're managing, so--okay.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But timing,how do you--how do you judge a need on a 750-unit project
for that formation of the sidewalk?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: With sidewalks,it's not so much the warrant is or isn't met with
sidewalks.It is that either it does or does not exist,and either there's a need for pedestrian service or not.
And,basically, it depends on the nature of the roadway design,whether it's a rural or urban roadway.
An urban roadway would require sidewalks.A rural roadway doesn't always require them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we've already acknowledged that we need a sidewalk to go from
Douglas to Massey.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's say the requirement part of it's already been acknowledged.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Timing of that piece.
Richard,you look puzzled. I mean,that's--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah,I really am. Are we building the sidewalk for my alleged--my
theoretical 1,800 people that are living in this community that are--that are actually--we really believe those
1,800 people are going to get on their bicycle or they're going to walk or they're going to run from the
community all the way to 951? Because if we're building it for our community,I'm not sure we need to do
that.
Is that creating the need for the sidewalk?Is my community creating the need for the sidewalk to go
from--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eighteen hundred people,yes. I think there's a need there. Well over--
what,maybe 10 houses in the area now? Yes. You don't think there's a need,because of 1,800 people,for
the safety factor that that would provide for those people that may want to walk or bike down to that
intersection,which isn't that far away?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Honestly, I would love to--and can I ask a question of John?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care. Go ahead,
MR. YOVANOVICH: Does the county do any studies of the actual use of the sidewalks?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if you want to start talking studies,where's the study to justify the
deviation for the sidewalks--
MR YOVANOVICH: Mark,I think it's a fair--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --to begin with?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Mark,is it not a fair question to ask--you know,we're building all these
sidewalks. And is there--are they really being used? We're willing to pay our fair share, We're willing to go
above and beyond--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they're there,they're used.
MR.YOVANOVICH: What?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you put it in,they're generally used. I would love to see sidewalks in my
Page 87 of 100
May 1,2014
neighborhood,but there's no developer around or nobody around generating the traffic needed for them. We
don't have 1,800 people living at the end of my street. Thank God,we don't.
MR.WEEKS: May I?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? What's that mean?
MR.WEEKS: Break.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Let's take a break. We'll come back at,what, 11 minutes,at 4:20.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's get back to the meeting. It's been a long day.
And during the break Mr.Yovanovich has come back and offered to build bike lanes and sidewalks
all the way out to Vanderbilt Beach on both sides of the road. So I was real nice to him.
But, in reality,he cut that proposal back a hit and has a suggestion that we should consider.
So,Richard, do you want to--
MR.YOVANOVICH: You know,since we're going to have a little levity, I just want to put you in
the right—
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was dead serious,by the way.
MR. YOVANOV ICI I: I know you were. I want to put you in--so am I. I want to put you in the
right mental perspective. So this is what children and you have done to me, Mr. Strain. That's--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who is that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I used to look like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Holy cow.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So I just want to put that in the right perspective.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I think that's Norm Trebilcock.
MR.YOVANOVICH: What's that?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It looked like Norm Trebilcock.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Ooh. Wow.
Here's what we think is a fair proposal,keeping in mind--no, Urn not going to go there. We think
that we are willing at the earlier of the county having the permits to constrict the sidewalk or our 375th unit,
which is halfway through the project,to pay,based upon the county's then in effect payment in lieu schedule
for sidewalks, which is roughly--I think it's$8 and something cents a square foot--it's roughly$140,000 to
build the--from Douglas to Massey. We'll pay that money to the county. They can design,permit,and
construct the sidewalk,because it's really key on them--it's key to them doing St.--from St. Agnes east.
Anyway, so when they're ready to go,we'll give them the money. They can build out all the way.
Or if they're not ready to go,we'll give it to--we'll give them the 140,000 and change at our 375th unit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they're ready to go,you said you would build it--
MR. YOVANOV ICH: Nope.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --all the way--then you would put the money up.
MR.YOVANOV ICH: They build it. We'll put up the money.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You would contribute the money the earlier of the county having the
permits for the sidewalk in the area between Massey and Douglas or your 375th unit?
MR. YOVANOVICH: They would get the permit,actually,from where it ends right now,St. Agnes
all the way to Douglas.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when it's permitted from St. Agnes to Douglas Street--
MR.YOVANOVICH: We'll give them,roughly,I think it's 140,000-ish.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever the payment in lieu of is by the LDC at that time,which is a
current standard we use today anyway.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right,right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
John?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,from a process viewpoint,what is he--where is the hidden little
catch that Richard's got built into here that we're not seeing?
Page 88 of 100
May 1, 2014
MR. PODCZERWLNSKY: The hidden catch--and I'll actually speak out loud on microphone what
Rich and I just discussed two seconds ago.
The concept of this being an off-site improvement and then it may be eligible for impact fee credits if
they were to do this. If its a miniimun LDC requirement,it is outright the developer's requirement to do so
along the frontage.
This being an off site improvement they, of course,would have to apply for those impact fee credits.
But it's--I think it's something they could certainly discuss with the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying that even though they put the money up,they could come
back and get it back as impact fee--
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --credits because it's not required because it's not in front of their project?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm going to look at Heidi when I ask the question,but I would want to
make sure that transportation department is not asking for an exaction of any kind. We are looking to ask for
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. we can't legally do that.
MR.YOVANOVICII: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm not going there. I'm just trying to--they volunteered to put the
sidewalk in to Massey. And now that we tried to call them on that volunteering effort,we're trying to have
another deal put on the table to see how we can do it so that everybody--as a compromise,and that's
something we should be listening to.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Understood. And if there's anything that I'm not seeing in that
discussion,I can't tell you that I'm aware of it at this point.
We would like to take it under advisement and look at it amongst staff and make sure that all options
are as least vetted amongst the developer,among staff,and then we'd like to probably bring you a
recommendation back when you guys hear this for the final time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we're going to--we're supposed to vote on this today.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Oh, consent is today?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Consent is--we can't change the vote on consent. We only can
confirm that the accuracy of our stipulations came through on consent. That's all we're allowed to do.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're going--the decision is supposed to be made today.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as permitting the section from St.Agnes to Douglas,from a
timefratne viewpoint,do you have any idea what that could involve?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: I'm sorry. Say the question one more time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where the sidewalk terminates at St.Agnes and goes to Douglas--
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --the time frame to permit that, do you know what kind of position we are
in to get it permitted? Because it's the same position we'd be in whether we accepted this deal or not. I'm just
curious what that is.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: I believe our position right now is I think we're at or near 60 percent
design. And the reason 1 say that we're at or near 60 percent design is, historically,as I recall,we made it to
60 percent with the Vanderbilt Beach extension project. When we reach 60 percent,that allows us to go and
acquire right-of-way and seek permits at that level. It's a status within our permitting process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't even know if you've got the right-of-way to put this sidewalk
in.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. I don't know if we have all of it yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even if we wanted to put it in immediately,we couldn't?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: I wouldn't say that we couldn't,but I don't believe we could today. I'd
have to take a second look to see if we have enough right-of-way to do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if we were to focus on just permitting the sidewalk,not the rest of the
Page 89 of 100
May 1,2014
road--because that's a much bigger project--
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --can that he done independently of the road?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are all--that's good information. Thank you.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER CIIRZANOWSKI: Can I do my sidewalk rant now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I started this when we first went on break,and I shouldn't
have even said the word"sidewalk."
I am the person--when we had--the first bike-path coordinator was a guy name Jeremy Battis
(phonetic). I was his chaperone when we biked almost every road that was existing in Collier County at that
time to make the first bike/ped map.
I bike this road all the time. I bike VBR from one end to the other,because I live near the
intersection of Airport and Vanderbilt.
Island Walk is right next to--it exits onto this road. It's right near the shopping center.Every time I
bike this--and I use a mountain bike now. I got rid of my road hike.
I'm comfortable in the lane,bike lanes. It's not a problem. And out here in Vanderbilt, I'm
comfortable out their,too,out in the road. It's no big deal. But I'm up on the sidewalk now because I'm
older.
And the road bike just--I like the mountain bike. It's much more stable when I go off the road and
into the gutter and into the swale and whatever. I can stay up.
CIAIRMAN STRAIN: This is going somewhere, right?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: This is going somewhere,yeah.
I never see anybody on those freakin'sidewalks. I mean,we have a beautiful system in this town.
And when I used to bike to work, 1 hated the Airport Road sidewalk because it's on one side of the road,and
you have to--it's a very bad stretch from Pine Ridge to Golden Gate.
I used to go out to Livingston and do that sidewalk,but it's only on one side of road.I'd love it if
they put it on the other side of the road. You wouldn't have to cross over and then cross back,which is--you
know,twice crossing traffic,you don't really need.
Places where we need stuff where we actually have--and there are actually some people biking
those sidewalks. But when I'm out here,I don't see anybody biking--well,there are some heavy-duty bikers
that do the bike lane still,but I don't see out--anybody out on these sidewalks out here. You know that-- I
just don't. And I wish I saw more people out there walking,you know,from Island Walk to the shopping
center, whatever. I just don't.
So you can build all the sidewalks you want.You can't force people to use them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--but with this--
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, I agree. We should build sidewalks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the price of gas going up and the lack of fitness for a lot of people in
this country,the more we can encourage people to use sidewalks in lieu of driving and things like that is
better,and we can't do that if they're not there,
So the opportunity to put them there is now. We have someone willing to, more or less,work
towards that goal,so I think we ought to work the best opportunity we can to see that happen.
John?
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. I just wanted to jump in quickly. I have a correction for a
statement that I made earlier. I've received a clarification from one of our staff members via text message to
let me know that the conveyance on Vanderbilt Beach Road that I was discussing previously is actually a
conveyance that occurred on 951.
I was--I incorrectly gave you the wrong information. So such that the Vanderbilt Country Club is
still--as far as I understand it at this point is still on the hook, so to say,to provide payment in lieu for that
sidewalk,for that portion at the frontage of their property.
Page 90 of 100
May 1, 2014
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that is really good for the county,then,because the only piece the
county needs is what's in front of its water plant,and then we've got--so that's a small budget issue compared
to what we would get reimbursed from Vanderbilt Country Club and the process that Richard's talking about
now to put--for them to put up.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: I believe so,yes.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to change the deal already? We just started talking about it.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,that's the best time to change it--slightly.
I'm not sure whatever happened,but I do--one of the things that Mike Hunnican just pointed out to
me is we don't think we should have to pay the money in until we actually get our core permitting done. I
don't--that's going to take about a year.
I don't know that the county would move that quickly,but we didn't want to--we never anticipated
being in a position where we'd have no cash flow from the project to actually fund our monies,okay. So we
think that we should be allowed--we should at least be able to,you know,sell 50 houses before we have to
pony up the cash.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Without that project,the need for the sidewalk isn't as great--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Doesn't exist. I mean, it's not there at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --because your project's creating the need,and it's--I think that's fair
enough. I don't have a problem with it.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the way it's going to work is when you sell 50 houses,you'll put the
money up as--if the county's permitted and moving forward,but when you sell the 375th house,you'll put
the money up regardless of the position of the county.
MR.YOVANOVICH: The county's in,correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how--the money that's being put up would be for a 6-foot-wide
sidewalk from Massey to Douglas,to the connecting sidewalk on Douglas,which is on the east side of
Douglas.
And then that--then the county will,theoretically,have the permitting to put that in and to put the
piece from St.Agnes all the way to Massey so we have one connecting future link for a sidewalk complete
from Douglas till 951.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How does that sound to the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That sounds good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray?
MR.BELLOWS: I would just like a clarification when you say sold. I think we had similar
language,but we used--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: CO'ed.
MR.BELLOWS: --when it CO'ed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,CO'ed is the way it would be.
Okay. If the Planning Commission has no objections to it. IIeidi,have you heard what's being
discussed?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,but are you saying at the 50th CO?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. There's two steps,and rightfully so. If they don't have a viable project,
it's a lot of money to put up without that. I understand that. And every developer runs on cash flow. At the
--if the county gets the permits to put the pieces in from St.Agnes all the way to Douglas,and they've sold
the 50th house,they will--
MR.YOVANOVICH: CO'ed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --CO'ed,I'm song--CO'ed the 50th house,they will put the money up
when requested from that 50th house on.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we don't have the permits or request it by the time they sell the 375th
Page 91 of 100
May 1, 2014
house--CO'ed the 375th house,they'll put the money up regardless.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, is that enough for you to verify a paragraph that's produced by them
to make sure we get that added to the PUD as one of their development commitments?
MS.ASH"TON-CICKO: Yes. And also,based on the testimony that we've heard today, I think
there's staff testimony that the project impacts this roadway such that they would not necessarily be entitled to
impact fee credits. That seemed to he an afterthought, so it's up to you.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Actually,I thought John Podezerwinsky offered to give me impact fee
credits.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I bet you he'll come up right now and say he got contacted by staff
and he has to reconsider that position,so--
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: To be very clear,they--it's my belief that they can apply for them. I
can't guarantee them,because I'm only a staff member. It is ultimately the board's decision,but it is my belief
that they could apply for that. If they're providing an off-site improvement that is not LDC required,then
they can apply for impact fee credits.
CIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's your belief.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm on the record saying it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's fine. I understand. And whatever comes out to be the fairest
way it needs to be done,I'm sure that's what will happen.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: And as I stated previously, I want to make sure that we're not causing
any kind of exaction,so--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understood.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: John,if you didn't believe that,could they still apply for
them?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: If I didn't believe it?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes.
MR.PODCZERWINSKY: I think they could apply for them. I just don't think they'd get them.
MR.YOVANOVICH: If you didn't believe it?
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,ma'am.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: In reference to what we're speaking about,could there be a situation
--and this might be a question for John. Could there be a situation where the county could be prepared to
move forward with the sidewalk and put it in before the 50th house was CO'ed in this project,and then what
would happen?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: There could be a situation like that. It's highly unlikely that there would
be. As I said,at this point the widening of Vanderbilt Beach Road and appurtenances that go with it,like the
sidewalks,has been indefinitely postponed. It's still in our Capital Improvement EIement to acquire
right-of-way for that,but it's been indefinitely postponed,so it's at the political will of the board as to when
they would like to see that move forward.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well, it's highly unlikely,but what if,for example,the political will
would change and they put the sidewalk in,and this is before this project has its 50th house CO'ed; is the
petitioner off the hook then?
MR.YOVANOVICH: No. We'll pay you. We'll pay you at the 50th.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: At that point?
MR.YOVANOVICH: At the 50th,yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. If the county's ready to go ahead of time,they will reimburse the
county at the 50th CO. If the county's not ready to go by the time they get the 50th CO,anytime the county is
ready to go between the 50th and 375th CO,they will pay. If they don't--if the county isn't ready to go by
the 375th CO,they will pay it in lump sum at that time,
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,I'm just questioning,you know,whether or not there would be a
reimbursement provision or if they just would pay--you know,just be off the hook. That's what I was
Page 92 of 100
May 1, 2014
asking.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No. As far as I understand,they wouldn't be off the hook. If they've
committed to it in a PUD and it's one of the requirements the board adopts,then we would make sure to
enforce that at the time its required.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you.
CONL IISSIONER EBERT: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for Kris.
Kris,when you're coining up,I was reading meeting notes on the public utilities,and it said within
the CCWSA the force main will be extended from the west but to consider the sizing of the water conveyance
in view of the fire requirements,which this would be a fire-wise community.
Does it make a difference out there to have bigger force mains because of the requirements that the
forestry and stuff is putting in?
MR.VAN LENGEN: Good afternoon,Kris Van Lengen,principal planner,public utility.
Yeah,the force mains would be for the wastewater conveyance,and they have to put those in
because there are none out there at the present tune.
I think,as you had mentioned,there are water mains traveling out to that--in that direction,and
they're presently sized at, I think, 10 inches, I believe.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't know. I was just reading the notes,so--
MR.VAN LENGEN: So our process is this;that their hired engineer under seal provides to us an
analysis of the required flow,and including fire flow,as you mentioned,and that depends on a number of
factors;distance from the main transmission mains,distance to the PUD itself,within the PUD how many
connection there are,the sizing within the PITD. So there are a number of factors that go into that engineer's
analysis.
Then that analysis goes to the county in both the GMD engineering department as well as the public
utilities reviews it. So it's a process that occurs later in time.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So I was just thinking of the--and I shouldn't say 'just
thinking." Because this is a requirement now for the,you know,30 feet,you know,and all the preserves and
everything,just--that was my thing,if it needed anything special now,because I don't know how long we've
been doing this where we really have Collier County water out there,water and sewer,so--
MR.VAN LENGEN: And we do have sufficient planning in terms of plant capacity. So it's a
matter of conveyance,I think is what you're talking about.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,right. That's what I--yes. Thank you.
MR.VAN LENGEN: You're welcome.
CIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions of any member of staff at this
point? We've already had--gone through our public process,so that will wrap up the public hearing,and we
will now move into discussion and motion.
We have two items to make motions on separately. One is the GMP amendment and one is the
rezone amendment,the rezone request. Both times this board would be sitting as the EAC and the CCPC,so
the motion maker needs to include that reference as part of the motion.
I would suggest that we have some--we've walked through the PUD document carefully,we've laid
out a bunch of corrections that are going to come back on consent. We can verify,then,that all of the
grammaticals and the various changes need to be made.
There are some substantial items that I'll just reiterate so the motion maker is aware of them, if the
motion is to approve.
Number one is that the sidewalk,no matter where it occurs,will have at least a minimum of 2-foot
clear space between the curb and the sidewalk. That doesn't pose a problem for the internal portions of the
project,but that,more specifically,would have to occur in the cross--on the south side of Vanderbilt Beach
Road where they may be putting it there.
We would be approving Deviation No. 1 with the exception that the sidewalks will go along both
sides of the road for those roads that are shown on the master plan.
Page 93 of 100
May 1,2014
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're on the north side. Mr. Strain,in front of our project--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's on the north side. The sidewalk's on the north side.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The testimony was it's on the south side.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Not in front of our project. In front of our project,it's on the north side. We
were saying once we got--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Past your project you're going to kick it over on the south side?
MR.YOVANOVICII: That's what we talked about,but now we've resolved all that. Rut,yes,that
was the discussion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that's--still,it's 2-foot clear area no matter what side it occurs
on. That was the point.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I just wanted to make sure you understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We would be approving Deviation No. 1 with the exception of the roads
shown on the master plan will all have sidewalks 5-foot wide on both sides of those roads.
The footnotes are going to all be modi lied.That's part of the general changes we made. The
applicant will be maintaining Douglas up to its northernmost entrance point.
The sidewalk we've discussed with Heidi. She will be producing language in conjunction with the
applicant to lay it out as we have explained it,which I'm not going to go into that again. It's on record.
And that's most of the changes I see-- have written down. Did I miss anything from the Planning
Commission's perspective?
Richard, is anything there you want to add--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Whoops,John is coining up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --as a stipulation against yourself?
MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm not letting John take the mike.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,yeah,you are.
MR.YOVANOVICH: So then I'm not waiving any final comments.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Just one point to clarify.I'm curious,when you say roads on the master
plan,you mean the highlighted roads on the exhibit that's shown on the screen right now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,just those areas on the master plan that go up around that central
preserve area up to the tangent in the north that--and the highlighted area and the road to the south,yeah,
because I wasn't referring to just the highlighted,but now that's the case.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Excellent. All right. So it would not include any of the cul-de-sacs?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. Excellent. Just to get it on the record,I just wanted to make sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a point--a question on the sidewalks. I understood we were
putting the sidewalks through on Vanderbilt Reach Road on the northern side from this property all the way
through to 951.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to let—the county is going to do whatever. We're just giving
money.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this is accomplishing that goal.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was part of it,but we discussed it in such detail,I didn't want to take a
chance and--
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But then he just brought up the south side again,so--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that was my mistake.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That was Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He was correcting me,which is something he likes to do.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Doesn't happen very often,but--did you include the utility language we
Page 94 of 100
May 1, 2014
talked about?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That was part of our--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. I just wanted to make sure nothing was missed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I've made--you know,we've got our notes from all the previous
discussions,and when your consent document comes ahead,comes along,I'll be back checking it against all
the stuff that occurred today.
So with that,I have one other question. It's of Kay. There are two recommendations that you
identified in--as needed in your staff report. I thought those got worked out,so where are we with those two
recommendations?
MS.DESELEM: I have to defer to David Weeks, because that's a comp planning issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,actually,it's in your staff report for the PUD rezone.
MS.DESELEM: Right. But that's because the consistency finding by comp planning staff said it's
consistent if those are done. So in order to make that full finding of consistency,I need their input.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David? Are you aware of what Kay had written as
recommendations in her staff report?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.I am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's two of them there. Do we still need them?
MR.WEEKS: Well,we're split. The one had to do with sidewalks,which were--have now been
addressed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,she didn't--
MR.YOVANOVICH: That wasn't in the staff report.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They didn't make a recommendation about the sidewalks in the staff report.
MR. WEEKS: Then maybe I don't.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I thought they did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,they did not.
MR.YOVANOVICH: No,they actually--they actually basically--Kay said I don't need any
sidewalks,and then they wanted the specific list of foliage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They wanted two things,and one was identify the PUD,the non-highly
flammable plant pieces to be used within 30 of the preserve setback. And the second one was identify the
PC D,the Southwest Florida cultivated landscaping plant species to be used and planted around structures.
MR.WEEKS: The answer is--thank you. The answer is no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: And let me just very briefly say,the applicant has--for the specific things in the staff
report,the language the applicant has submitted is, I'll say, in concept acceptable.That was where I had
mentioned that there's been some internal discussions which the applicant has not seen where we have
wordsmithed some of their language,and we've taken it from--some of their language from permissive to
mandatory. And,understandably,Planning Commission said you can't present that here when we've not had
time to review it,digest it.
So I can only say that conceptually we find the petition to be consistent with the plan,and between
now and adoption we will work with the applicant hopefully to come to agreement on how we've modified
their language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is adoption.
MR. WEEKS: For the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.WEEKS: We understand you're done,and you haven't had a chance to react--see our language
the hoard--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Hey there,hi there,ho there.
MS.ASHION-CICKO: Well,the applicant did see the language,because that's what I gave him a
couple days ago but,you know--
MR. WEEKS: The staff version of the language is not in the PUD that you have--
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
Page 95 of 100
May 1,2014
MR.WEEKS: --nor that I think was submitted today or days ago.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I--can you give me one second to talk to my client? Because what I
don't want to do--can I confirm something with Mrs. Ashton?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Or Cicko, sorry.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Either is fare.
MR. YOVANOVICH: My understanding,as of today, 1 don't have any objectors to this project.I'm
not aware of any objectors to this project.And,knock on wood,I get unanimous approval from the Planning
Commission,I would be eligible to go on summary agenda,correct,but for this issue with staff not being
ready to give me the real language they want in the PUD.
MR.WEEKS: Don't point your finger.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm not pointing at you. I'm just pointing generally.
MR. WEEKS: There's some history here,but go ahead.
MR.YOVANOVICH: So I would prefer that we get specific language, strikethrough and underline
format,that they want. And we have the--1 ike we did with the previous petition--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to continue this one to the 15th?
MR. YOVANOVICH: So I don't have to go and have a public hearing--I don't have to have--get
pulled off summary to address these issues. Is that fair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's--i mean,we can't be inconsistent. We allowed the last applicant
to have that,so we would have to allow you that as well. So if that's what you're asking for,that's fine.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Keeping in mind,that means I've got to have--according to Kay,who's
whispering loudly,that we have to have all this language worked out tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good.
MR.YOVANOVICH: So I'm not in control of that. The language has got to come from staff early
enough in the day for us to react to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I just--if you want the continuance--pardon me? You said
something.
MS.ASIITON-CICKO: He already has it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Is that the final version?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. You've got to use the mike,Richard.
MR.YOVANOVICII: Is that okay or not?
MR.WEEKS: This is in your P1.JD?
MR.YOVANOVICH: We submitted language that basically said we're going to--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you need our review of that in order to avoid being pulled off
consent is what it boils down to,regardless of whether you reviewed it or not.
MR.WEEKS: Conceptually we agree,but we did make some changes.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand,but there's--there needs to be some wordsmithing in our
language. By way of example,they're requiring us to have a--the road leading to the--this preserve,they
want a stabilized base.
Now the way the language reads,it's ambiguous. Do you want a stabilized base just for this portion,
or am I doing a stabilized base around the entirety of the preserve? There's those concerns that we have based
on the language that we were provided,and I don't know how quickly I can get that resolved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we have a--well,this board doesn't seem to indicate there's a
problem giving you a continuance. I would rather the language was accurate than making a mistake this late.
The only thing I'd like to ask of this board is that when we come hack to hear this on--well,hear this on the
continuance,which will be a combination continuance and consent,that we limit our discussion to those
things that we have not discussed today or to errors in what we have already given direction on. I don't want
to open this whole day up all over again.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: You don't like to talk to Rich?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean,we've been at this for two or three hours on this one project,
Page 96 of 100
May 1,2014
which is fine. Were getting to the bottom line,but I don't want to start all over again when we meet.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'd like to suggest that we just check off language and talk about the few
issues that are still on the table for resolution when we come back for continuance. Yes?
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And,Mr.Chair,would that include some of the time that John
wanted with the transportation piece on these sidewalks that he wanted to take a look at and get back with us
and let the staff make a recommendation?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further clarification we can get from them on that. That's an
outstanding issue yet because its not written,and we have the tire-wise issue that's got to be resolved, and
that's the two big issues.
MR.PODCLERWATSKY: Yeah. From transportation's side,I'll be glad to check in on that and find
out exactly what the answer is on any of the impact fee credits,if they'll be available.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I amend my request. Go ahead and vote today,and we'll deal with staff in
the next four weeks,because I don't think I can get it done by tomorrow,so go ahead. Because I've got to
have it done by tomorrow as far as the language goes on the fire mitigation issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. Before you jump there,who on staff has indicated you've
got to have it done by tomorrow? We don't have another meeting for two weeks. We get our packet the
Friday before that meeting, so how are we looking at tomorrow as the deadline?
MS.DESELEM: For the record,we need to get the information to Judy Puig to be distributed no
later than next Wednesday. Staff needs time to review what it is they're proposing. So we need to get it by
tomorrow so we have Monday and Tuesday to review it. Now,we could probably stretch it to Monday,but
bear in mind,we're doing the same thing with Buckley. So we've got two projects that we've got to do this
for,and there's only so many hours in my days.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This review,though,is only for the corrections. It's not you're--we're not
rereading the whole project.
MS.DESELEM: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only changes should be strikeouts for the corrections made these two
days.
MS. DESELEM: Right. But we have to get it all done within a very short period of time.You've got
a lot of players that have to review it and see it and bless it.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Honestly,it's too complicated to rush. I don't want to make a mistake
because I've got to have it done by Monday.We've already provided--we walked you through all
strikethrough and underlines.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know.
MR. YOVANOV ICH: So I think,really,the only thing we're talking about now is the fire
mitigation and the sidewalk issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--
MR. YOVANOV1CH: But be that as it may.
CIAIRMAN STRAIN: --you may end up not being on consent for that.
MR.YOVANOVICH: What's that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You probably won't get on consent--not our consent,but the board's
consent.
MR. YOVANOVICII: No. I won't get on summary,I recognize that,because you,frankly,will
have not seen the final version of the fire mitigation language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then at this point we've--I think we've gone through the
stipulations,discussion,and we won't be continuing this. We'll be finalizing it with what information we've
been given to review today,and then the board will have to review whatever pieces are missing and
whenever it's produced in the future because they haven't negotiated it all out yet.
So with that in mind,I had read previously a series of--
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I just need to make one comment.
Page 97 of 100
May 1, 2014
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,go ahead.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: As part of the motion,you'll need to make a finding that you find it
consistent with the Growth Management Plan,because that's part of your charge under Chapter 163.
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. So were going to need two motions. I've read the potential
stipulations earlier. We have to hear it--we have to make the motion as the EAC and the CCPC,and the first
motion would be the Growth Management Plan amendment.
Is anybody willing to make a motion on the Growth Management Plan amendment?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I will make a motion to recommend adoption of
PL20130000365/CP-2013-4. Recommend adoption--that the BCC adopt the Growth Management Plan
amendment as it's consistent--she wants it to be consistent--
MR. WEEKS: That's the rezone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me?
MS.ASIITON-CICKO: The PUD,you'll need to find it--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The PUD.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The PUD. So I'm doing the Growth Management Plan right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So you don't have to do that. So let's leave it with--we've got to do
that one first.
COMMISSIONER IIOMIAK: But also as the EAC,that has to be separate motion?
CHAIRMAN S'I RAIN: No,no. But you're recommending approval--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right,adoption.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --adoption of that GMP agreement on behalf of the CCPC and the EAC;is
that correct?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Made by Ms.Ilomiak,seconded by Brian.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye.
CIAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
Now we need a motion on the rezone,and that one has to be found consistent with the GMP,and we
are doing it for the CCPC and EAC both.
Anybody want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll give it a shot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I make a motion that we fund--that we forward
PUDZ-PL201300001374 to the Board of County Commissioners as being consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation of approval?
COMINBSSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As the CCPC and the EAC?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: As the CCPC and the EAC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. And subject to the stipulations we previously ran'?
Page 98 of 100
May 1, 2014
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And not accepting staffs recommendations?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBER"l': And not accepting their recommendations?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. David sent them on new paper. We don't need them anymore.
That's what he acknowledged.
Is there a second,before we get into any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Mr.Chrzanowski,seconded by Ms. Homiak.
The motion was made subject to the stipulations,not accepting staffs recommendations because staff
has provided another document to the applicant in which they're working out their differences in that regard
to the fine-wise program,and that was made on both the CCPC and the EAC's behalf.
Is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Is that how we delineate the two different documents,or did we use
the revision date on the document that we actually saw and discussed today?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The document were discussing is the one that was in our packet that we
just read off the agenda. Is that what you're trying to--
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. I'm trying to distinguish the fact of what we reviewed and
discussed versus what's going to come late in the process with what--staffs going to rework some language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're only--we're approving it now based on the changes we
recommended today. We confirm those changes on consent when they cone back on the 15th. The consent
will verify everything we said today. And if something that we said today isn't articulated properly in the
consent,then we correct that,but we emit change our vote from today. We can only correct matters that were
improperly annotated by staff or corrected by staff.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. I understand that point,but when we are recommending
approval,we're using the document we discussed today.
CHAIR:VLAN STRAIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. This other document we just put out of our minds until it--we
get new language in the one that comes back to us on consent'?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What other document?
COMMISSIONER.ROMAN: Well --or the new language or the new paragraph that David--the
staff--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,David's we won't sec. It wasn't part of our motion because it wasn't
provided to us in time to review it.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that will go strictly to the board. We won't see that one. So we're
reviewing--we're approving our packet today.That's what the--out packet with the recommended changes.
That's what's coming back on consent.
Okay. Is there a--now we've--I'll call for the motion. All those in favor,signify by saying aye,
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye,
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
That gets us through a long and grueling day. So thank you all for your attendance today,and--
MR.YOVANOVICH: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have no old business. There's no new business. A motion to adjourn?
Page 99 of 100
May 1,2014
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Ebert. Second by?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak.
All in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you all.
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of
the Chair at 5:00 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
{ 1j f
1 ARK`STRAIN,CHAIRMAN
ATTEST
DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on r f ,as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE,INC.,
BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 100 of 100