Loading...
CCPC Minutes 07/21/2005 R July 21, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida July 21, 2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Board of County Commissioners' Board Room, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: VICE CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti Donna Reed Caron Kenneth Abernathy Lindy Adelstein Russell Budd (Absent) Paul Midney (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie Student - Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. and Env. Services Raymond Bellows, Chief Planner Don Scott, Transportation Planner Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner Alan EI-Urfali, Transportation Planner Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JULY 21,2005, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRA TION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NOTE: The public should be advised that a member of the Collier County Planning Commission (Bob Murray) is also a member of the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. In this regard, matters coming before the Collier County Planning Commission may come before the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee from time to time. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 2, 2005, REGULAR MEETING; JUNE 16,2005, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS -JUNE 8, 2005, WORKSHOP; JUNE 14, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 -. -'".'~--~"--~'-'-'-"'-'~"""-"'- A. Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6092, Benderson Development Company, represented by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel & Andress, requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MUPUD) for a project known as the Westport Commerce Center. Revise the PUD document and Master Plan to show a reduction in the intensity of the commercial/retail and industrial square footage, delete the "Accommodations District" land use, and increase the amount of preserve area. The property is located on Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and Davis Boulevard, in Section 3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of97± acres. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) B. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-663I , Norman Taylor, represented by Kelly Smith, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezone from the (E) Estates zoning district to the (CPUD) Commercial Planned Unit Development zoning district for low intensity transitional commercial land uses, convenience commercial land uses and intermediate commercial land uses as identified for the Neighborhood Center Sub-district at this subject property in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) of Collier County's Growth Management Plan (GMP). The subject property, consisting of 5.46 acres, is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Blvd. and Everglades Blvd., more particularly described as all of Tract 1, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 77, in Section 5, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike J. DeRuntz) CONTINUED FROM 7/7/05 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 7-21-05/CCPC AgendaIRB/sp 2 July 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, we would like to start the meeting. Collier County Planning Commission, July 21 st. If you will all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Start with roll call. Ms. Caron? MS. CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? MR. VIGLIOTTI: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Abernathy? MR. ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Strain is here. Mr. Budd is absent, Mr. Midney is absent. Mr. Adelstein? MR. ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHIFFER: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're here. MR. MURRAY: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see you through Brad, so -- Addenda to the agenda. Gentlemen, are there any changes or suggestions to the agenda at this point? MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. I'd like to add an item, talk about certain scheduling considerations for the planning commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will under new business be okay for that? MR. ABERNATHY: New business would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff, is there any changes to the agenda from staff? MR. BELLOWS: No changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences? I think our next meeting is August 4th. Are we all planning to be Page 2 July 21, 2005 here? (All say yes.) Approval of minutes on June 2nd, 2005? MR. ADELSTEIN: Moved. MR. SCHIFFER: Seconded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved and seconded. All those in favor? (All say aye.) Minutes of June 2nd, 2005 -- I mean June 16th, I'm sorry. MR. ABERNATHY: So moved. MR. SCHIFFER: Seconded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved and seconded. MR. MURRAY: June 16th, one correction, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MR. MURRAY: On Page 34 of said document, it speaks on the top, about the third line down, it speaks about official and they really -- and the word should be surficial, and that's in two locations in that -- let's see, one, two, three, four, five -- four and five, the word official should be replaced with surficial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So noted. MR. ABERNATHY: Is that s-u-r-f-i-c-i-a-l? MR. MURRAY: Correct. MR. ABERNATHY: As in surface? MR. MURRAY: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other corrections? Mr. Murray? MR. MURRAY: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm assuming the motion maker with accept the amendments? MR. ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor? Anybody opposed? Okay. Page 3 July 21, 2005 Ray, do we have any BCC report recaps? MR. BELLOWS: There was no BCC meeting on July 12th. However, I do want to make note that the conditional use for the Jehovah's Witness, which was scheduled for next Tuesday, has been continued at the request of the petitioner. They want to meet with the Golden Gate residents and the Civic Association to come to some better agreement on the extent of the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anything else? None? Then we'll start. Ah, good morning, Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get into our regular agenda. The first item on the agenda is Petition PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6092, the Benderson Development Company, a rezone from a PUD to a mixed use PUD, also known as Westport Commerce Center. All those wishing to testify in this particular item, would you please rise and be sworn in? WHEREUPON: ALL POTENTIAL WITNESSES, having been first duly sworn, upon their oath, testified as follows: CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. You may be seated. Okay. Mr. Anderson, I bet you're representing the applicant-- oh, I'm sorry. Is there any conflicts -- not conflicts, but any disclosures? MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. I met with Don Scott. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyothers? Okay. Sorry, Bruce, go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and the Planning Commission. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress law firm, and I'm here on behalf of Benderson Development's interests. Also with me today are Fred Reischl and Jim Carr Page 4 July 21, 2005 of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, and Rick Reiff of Kimley-Horn & Associates. This is a PUD amendment application. I would say candidly that this is the kind of zoning petition that you all probably ought to love receiving. This application simply eliminates the hotel and reconfigures the square feet of the already allowed commercial and light industrial uses, and it's reconfigured into a mix that lowers the trip generation rate by more than 10 percent from the current PUD allowed mets. That's an apples-to-apples companson. Plus, the application increases the preserve area to cover more than 25 percent of the site. Specifically, for the record, the changes convert 345,000 square feet of light industrial uses and a 150-room hotel into 95,000 square feet of retail commercial uses. No new land uses are proposed as part of this amendment. The Westport property has been under development as the marketplace, market center, at the corner of Davis and Collier Boulevard. This property has been platted, and it's improved with a public bypass road around the Davis/Collier Boulevard intersection, so people can avoid that. This is the bypass road of which I speak. It seems to me that this is the kind of application that the County Commission and that you folks want to encourage to reduce future traffic impacts from those which are presently already authorized. We have received a request for a potential future interconnection from property owner interests immediately to the west of this parcel, and we will add an arrow on the PUD master plan along the western boundary to so indicate a potential future interconnection. Our transportation planner, Rick Reiff from Kimley-Horn, is available to answer or to address the reduced trip generation represented by this application, or you may want to hear that from your own transportation planning staff. Otherwise, I and the other members of the project team are available to respectfully answer your questions. Page 5 July 21, 2005 MR. MURRAY: Well, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes? MR. MURRAY: I was just going to look -- I'll go ahead. Okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MURRAY: Bruce, just to verify, I think I'm clear on it, but to the south on that property, that is all -- that's all walled, is it now? It has a wall on it all along that area right there? That is the Wal-Mart area. Is it not? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I'm told the wall does extend all the way around the boundary. MR. MURRAY: Yeah, I believe it does. I just want to be clear in my mind. So the buffering was my concern, and I'm satisfied. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the Commission? MR. SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. SCHIFFER: Bruce, the ownership of it, we did get a further disclosure, but in your application, you state that Wal-Mart is an owner also, or -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes. They own the parcel upon which the W al- Mart has been constructed. MR. SCHIFFER: That's in the PUD, but it's not in the application, is there -- MR. ANDERSON: They're not the applicant. They're not involved in this application. MR. SCHIFFER: But the items in there in which we disclose who the ownership of the property is, shouldn't they be in there, or -- MR. ANDERSON: No, because they're not the applicant. They don't -- MR. SCHIFFER: So only owners -- MR. ANDERSON: They're not affected one way or the other by this. Page 6 July 21, 2005 MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, how did -- how large is the Wal-Mart site? THE WITNESS: I believe it's around 220,000,221. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how many acres it is? Have they taken up all of Parcel A? MR. ANDERSON: Parcel what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Zone A, I'm sorry, you guys call them zones. MR. ADELSTEIN: Yeah. MR. ANDERSON: I'm told that they do not occupy all of that area of Zone A. There's some land that they do not own. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are they going to - are you going to be planning more commercial on the land that they don't occupy in Zone A? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The original PUD, and I'm not-- I'm just -- I don't know -- this isn't a fault, I'm just wondering if it was reviewed. The original PUD has a maximum commercial of25 -- 24, 25 acres, yet I notice Zone A is -- where the Wal-Mart already exists is over 30 acres, and I'm just wondering if that's a -- how that got approved. I imagine it went through an administrative change, but I just want to verify that. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, Zone A is proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is 30? MR. ANDERSON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was getting at. MR. ANDERSON: Under the existing -- the printing is so small, I can't read. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That happens. MR. ANDERSON: Twenty -- looks like 24.2 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. So the new Zone A is Page 7 July 21, 2005 larger than the existing Zone A, but the Wal-Mart doesn't take up any more than the existing Zone A. Is that correct? MR. ANDERSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That answers my question. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have quite a few transportation questions, but I'm going to wait for Don Scott to see if he can wiggle his way through them before I bother your applicant. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there any other questions from the Planning Commission of the applicant at this time? If not, can we hear from staff? MS. VALERA: Good morning. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development and Review. Staff has reviewed this petition and has found that is it consistent with the growth management plan. Transportation also has reviewed this and has found that it is consistent and have not added any new language to the original PUD. Our environmental staff has also not added any new language to the original PUD. So in sum, staff is recommending approval of this amendment as it is sent to you and as noted in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Short and beautiful. Thank you. I do have a question for you, Carolina. In the rezone findings under Question 5, there's a statement there, and I'm assuming staff put these together. It's the second set. It says, the amendment is not necessary per se, but it does seem appropriate. I'm just wondering what was meant by that. If we don't need an amendment, what are we doing here? MS. VALERA: Yes. It is not necessary, but as it is proposed, it's not making the original PUD any more inconsistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's odd that an applicant would come forward to go through a long system, process, especially the cost Page 8 July 21, 2005 of it, if it's not necessary, and I guess maybe I'll ask Mr. Anderson, then, why he chose to go this route. I was surprised at the language, and then, before we have you leave, though, Question 13, I think Mr. Anderson - the property is currently used in compliance with the existing zoning, and my question there was the size of the Wal-Mart, which I believe he's already resolved. Then under the findings, I had the same question ofWal-Mart. So those are the only things I had from the staff report, so I do thank you. Maybe Mr. Anderson asked me -- decided -- I mean, I'm just curious, Bruce, I think it's nice you're volunteering to come through this torture chamber, but I was wondering why you chose to do so? MR. ANDERSON: I'm not certain that that statement that the PUD amendment is not necessary is made by the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I realize it wasn't, but I'm just wondering, if that was -- I know you know the law pretty well. I think you're probably one of the most well-versed in our land codes, and I'm just wondering if that -- how do you see that? Do you feel this is a needed amendment to this PUD in regards to the public process? MR. ANDERSON: No, I don't. It is necessary because of the change in the market, and frankly, I counsel all of my clients to try to avoid having to go through a public hearing if they at all possibly can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While I have you, there's a couple of items in your Zone A, and I think they're in Zone B or C as well, that I want to question. At least they're in Zone A. You have food stores in there, Group 5411 to 5499. Would you consider dropping that from your list? MR. ANDERSON: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You also have eating and drinking places, Groups 5812 to 5813. Would you consider dropping those from your list? MR. ANDERSON: I don't believe so. Page 9 July 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because that will end up being part of my question for transportation, so I wanted to make sure that you still wanted those before I asked transportation. Thank you. MR. ABERNATHY: I have a question for Bruce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. ABERNATHY: Bruce, I know I hit you at the last minute with this, but I would say the statement that you provided as to the financial interests -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir? MR. ABERNATHY: -- is minimally sufficient. I mean, I don't know who the descendants of Nathan Benderson are. They could be a bunch of rogues, as far as I know. It could be people who we might have conflicts with. Are their names not available? MR. ANDERSON: I don't think it's a closed list, meaning there could be more lineal descendents created, if you know what I mean. MR. ABERNATHY: That's not a defense for not providing the ones that are known. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. This was all the information I was provided yesterday after you so kindly pointed out that deficiency. MR. ABERNATHY: Well, I -- this is becoming somewhat like the six foot side yard setbacks with me. We've got this provision in the forms, the application, and I have needled staff about it in the past, but there's a Japanese expression about driving nails into sawdust, and it doesn't seem to take. So I hope if I bring it up often enough that the planners will see to it that those blanks in the application are properly and fully filled out or else leave them out. I mean, I think we need it for conflicts and other reasons, but nobody's doing it, so -- MR. ANDERSON: Well, I do always try. I'm sorry we're deficient. MR. ABERNATHY: See if you can get the names of the people you have between now and the BCC hearing. Page 10 July 21, 2005 MR. ANDERSON: I will. MR. SCHIFFER: And, Mark, let me ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. SCHIFFER: While on that point, let me ask legal staff, Margie or Pat, is that true, what Mr. Anderson said, that only those people, owners of the property that are affected by this have to be disclosed? For example, in the PUD, Wal-Mart is noted as an owner, yet in the disclosure of interest, they're not put down. Is that proper, or-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We always like to have full disclosure of all the property owners, or if there's a contract purchaser and -- just for the reasons that were stated by Mr. Abernathy. MR. SCHIFFER: No, he's not talking about the same thing, Marjorie. He's talking about apart from the disclosure. We know that Wal-Mart is an owner, but should they not have been a party to this action that we're undertaking today, since they're a principal owner of land within the PUD? In other words, Mr. Anderson has said it doesn't affect them, but that's a gratuitous, self-serving determination on his part that mayor may not be correct. I think it's correct in this instance, but how do we know that? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We have had situations in other PUDs. For example, Pelican Bay comes to mind, where only the land owner that was affected by the change applied for the change, and that has been -- we have considered that to be okay because in many circumstances, you cannot get all the property owners to come in, once these parcels have been sold off and cannot get all the property owners to come in and get them on the same page to amend the PUD. So we've taken the position in the past, as long as it affects only that particular area that's being amended, it's okay. MR. ABERNATHY: Well, the devil is in the details because in Pelican Bay, the very one you cite, you had an owner up there in the Page 11 July 21, 2005 north end who thought they were taking units away from him, and he wasn't a party, but he made himself available. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, they came in-- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Can I explain a little bit more? The land development code only requires unified ownership at the time of rezoning. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right. MR. BELLOWS: In amendments, it's not required. In the case of Pelican Bay and any other amendment, the county sends out letters notifying of pending zoning action amendments to the PUDs. So they are made aware so they can participate with the county staff in expressing their concerns and comments during the time the staff reviews these petitions. MR. ABERNATHY: Wal-Mart was notified in this case? MR. BELLOWS: They get a letter from the county saying there is a zoning action occurring within this PUD. MR. ABERNATHY: They get or they got? MR. BELLOWS: I'll have to check. I'm not the planner on this, but I -- they're -- our policy is that they would be sent a letter. MR. ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant on this? MR. SCHIFFER: I have a question for staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHIFFER: Carolina? MR. SCHMITT: Let me add to the record, also. There's also the posting of the signs and the advertisements, so the residents or the other properties that may be impacted certainly are - every attempt is made to dually note -- to dually at least inform them. In the case of Pelican Bay, certainly the impacted property owner did engage because they felt they were impacted. MR. ABERNATHY: I was just elaborating on Brad's question. Page 12 July 21, 2005 MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah. Carolina, question. Architectural standards, since they're silent in the PUD, they would follow what's in the LDC, then. Correct? MS. VALERA: Not only what's in the LDC, but also they're subject to the requirements of the activity center number nine, which has specific architectural requirements, as the ones you see that were done in the existing W aI-Mart. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay, and then the height requirements, which is 3.5D, the maximum height of 35 feet, that's the zoned height that we now have a definition for. Correct? And then the other one, 50 feet, is the actual height, which we have a definition for? MS. VALERA: In the original PUD? MR. SCHIFFER: In the PUD we have here. It would be the original. It wasn't crossed out. MS. VALERA: Yes. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? If not, I would like to talk to Mr. Scott. MR. SCOTT: Good morning. Don Scott, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. I didn't want your day to be wasted sitting back there not having anything to answer, so -- MR. SCOTT: I should have brought more help in case I need some help with the analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may by the time this part -- you may. MR. SCOTT: I might. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The meeting notes, the preapp meeting notes, let's start with those. There was a comment in those meeting notes that said, we'll check the amount of approved commercial for activity center number nine. Is that something that you would have done in your department, or is that Carolina's department? Page 13 July 21, 2005 MR. SCOTT: I think they probably would have done it in Carolina's department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'll come back to her, then. The TIS that was supplied with this project in I think '94, I have a copy of it. The values used to calculate the trips in that time period were different than those used today. I imagine because the ITE manual probably upgraded the trip count? MR. SCOTT: It's changed, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you go back to that earlier one, and you use their trip counts and then put today's changes based on those earlier trip counts -- or vice versa, increase the early ones to today's ITE standards -- you come up with a little different resulting net decrease in traffic. It's not quite as great as is stated on this. They took one that was less, divide the one that was more, and came back with a larger number, but if you put apples to apples, there still is a net decrease in traffic on the road, but that's only under an assumption that you're using shopping center 820 ITE standards to calculate your trips, and it has been the philosophy, from my understanding of this, that they're supposed to use the worst case scenario. I don't see much of a shopping center going on that site. There's a Wal-Mart there, which is a big box, and it's got a lot of stuff in it, but as far as room for another shopping center, I think you're going to end up seeing more standalone buildings of a nature that may not necessarily carry the shopping center connotation. The reason I asked Mr. Anderson about the two groups of items that he was -- in his listing here is that if you go to a food store classification, an ITE, it's multiple times higher than the classification used to calculate the trips by conversion of industrial to commercial in today's application, and if you go to the eating and drinking places for fast food or quality restaurants, those are higher, too. Now, it's always been your department's policy from what you told us, I believe, that they're suppose to use the worst case scenario. Page 14 July 21, 2005 MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not what's been used in this case, and by not using it, they're showing a net decrease by increasing the retail/commercial, when in actuality, if they were to use something like a supermarket with a multiple much higher than a shopping center, you might see an increase in the trip count. MR. SCOTT: And if it's something different, say there's more standalone restaurants or whatever that comes in later on, that's the analysis we're going to have to do at the time, and after the '94, we actually 2002 and a 2003 traffic report. It was done previously, also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what is -- I'm used to you telling us or the applicants or documents saying that they're using the worst case scenario. In fact, we have the Clesen PUD. MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they even stated they were using the worst -- what they thought was the worst case scenario, and that was how I believed you guys looked at it. Well, why is not this one being required to adhere to the same policy in their analysis that's being presented today because superficially, this thing looks like if you do a shopping center, it's going to have less counts than the traffic, and had I not asked this question, the assumption might have been no matter what happens there, it's going to have less traffic, but that's not really the case. MR. SCOTT: Well, and the way we're going to look at it is, they are vested from what they prepaid in impact fees, for a certain amount of trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't for all they're asking for today. I've seen that document. MR. SCOTT: If it's more than what was the assumption for trips previously, then they're going to be subject to whatever concurrency requirements are available -- are there at the time above what they do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but that comes after the fact. I'm Page 15 July 21, 2005 more concerned about the perception provided today in order to garner the votes needed to move this forward. This board's been presented today with a document that says the net result of this change will be a decrease in trips. Well, the only way that can happen as far as this board's prospective is to eliminate any uses that would have a higher use on trips than a shopping center 820 classification, and the applicant said they're not willing to do that. So from a point on how we have to make our decision to vote on something in a realistic world, we're not being presented with what here today. We're being presented with what the applicant wanted to use, which was 820. How do we -- I mean, how do we address that in front of -- this is going to go from here to the BCC, and the BCC is going to see the same thing, that this change is going to result in a net decrease in trips, when you're just telling now it may not, but you'll address that later. Well, I think the vote today ought to be based on what could be and what has always been presented to us as the worst case scenario, and I don't see that happening here today. Is that a -- I mean -- MR. SCOTT: Yeah, and I don't know if it's going to change in the future and they come in with something different. I mean, obviously when you sit there and you talk about a certain development that's going to go in there, and we do an analysis based on what they're telling us at the time, something can change in the future, too, and that's why we -- I mean, that's we're keeping up with whatever happens, but you're right, your chance is right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifit changed in the future to a use that was above the worst case scenario of the uses here, we looked at the worst one today, and they came up with a new use that was different than ones here, and it was a more worst case scenario, they'd have to come in for a PUD change. MR. SCOTT: Right. Page 16 July 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'd still be aware of it. I'mjust concerned more today that this idea that they're getting a decrease is somewhat misleading in the sense it's not going to happen unless they happen to pick the shopping center, or they eliminate the uses on here that are higher in intensity in the ITE manual than the shopping center is, and I just want to be on note to you that I had always relied on transportation to review this stuff in a manner that it was presenting the worst case scenario, as many times we've been led to believe, and I'm not sure what that means for today's hearing, but I do think that we're not necessarily looking at a decrease in traffic unless some eliminations are made in the PUD. MR. SCOTT: Well, and I can't speak for the applicant, but the size might be different when it actually comes in with site plan, too, you know, and that might be a difference in the trips in the future, too, but I know where you're going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, with that, I guess let me see if I have any other questions of transportation. One comment was, internal access points have been conceptually shown to better represent those proposed in the current submitted and approved site development plan submittals. You all don't really care too much where the internal access points are? Is that an issue? Are those roads now public roads that go through there? MR. SCOTT: The one that goes by Wal-Mart is a public road, and we care if it affects essentially the public road, and we care about operational issues that might come up, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, does the PUD have enough language in it from your review to make sure you have the ability -- MR. SCOTT: We've had a lot of discussions with the applicant, also with FDOT, because one of them is a state road, too -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: -- and the impacts on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of Mr. Page 1 7 July 21, 2005 Scott? Mr. Murray? MR. MURRAY: Yeah, just following up on that other issue, you have a mechanism in place, is what you're saying, that you look at it at the time it's pertinent, and then some kind of mitigation has to occur, if they want to achieve their purpose. Does that mean that you can introduce changes in the road structure, right-ins, right-outs, whatever, any number of variations, and I guess the concern - I have the same concern, that we're trying to plan -- help to plan for the future to -- for the buildout, as it were, and we're concerned not about you, certainly, and your organization, but just that we don't have little slips in accommodations and so forth. So please tell me what kind of -- what kind of mitigations can be effected that would give them something that they need and yet preserve the intent of the PUD's limitations. MR. SCOTT: Well, even through the process, you know, one of the discussions was whether they have to do a TIS because they were vested. We discussed having to do a TIS based on just even looking at operational improvements and things that you're talking about. Are the turn lanes long enough, things like that. What it's based on is the higher level, previously, not what they're reducing to now. Now, obviously, if you change those uses substantially or whatever, it changes those. Those things are what we look at as they come forward, is the -- you know, is your turn lane -- it might even be distribution. It might be some type of use that trips come from a different direction, and you need to look at those types of issues, and that's what you do all the way through the site plan process because you more definitively know what you're building. MR. MURRAY: And the mechanism that you have is one that -- at the moment in time, and if you were to have come or if they were -- the petitioner would have come with the petition modified to reflect the newer, higher use potentials that exist in the new codes or the new Page 18 July 21, 2005 forms, would there be any - in fact, there would be any difference in the way the outcome would be at the time when they would decide what they want to build? Would there be, in fact -- in other words, would our proactive approach to minimizing or qualifying the information ultimately be any different than your action in mechanism to make that work or not work? In other words, you're the final arbitrator of whether or not those things will be possible. Am I making myself clear, I hope? MR. SCOTT: Well-- MR. MURRAY: I can try a little bit more. I realize it's complex. MR. SCOTT: Well, I guess -- I mean, if it's a use that's different, then they're going to have to come back to you. I mean, it's above and beyond or whatever, but we have control on certain -- the site plan, we have control of either approving or denying, if we don't believe that it's being mitigated for. So I think that kind of gets to where you're gOIng. MR. MURRAY: That's really where I guess I'm going because we don't ever get to see the site development plan. MR. SCOTT: That's right. MR. MURRAY: And so once it's in your hands, it's a matter of the mechanism. MR. SCOTT: Right. MR. MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? MR. ADELSTEIN: I have in my hand the COA that they received. Does that mean that they will have all the access they need on Davis Boulevard because they paid for it now -- paid for it before? MR. SCOTT: The capacity is set aside for them based on the COA. Accesswise, no. I mean, that's -- actually Davis is controlled by FDOT. MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay. Then the situation we've got here now is, Davis is a failed road. Page 19 July 21, 2005 MR. SCOTT: Correct. MR. ADELSTEIN: We're sitting in a situation that as far as I can see, there will be nothing -- six -laning Davis Road until 2011. MR. SCOTT: Start in nine, finish in 11. That's about right. MR. ADELSTEIN: Right. Okay. Now, if it's that far back in 11, how are we going to -- of course we still checkbook concurrency. How are we going to put any more cars on that road at this time? MR. SCOTT: Well, it's the -- Davis and 951 to the north is part of the TCMA, so it's looking at the average trips over the whole system. Beyond that, based on the fact that they were -- they vested back in 2002 -- MR. ADELSTEIN: They vested something that was valid at that time. First of all, checkbook concurrency wasn't there. MR. SCOTT: Right. It was just prior to the rule. MR. ADELSTEIN: Second of all, we've got a situation now where, at that time there was the opportunity to put more vehicles on that road. It had not failed. Now, we've got two edges here. We've got them saying they have a right to go add traffic onto Davis, and we've got Davis saying, no, it isn't even capable to add a car, let alone any volume of cars on that road, and we're not going to get it fixed until 2011. Now, I can't find any way to make this any clearer, but if checkbook concurrency is the way we're going to go and are going now, there is absolutely no way to put any additional traffic on Davis Road -- Davis Boulevard. MR. SCOTT: All I can say from our aspect of it, I can't -- you know, based on them having a certificate, I can't deny them access -- you know, to add those trips to the system that we've already included wi thin it. MR. ADELSTEIN: How can you add them, then? If you have checkbook concurrency, how are you able to add any more traffic on that road? I understand that there is a problem here, that there has Page 20 July 21, 2005 been a hole in the game, but the truth of the matter is, there is no access available on Davis Boulevard. The fact that they have this gives them a litigation problem or gives them a lot of other aspects, but it doesn't tell them they can use more traffic on the road. MR. SCOTT: Their trips are within the checkbook concurrency side, but what you're pointing to is the actual, say, operation of Davis Boulevard right now, which is -- obviously they're not on that right now. MR. ADELSTEIN: I understand. So what happens? MR. SCOTT: I don't have any control from that. I mean, I know what I have from projects to widen 951 starting next year. That will at least help improve the intersection. I don't know what their timing is, but, you know, I have the improvements moving forward. MR. ADELSTEIN: But what we both realize that no matter what we do at this juncture in time, there is no way to get all of these cars that are needed onto this road under the circumstances of which Davis Boulevard is operating on now. MR. SCOTT: It will fail for a while, yes. MR. ADELSTEIN: It will fail for a long while because it's not going to end up until 2011. MR. SCOTT: Well, I'm hoping 951 helps some of the intersection there at Davis, but -- MR. ADELSTEIN: I hope so, too. MR. SCOTT: Previous to that. MR. ADELSTEIN: But you can't build on hope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further-- MR. SCHIFFER: The same point on -- looking at the certificate that he has, it's less square footage than they're asking for, so would they have difficulty rising above that? MR. SCOTT: The commercial industrial is 411,000 square feet. MR. SCHIFFER: Right, and this application has 460 or something. Page 21 July 21, 2005 MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney, Patrick White. I think it's accurate to say that the intensity that has capacity allocated is that which is the number on the COA. The use may exist out there at a greater intensity, but all that they can build without getting, again, through concurrency management review, is what's on the existing COA. MR. SCOTT: It's the trips that equate to that. MR. SCHIFFER: Well, but it has like a square footage. What would it be, then? MR. SCOTT: That's -- the way we would -- we have within the system already because it was vested, we have trips that are allotted towards that, and that's what we'd go back to to see, this is what you're asking for, how does it compare to what we allotted, and it's based on -- the original allotment was based on commercial/industrial at that level. MR. SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad? MR. SCHIFFER: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else from anyone? Okay. Thank you, Don. The other two gentlemen standing there, did you have something that you want to contribute to this discussion, or did you just -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You weren't standing, but go ahead, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: Rick Reiff, the Transportation Consultant, would like to try to address your questions, as well as those raised by Mr. Adelstein. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I forget names a lot, too, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. MS. CARON: Bruce, before you go, what is the timing for this project? Page 22 July 21, 2005 MR. ANDERSON: Well, there are some STPs that have been already approved for some of the lots in here, and it's imminent. MR. REIFF: Good morning. My name is Rick Reiff with Kimley- Horn & Associates. I'm working on transportation for this project. I wanted to address some of the comments on the land use code 820, Commissioner Strain. We use land use code 820 as shopping center because I believe in ITE, it has the most data points. There's over 400 studies that would have been done by ITE, and it is a good indicator of general development. We don't have specific lands uses say like we have for here. I just happen to have a description of what land use 820 includes in those studies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was in your original PUD -- your original TIS had the same similar document in it. That's where I read it. MR. RIEFF: Correct. This is just documentation from the ITE trip generation manual, and we certainly use the most recent edition of ITE for our studies. I apologize it's so small. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to somehow use the microphone, if you can. There's one behind you, a portable. MR. REIFF: I apologize again it's so small, but if you look at some of the land uses that are included in land use 820, some of these centers contain nonmerchandising facilities such as office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, post office, banks, et cetera. So as a general planning tool, 820 is generally accepted, you know, throughout the nation for, you know, determining the trip generation potential of a development. As Don and Ellen have certainly made clear to us, when we come in for site plan approval, our specific land uses, if it is a restaurant or if it's specialty retail, land use goes to 814, which generates less trips, typically, than 820, will have to be below what is originally approved in the PUD. Page 23 July 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you've missed the point of what my discussion was. It was simply -- and I don't know how to refer to it other than in like truth in lending. Now, this is truth in traffic counts, if there's such a thing. Shopping center 820 has a certain caliber of trips generated by it by a standard that you used. The county had a policy, at least I understood it to be told to -- as told to us, that they were all using the worst case scenario. My comment was simply that a supermarket, for example, is at least twice the trip rates generated by a shopping center. A convenience store is almost eight times the trip rates of a shopping center, and fast food, either drive-through or non drive-through, are anywhere from six to eight times the amount of a shopping center, and the shopping center that you just put here doesn't include any of those conditions, any of those suggestions as far as there's no supermarket, convenience store, or fast food restaurants listed in that additional data clause of the shopping center 820 in the ITE. So therefore, you're not taking those into consideration, and those will have an impact that I believe if the calculations were done and presented to us in a manner today more revealing, let's say, that would show a trip count to exceed what was already expected. That's where I'm coming from. MR. REIFF: No, I understand, and, you know, there are also potential land uses that generate less than land use code 820. A dry cleaners, you know, I believe a drive-in bank generates less. A speciality retail, like I discussed, generates almost as -- half as less as land use code 820, so there's a give and take, and like I said, when we come in for site plan approval, Don and Ellen are going to be very diligent to make sure that our trips do not exceed what is originally approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern goes back to the fact it's supposed to be worst case -- at least we've always thought it was supposed to be worst case scenario. Page 24 July 21, 2005 What was presented here today in the public's eye is what we're discussing, not what they're going to come in with through a nonpublic process six months from now. MR. RIEFF: Right, and we -- I mean, our client doesn't know exactly what we're going to build, and that's why we have land use code 820 today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe we can help with that by making some suggestions as the day finishes out. Thank you. Are there any other questions? MR. REIFF: I want to address, we're also -- Benderson Development Company is improving Davis, adding turn lanes and concrete median separators to try and make traffic flow safer throughout that - from Market Street to 951. So we are trying to improve Davis, even though it is in deficient condition and will be for the next few years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't there already a concrete median there? MR. REIFF: West of the existing concrete median? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: West of951. MR. RIEFF: Yes. West of that, we're adding another concrete median all the way through Market Street to prohibit conflicting traffic and make it a safer situation for turning vehicles to and from Market Street off of Davis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions of this gentleman? MR. SCHIFFER: I have a quick comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHIFFER: Oh, let Fred speak. MR. REISCHL: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Fred Reischl, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage. To address Commissioner Strain's question from a planning perspective, as you put in different uses, those uses become self limiting. Page 25 July 21, 2005 For example, a restaurant could never achieve the same square footage as a retail shopping center because the amount of parking that a restaurant requires would force -- on the same acreage would force a smaller square footage building, so that's something to be taken into consideration, also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You believe a drive-through restaurant requires more parking? MR. REISCHL: Not a drive-through, a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the ones I'm talking about. MR. REISCHL: -- sit down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are the ones that were missing on Schedule 820, and the same with a supermarket. I mean, those are pretty intense uses above the shopping center. MR. REISCHL: And both sit-down restaurants and shopping-- and food stores require more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just don't think fast food restaurants get very many more. Thank you. Any other questions? MR. SCHIFFER: I have a question for Bruce, and Bruce, the concern I have is that in the prior PUD, there was really a nice light industrial area which we're reducing down to 25 percent of its original size, and I think that's a needed commodity in the community, to have industrial areas like that. I'm not sure -- in other words, convince me why it's good to swap out the industrial for the commercial. MR. ANDERSON: Because there's already adequate industrial space that has not been used in the other quadrant of this activity center where the city gave -- Commerce Park and the White Lake Industrial Park, presently exist and are under development. MR. SCHIFFER: And they're not building up the -- it's not successful, or what is happening? MR. ANDERSON: Well, I don't want to comment on their marketing strategies. I just point out that there is adequate -- there is Page 26 July 21, 2005 other unbuilt industrial in this activity center quadrant. That's all. MR. SCHIFFER: And the staff agrees with that? MS. VALERA: At the neighborhood information meeting, the residents, the surrounding residents, were concerned actually about more industrial, so they were happy to hear that it will be less because of noise and trucks, et cetera. MR. SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's no further questions of the applicant or the county staff, I'd like to ask for -- any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question of Mr. Anderson. It's going to be a simple one, Bruce, I hope. You realize you are not being granted any concurrency determinations or rights, even if this proj ect is approved by us and at the BCC, and that you will have to fully meet all concurrency requirements before you can build the project? MR. ANDERSON: To the extent that we have not already met them, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anything else, gentlemen? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Gentlemen, is there a motion on this particular project? Don't be shy. MR. ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-6092 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? MR. ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, for discussion. Gentlemen, any discussion? And ladies, I'm sorry. MR. MURRAY: I'm anticipating some stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I have one. My stipulation to that motion would simply be that the applicant has come forward today Page 27 July 21, 2005 with three land uses that he based his trip counts on, in order to show a positive impact on the trips, and I applaud them for that because this is good. If we can reduce trips, that's what we should be doing in this county, but if we can -- we need to be assured that in the public process, we follow through with that. So my stipulation would be that none of the uses in their PUD could go forward without further public review process, unless they are -- for those that are above shopping center code 820, business park 770, and hotel 310, for the appropriate areas of the project that those sections are on. MR. MURRAY: I have a question. You included hotel in there. I thought accommodations was removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're right, that was out. They just have it in their TIS, so it would be - in the industrial section, they use business park 770 for the trip counts, and what this means is, if there's a use in that industrial park that exceeds the trip counts generated by 770, then this approval wouldn't apply, and the same would -- it's the same scenario I'd suggest for shopping center 820. If they go in with supermarkets instead of a shopping center, and they're double or more, which a supermarket is, the ITE rate, then approval wouldn't apply. They have to look at uses that meet or lessen the trip intense that they show here today. MR. ADELSTEIN: Mark, what kind of public hearing do you envision? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they wouldn't have approval on the use. They'd have to come back to the PUD process, I would assume, unless Ray Bellows or somebody can shed a light on how you would do a - it would be like an insubstantial change, or I don't know. MR. BELLOWS: I think what you're talking about is an amendment to the PUD. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah. I think it would be an Page 28 July 21, 2005 amendment to the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whatever it takes. They suggested the uses. I'm saying that's fine. If they're going to do those uses, it's a good thing. It's a good thing for the community, and I'm glad they're doing it, but at the same time, I don't want to see it come back in with supermarkets and things that make the trip rates actually go up because of what we did here today, so that's my -- that's the only comment I would have on the motion. MR. SCHIFFER: Let me ask a question, Mark. Like Wal-Mart, for example, would have a supermarket in it. Is that affected by this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have to look at the -- if it can fit into an ITE category that has a shopping center of 820 or lower, no, it wouldn't fit into it, but if it's a standalone supermarket, that's what it is. The ITE for a supermarket is higher than that for a shopping center, according to what my records show, and if I'm wrong, someone come up and tell me. MS. CARON: Wal-Mart's supermarket is already in there. I mean, it's up and running. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they may not need a supermarket. MS. CARON: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None of these -- there's only four or so that really affect them; supermarkets, convenience stores, and fast food, and if they don't do any of those, this is going to be a nonissue. MS. CARON: Fast food is the-- MR. MURRAY: I agree with you -- I would agree with you because while it's not likely that Super Wal-Mart would cease its supermarket operations, it's possible, and another supermarket could be placed in there. So I think you're working to protect, and I agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other comments from the commission? MR. SCHIFFER: And your point, Mark, is that since they did Page 29 July 21, 2005 the traffic analysis excluding those things, why should we include them? I agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, there's been -- will the motion maker accept the amendment to the motion? MR. ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the second accept it? MR. ABERNATHY: No. No, I won't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does that mean, County Attorney? Then it doesn't get -- the motion stands as it was made without the amendment? MR. ABERNATHY: Someone else-- MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'll second with the - with the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The original motion with the amendment that I suggested -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think you need to withdraw the original motion and make it again, and then have a different second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein, do you withdraw your motion? MR. ADELSTEIN: I will withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ADELSTEIN: And I would make a new motion, which will state exactly the same thing. I move that AR-6092 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to staff recommendations and the recommendations of this board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? MR. MURRAY: I would second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The recommendation of this board being the one that I stated earlier? The stipulations, the stipulations for the ITE? MR. MURRAY: I would second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion? All those in Page 30 July 21, 2005 favor say aye. Anybody opposed? MR. ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion passes six to one. MR. ADELSTEIN: I would appreciate it if you would put yours back in this new motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion maker has requested that I restate my amendment or my conditions to the motion, and that simply was that this project is approved subject to not exceeding any of the trip generation rates proposed for those sections of the project as presented in the information provided to us today for those areas. Namely, shopping center group 820 for the commercial/retail, and then for the industrial, it was business park 770. MR. ADELSTEIN: Now, could you call the vote again, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to call the vote again? MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One more time on the vote. All those in favor? All those opposed? MR. ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same results. Thank you. Okay. The next item for today's agenda is petition PUDZ-2004-AR-6631. Norman Taylor represented by Kelly Smith, it's the Big Bear Plaza in the northeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard. All those wishing to testify in this particular matter, please rise and raise your right hand. WHEREUPON: ALL POTENTIAL WITNESSES, having been first duly sworn, upon their oath, testified as follows: CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I know you're anxious, but I'd like to start with the applicant, if that's okay. MR. DERUNTZ: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're used to the old days. All Page 31 July 21, 2005 disclosures? I've had numerous communications with members of the Golden Gate Civic Association and Ms. Smith herself via e-mail. Most of the topics were reviews that the Estates Association wanted to have in regards to this, which the applicant and the Estates Association did have. MR. MURRAY: I don't know if it counts, but I drove by the property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Smith, thank you. MS. SMITH: Thank you. Good morning, my name is Kelly Smith, I'm with Davidson Engineering, and I'm here this morning representing the applicants in a request to rezone property from estates to commercial PUD. The property is located at the northeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard, and is approximately five and a half acres in size. The subj ect property is within the neighborhood center designation of the Golden Gate area master plan and the future land use element. The proposed PUD is compliant with all of the specific requirements of the Golden Gate area master plan for neighborhood centers. The proposed uses within the PUD are consistent with C1, C2, and C3 uses with specific restrictions and a list of prohibited uses, again, compliant with the Golden Gate area master plan requirements. The master plan proposes also a 75-foot landscape buffer and a preserve area adjacent to the - adjacent to the neighboring properties, and also a 25-foot buffer adjacent to the both right of ways. The PUD document is also compliant with the Golden Gate master plan specific architectural requirements, and as well the well field protection criteria. You'll note two lines or radiuses on the master plan. Those are 500- foot radiuses from existing well sites on both city -- City of Page 32 July 21, 2005 Naples municipal well sites, and one of the potential uses within this PUD document is a gas station. That language -- there's language in there that requires that any gas station or any use of revolving storage of hazardous materials or gasoline, oil, must comply with the well field protection criteria. One of those criteria is that you have to be 500 feet away from an existing well site. MR. MURRAY: Kelly, would you just tell me again that radius or that semicircle or circle that you have there? MS. SMITH: Five-hundred feet. MR. MURRAY: That's a circle of 500 feet, and you say that's within the well field or not within the well field, which? MS. SMITH: That is an area subject to the well field protection plan. MR. MURRAY: Okay. That's what I thought. MS. SMITH: So you'll see there's a very small portion of the property that is not subject to that locational criteria. MR. MURRAY: Okay. Now it's clear for me. Thank you. MR. ABERNATHY: That's where the gas station is going? MS. SMITH: The only location that we could put a gas station or that my client could put a gas station at this point is the area outside of that semicircle. It's very small. It may, in all honesty, not be large enough for a gas station, but the document was written so that should that existing well be relocated in the future, or should there be a way to be in compliance with the land development code, the developer could build that gas station subject to those criteria, without having to come back through the public hearing process. MR. ABERNATHY: So there is no imminent plan for a gas station at all? MS. SMITH: They would like very much to put in a gas station, but because of the locational criteria, it's very limiting, and we're not certain at this time that a gas station is actually going to be feasible. Page 33 July 21, 2005 MR. ABERNATHY: It would be awfully inconvenient back up there in the northeast corner, wouldn't it? MS. SMITH: Yes, it would. It's also very -- again, very small in size. It makes it very difficult to layout that type of facility. MR. ADELSTEIN: The neighborhood center subdistrict, is there any criteria stating the minimum amount of acreage or the maximum amount of acreage in that particular subdistrict? MS. SMITH: I don't believe in the subdistrict itself. I know that in conversation, when the Golden Gate area master plan considered the locational requirements for the neighborhood center, they looked at the five-acre parcels, and so that was the reason for the designation of the particular intersections and the four quadrants within this particular intersection as the neighborhood center. MR. ADELSTEIN: So there is actually no requirement for, let's say, over five acres or under -- over ten acres, whatever -- MS. SMITH: No. The designation is property-specific. So it's this -- it's the four corners of this intersection are considered neighborhood center. MR. ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did I hear you say that if you were to do a gas station, you believe you'd have to come back in for approval on that? MS. SMITH: No, we would not. It's been written as a permitted use, subject to the well field protection criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it has been. I just wanted to make sure I got that right. Mr. Vigliotti? MR. VIGLIOTTI: Kelly, did you say that if the existing well in the area is abandoned, then the gas station could go in here? MS. SMITH: If it is abandoned or relocated, and we further met the requirements of the land development code for the well field protection criteria, then, yes, according to the PUD, a gas station could Page 34 July 21, 2005 . go In. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Without another approval? MS. SMITH: Correct. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you want to continue that or were you finished? MS. SMITH: Yes, please. I'm almost done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure we weren't cutting you off. MS. SMITH: We have met with the Golden Gate Estate Civic Association last week, and appreciate your granting a continuance so that my clients and I could do that. At that meeting, there were several items that were brought up, and a revised document has been provided, and I would just like to go over those issues briefly. One of the concerns of the civic association was that there are certain uses within the Golden Gate area master plan that they don't feel are consistent with what they want in those areas, and so we have removed a general merchandise category that would allow a dollar-type store to go in. That is no longer a permitted use. MR. MURRAY: That's not in this document here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think we've gotten that new revised document. I know that -- MS. SMITH: It's the one that-- MR. MURRAY: Oh, is that -- oh, okay. MR. SCHIFFER: But, Kelly, it's highlighted there. Does that mean you're going to cross it out? Item No. 12 is going to be crossed out on Page 3-2? MS. SMITH: I highlighted it just to indicate that that was an area where it has already been removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in replace of that, you wanted Item 5231 only. Is that correct? Page 35 July 21, 2005 MS. SMITH: Correct. Item 12, it originally read, general merchandise stores group 5331 through 5399. In those -- in that broad category, there really are only two use codes, the 5331 and 5399. We've removed 5331, which was a variety store. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you removed it? MS. SMITH: Yes, that has been removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're leaving in 5339. Is that what your suggestion is? MS. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would concur that the message I received from the estates group was that 5531 (sic) was to be removed. MS. SMITH: Yes. MR. MURRAY: I have a question regarding -- MS. SMITH: Certainly. MR. MURRAY: On Page 3-1 of the commercial areas plan, I'm looking at H, where it talks about bronzing, and okay, I'll pass on that, maybe, but filling pressure containers, and it immediately came to my mind, propane, and I'm just wondering if hazardous materials is -- are we only talking subsurface, or are we talking hazard materials in general? MS. SMITH: It would be hazard materials in general, so there are some uses that are permitted within the Golden Gate area master plan and also within the land development code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are excepted out. They're ones that are not going to be there. MS. SMITH: Yes. MR. MURRAY: I don't see that in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right after the last numeric there's the word "except", taking out all that paragraph. MR. MURRAY: My apologies. My apologies. I read, but I obviously didn't see. Page 36 July 21, 2005 MR. SCHIFFER: While we're there, though, Kelly, would like a UPS Store, would that be considered packaging and labeling, or -- which is one of the exceptions, and it might be a -- MS. SMITH: Without reading the description of business services and those groups in general, I can't answer that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Smith, do you want to-- MS. SMITH: And as Mr. Durant has pointed out, this is language from the Golden Gate area master plan within the growth management plan, so -- MR. SCHIFFER: Never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to finish with your -- are you done? MS. SMITH: No, I'm not done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sorry for the constant interruptions. MS. SMITH: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll get there. MS. SMITH: We've also added language to number 13 on 3.3 -- on Page 3-2, group care facilities are permitted, but the civic association has asked for overnight residential uses not to be permitted. We did comply with that, and also one that is not on the list and is not highlighted. There was an allowance for parking lots. Obviously, not parking lots associated with other uses, but parking lots where you pay to park your vehicle for the day or a specific period of time. That use has also been removed from permitted uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that use would be added to 3.4? MS. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a prohibited use? MS. SMITH: We certainly can do that, yes. The other issue from the civic association was a concern that the architectural styles delineated in the Golden Gate area master plan for neighborhood Page 37 ~-,._,-,,,,,~- '. July 21, 2005 centers didn't necessarily reflect the architectural style that they feel is appropriate, and so we have modified that language -- bear with me for a second. We've modified it within the development commitment section, and we've also added a sentence to the statement of compliance that says, the architectural style of the development shall reflect the old style Florida design with metal roofs. What we've done is taken out the ability to do tile roofs or parapet walls. There is one last item that I would like to bring to your attention and discuss. As you know, a very short time ago, it was brought to the attention that there are some designated future right-of-way needs for this intersection. Specifically, the transportation department has let us know that they are most likely going to be needing an additional 40 feet of right-of-way on both Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard. There's been some discussion back and forth between myself and staff, and another item was added to the transportation section that says, future right-of-way needs along Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard shall be determined at the time of site development plan submittal. Should additional right-of-way be necessary, the required landscape efforts shall be complied with to the greatest extent possible. Excuse me. The issue here is that if the developer were to develop this property today, and then after development, transportation needed an additional right-of-way, that right-of-way would come out of the landscape buffer. By working with staff, and by recognizing that need early, in essence, the developer is somewhat penalized for that level of commitment and that level of cooperation. The -- bear with me for one second, I'm looking for one note. The change in the right-of-way need results in over half an acre of loss of developable area on this property, and the function, as I understand it, in the neighborhood centers, is to provide areas for localized commercial to prevent the need to travel long distances Page 38 July 21, 2005 for those types of services, and in theory, it's a wonderful opportunity, but when you have the landscape buffer requirement, the water management requirements, the well field protection, and then also the future right-of-way needs, these sites become more and more constrained. I know there's a question about whether or not that right-of-way and landscape buffer issue can ultimately be handled in the PUD document, but certainly I feel this isn't an appropriate place for that discussion. MR. SCHIFFER: Kelly, one thing you said is that it would a 40-foot right-of-way. The buffer is 25 feet. MS. SMITH: Right, and so there would be still a loss of additional area, most likely that would be parking. MR. SCHIFFER: But is the intent to not provide a buffer? MS. SMITH: No, the intent is not to -- to not provide a buffer, but to have some consideration. A 25- foot buffer is greater than the buffer that would be required on any other commercial site. MR. SCHIFFER: But what I'm saying, shouldn't we know plan for that -- I mean, that expansion is going to happen. MS. SMITH: Right, and we are planning for that, and that has been noted on the master plan. MR. SCHIFFER: In other words, shouldn't you show the future right-of-way and then show the buffer off of that? MS. SMITH: The problem is that while transportation staffhas a good idea of what the right-of-way needs will be, they don't have a specific amount that we can plan for at this time. MR. SCHIFFER: So it may be less than 40 feet? MS. SMITH: It may be. It probably will not be, but may be less than 40 feet. MR. SCHIFFER: I think the concern is that it would be sad to see like an urban tiny little 5- foot buffer out there, which could happen. Page 39 July 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a suggestion, then? MR. VIGLIOTTI: How do we got around that? MR. SCHIFFER: A suggestion would be to show the site as -- show that zone, the proposed right-of-way expansion, and work the site off of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You should remember that when the motion is made. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's how we get there. Are there any other questions yet? MR. ABERNATHY: I have a question. Kelly, have you considered putting in a deceleration lane for northbound everglades Boulevard up there, at the northern end of your project? The reason I ask, I went out there the other day, and I was telling Mark Strain, they got some people out there who drive with, you might call it reckless abandonment, to put the best light on it. They're very talented. They can go well beyond the speed limit and be right up so close that you can't see their headlights, but at the same time, they can stop, for the most part. I just -- if people -- you're going to have a controlled intersection there, and even as it is now, a four-way stop. Somebody who goes through - observes the stop coming northbound on Everglades, he's going to be going at least 50 miles an hour by the time he gets up there to your entrance, and some poor pog who's trying to turn right to get in there is taking his life in his hands. I know you've already got problems with right-of-way if you're going to go to four lanes, but at least as long it's two, I think you need a deceleration. If it's four, the person can hopefully work around the turning person, but if you account for a deceleration lane, then that land would already be sort of set aside, and it could become the fourth lane over there. MS. SMITH: I believe that that's an item that would be Page 40 July 21, 2005 addressed during the site development plan process, once the square footage and the footprints and the expected uses are delineated, then as part of the function of the traffic impact statement, that's an item that would be considered and required if necessary. MR. ABERNATHY: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I'll have a question for Mr. Scott on that. I do have some questions of you, but I'll wait until -- MR. MURRAY: I just have one having to do with 3.3. Hopefully, I read this correctly. Non-industrial dry cleaning. I know perchloroethylene is considered dangerous, if not hazardous. I just wondered whether that had been given consideration for that -- the very nature of that chemical. I think that's a very -- I'm not quite clear on that, but I've known in the past it was deemed as cancer causing, and I know -- in a well field, I would be concerned with that, though I don't know. I don't wish to assume that I know better, but I do have enough general knowledge to think that that might be something that's not desirable there. Is there any way we can qualify that? MR. ABERNATHY: Making it just a pickup station? MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, from my experience, there's not a lot on the subj ect. MS. SMITH: Right. Any of these uses would also have to qualify under the well field protection criteria. MR. MURRAY: Okay, and does the well field protection criteria -- I mean, if it's in here, what's the next step? I mean, who's going to catch it then? If we agree that perc is not a good chemical to be around -- I'm just trying to preclude something, if it's possible. I don't want to set myself up as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff -- I mean, the SDP process would probably get circulated among all the departments within the county, and they would then comment on those quality of materials or those uses in the well field area. Oh, they catch everything, guys. Sometimes it's surprising that they even -- Page 41 July 21, 2005 MR. MURRAY: I'm happy to hear that. I'm not aware of all of the good work that's done, and I just want to be sure that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the SDP process has gotten extremely thorough. MR. MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That can be a double-edged sword. MR. SCHMITT: A lot of people complain about that, that we're too thorough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Ms. Smith? Ms. Caron? MS. CARON: Kelly, on 5.3 on the transportation and that future right-of-way issue, was that discussed with, and was that language agreed to by the civic association, or was that just a discussion you had with transportation? MS. SMITH: The needs for the future right-of-way in general were discussed with the civic association. This particular language was discussed with the transportation staff. MS. CARON: Okay. MR. SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. SCHIFFER: On Table 1, the development standards, 3-9, in the code we have an actual and a zoned height. Zoned would be the center of the roof in this case, actual would be the top of whatever. Could we establish that rather than -- can we have a maximum height, which I assume would translate to the zoned height, yet that doesn't limit the, you know, hundred foot cupola. So, I mean, do you want to come up with - could we call the -- change the maximum height to be the zoned height, like the code refers to it, and then establish an actual height? MS. SMITH: Just so I make sure I understand. The zoned height in this case would be 35 feet, which would be the finished floor to the midpoint of the roof line. Page 42 July 21, 2005 MR. SCHIFFER: Right. MS. SMITH: The actual height would set the grade to the top of the roof line? MR. SCHIFFER: Correct, and I think we could set a high -- I mean, I would have no problem with a 50-foot actual height. MS. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. That's 33 percent of the height of the building. MR. SCHIFFER: That's 15 feet above the roof height, and the reason is -- in our architectural standards, this is going to be a major intersection. We do want to put some gateway features on it. We could debate it down, if everybody is not happy with that, 45 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's 10 feet. That's much more reasonable. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. Do I hear 45 feet? Sold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's only for architectural embellishments in regards to the definition of architectural -- of actual MR. SCHIFFER: Right, and we haven't -- we call that the actual height now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which brings up an interesting question. Why wasn't this addressed in the review of the PUD, since it is an issue almost all the time? Is there some way that staff could catch in the PUD process from now on to clarify it, so that we don't have to keep debating this a public hearing? Then it's already settled with the applicant, and it's only up to us to agree or disagree. It will be a little more efficient. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? MR. SCHIFFER: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything else of the applicant at Page 43 July 21, 2005 this time? Kelly, I've got a few, so let me get into mine. In your project description and I don't need to refer to the PUD more or less just to talk to you about it. You keep referring to the master plan as illustrated graphically, and we had another center come out at the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard, and when they said it was illustrated graphically, there was a lot more to their graphics than yours. There are no basic restrictions under your PUD master plan, other than the setbacks shown on your graphic illustration because you didn't show any buildings. MS. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That brought up a concern from the Estates Civic Association, who I know you -- and I appreciate your taking the time to meet with them. They worked, for the most part -- that entire group was part of the Golden Gate master plan restudy committee, and they worked very hard to make sure that Golden Gate Estates as it developed was as nice as possible. There was a couple issues that they brought up that probably was a result more of not having a more definitive plan supplied by the applicant, like there was in the Wilson Center, and one of the items that they asked is that the -- there is an agreement, apparently. I think you said you may have agreed to this. They accepted the architectural style language change with a caveat that the applicant will have to submit for approval a complete site plan, as well as an artist's rendition of the structure, for approval to the GGEACA. This would be a preconstruction permitting. Now, this was something I know you discussed with them. Do you have any objections to that? MS. SMITH: We did not discuss a specific meeting as that language has been presented. I do not believe that the developers would have an issue with meeting with them again prior to construction. Page 44 July 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, because you had acknowledged to them at some point, I saw one of your e-mails -- let's see if I can find it. Oh, basically you couldn't supply them with the elevations like the other intersection did because from the time you were notified, which was just recently, you just didn't have to do it, and that's logical because to have to bring an architect on board and basically preplan the project. I understand you weren't that far long. MS. SMITH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for that reason, I think it's important that somehow we insert language in here that involves the civic group, so that they can have the review as a courtesy that others have voluntarily done, and I guess now that I'm leading up to the question that's going to be posed to Mr. White. What kind of language could be added to the PUD that would assure us that this will happen? MR. WHITE: I'm hoping that there are staff members who can address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, at least you're not saying no, it can't happen, so that's a bright light. Ray, is there any way -- I mean, you guys are the ones that are going to have to acknowledge that some review by the civic association was attained as a premise to the process. How does that need to be highlighted in this document today so that your staff catches it? MR. BELLOWS: Well, typically, the way the process is set up, the zoning document would have to contain all of those provisions or conditions. MR. MURRAY: Bring your microphone closer, please. MR. BELLOWS: The PUD document would have to contain those provisions and conditions that are agreed to by the homeowners' association. Everything else is administrative review by staff and would not necessarily have input from any public, so we'd have to make those conditions -- Page 45 _.~---",..,,",..-,.> July 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe added a sentence to the development conditions of the PUD that the architectural review will be provided by Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association prior to the building permit? MR. SCHMITT: I would ask that the onus be placed on the applicant, not the county, to actually arrange for such meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. MR. SCHMITT: The applicant should attest - come in with a letter attesting to the fact that they -- that has been done. I don't want to create a separate review process that now I'm responsible for monitoring. I think that's something that if it's in the PUD, it can be stated that the applicant will -- the PUD document can say that, but it's up to the applicant to frankly just attest that it had been done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then let me try this on you, Joe. Architectural review will be provided by the long name, Estates Civic Association, prior to building permit, and a letter of review provided with the building permit application. MR. SCHMITT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHIFFER: That's fine, but shouldn't you make it prior to the SDP? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to the SDP or along with submittal of the SDP. MR. SCHIFFER: And a letter of acceptance from the civic association will be submitted with the SDP application. The one concern, though, is that the way the development standards are set up, you could subdivide this, so essentially, it could be broken up into smaller lots, a unified road system, maybe. So in that case, what would we do here? As these lots develop -- I mean, that may not ever be the intent, so let's not waste time, but it could happen. MS. SMITH: I think in that case, then it would be incumbent upon the individual SDP components to go through that process. Page 46 July 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MURRAY: I have one question having to do with -- when I drove out there, the roads were really loaded with water, and there were signs out there that say, you know, you're going to go flying if you're not careful, and I was surprised at how much there was, and I guess, there's not much in the way of drainage on the sides of the roads. Now, where I'm going with this is, I'm looking at the future, assuming this is built, the structure will be built to a certain height from the FEMA. Is there any -- when they make road changes, will they make the road changes to put in a trough, or will we raise the road? And if we were to raise the road, what does that do with the FEMA elevation? MR. SCHMITT: All right. We're getting into a whole other area. I'll explain briefly. The estates is a Zone D, which means to be determined. We expect that it will be a numbered A zone, which will define the height. Just for the record, so you understand, it hadn't been for -- well, probably for the last year, since December 2004, we've been requiring actual elevations, but we used to have what we called a local datum out there. Basically, you built 18 inches above the crown of the road. Now, we have first and second order vertical points out there, and you have to come in at an elevation, and you're elevation is based on two things, your septic drain fields, as well as being above the crown of the road. But to answer your questions in regards to the FEMA height, that has yet it be determined. We expect when we produce the new set of flood maps, we will have definitive heights in regards to elevations, or BFEs or base flood elevations. But the road issue is a whole other issue we're addressing as part of what we're calling comprehensive east of951 study, which will address many of the compelling issues we'll be facing as the estates is Page 47 July 21, 2005 becomes -- grows toward buildout, and that's the size of roads, drainage, all the other aspects are going -- they're being looked at comprehensively for coming back to the Board in October with an initial report, basically, a menu of items, and that will all be publicly vetted with the residents in Golden Gates. Maybe that's more than you wanted to know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just try to focus. Poor Kelly is going to be exhausted just standing there through all of this. MR. MURRAY: My only thought was trying to think ahead and seeing that they built up high enough and whether that was considered MR. SCHMITT: We're working on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I assure you the county will make sure that happens. There are two other issues involving the estates association's review, and I'm sure you're aware of these, and one is a limiting of the hours from 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. I understand you're not willing to do that. Is that a true statement? MS. SMITH: That is a true statement. At this time, the developers have elected not limit the hours of operation, and there are several reasons for that, one of which being that some of the uses that may exist on the property shouldn't be limited. For example, a sheriff substation or that type of use. The other issue is that the property itself is constrained with all of the other requirements. Any type of use is only going to be open during those overnight hours if it's economically feasible and appropriate, and so I think that that is something that if there is a need in the community for a use to be available during overnight hours, then it will be, and if there is not a need in the community, then it won't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think, Kelly, that the Page 48 July 21, 2005 community at this point is saying they don't want those hours. I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure why you would object to them, but I have a concern -- I understand your point about the sheriffs office, so if the hours were limited 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. for non-government uses, that would certainly take care of that problem. MR. SCHIFFER: And don't we use the word essential services to define all of that? MS. SMITH: The other thing I would say, with all due respect, is that I didn't get the impression at that meeting that it was a concern of the community or the Golden Gate Estate Civic Association as much as perhaps one or two of the people in attendance in that meeting. Now, I do have the same e-mail that you have, and if that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They emphasized the word strongly many times in that, and that's the one that they seemed to highlight the highest in the e-mail that you and I both received from them, so I would hope that you would consider that a little bit more. I mean, I don't see you losing a leaser -- a lessor because he wants to work between 11 :00 and 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. -- 11 :00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. I just don't see that happening out there, so you're not really -- I don't see how you're at risk by doing that other than that fact that you cooperate here. MS. SMITH: One of the potential uses, obviously with the gas station, would be a convenience store, and to limit a convenience store -- the 11 o'clock is maybe not so much an issue as the 6:00 a.m. One of the items of discussion at that meeting last week was that a number of the residents of the Golden Gate area -- Golden Gate Estates area do you have jobs that require them to leave earlier than six o'clock in the morning, and so having the ability to stop at a convenience store or a gas station on their way out of the area would also be important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, I think that in a residential neighborhood, the last thing you want is extended hours, so I would think that's a very valid reason for wanting to limit the hours is that Page 49 July 21, 2005 convenience stores are probably the most noisy things you can have around, but anyway, we can get into that as we go through the motions. The last thing that they mentioned is the school bus shelter provision. Apparently, you've agreed to provide some kind of either a -- build or provide or fund a school bus shelter like the other commercial facility did. Is that true or not? MS. SMITH: That is another issue that -- that issue was discussed after the meeting. We did not specifically agree to that. I can certainly discuss that with property owners. My concern is where on the property that school bus shelter would go so that it is convenient and safe. Again, with the right-of-way needs, obviously you want a bus shelter close enough to the road, but at the same time, you want it to be in a safe location, and I'm not sure exactly how that would be accommodated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the other people weren't either, and they actually found a youth facility easement that the county or somebody had that they were going to try to work out. I think that's what they were looking at because the children at that intersection, with more commercial, they were going to be in jeopardy. The more of those that we can add to the area, the better off we're all going to be. Now, that's the only comments I had of you for now. I have a lot of staff, so I'm sure they may ask you to come back up. Thank you. Was there anything else of Kelly while she's here? No? Thank you. Mike, do you have a presentation? MR. DERUNTZ: Morning. Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. As was mentioned, that this is in a neighborhood center, the northeast corner of Everglades and Golden Gate Estates. We did hold a neighborhood information meeting on March 9th. It was attended by a few of the residents out Page 50 "._~----_., July 21, 2005 there. There was some objections to commercial development at this location, that was just one individual. The need part of the neighborhood center was expressed by the majority of the people that was out there. There was concern about alcoholic beverages on the site. There was an assurance that there would be no drinking alcoholic beverages at that location. This -- the PUD was -- the application was reviewed and was found to be consistent with the growth management plan. Transportation found it to be consistent. Recently, though, as was mentioned, that the identification of additional right-of-way needs at this location was brought to light, and they were -- have attempted to address this, and the property owner is willing to work with us by identifying a 40- foot reservation of property on this site, both on Golden Gate and on Everglades, but the concern of the 25-foot landscape easement seems to be an issue of having both the 40- foot right-of-way dedication and then the 25- foot landscape easement, and in talking with the county attorney that -- Patrick White, the -- this may need to be an amendment to the growth management plan because it is a requirement in the growth management plan or an amendment to the land development code because of this requirement. It's very unfortunate, you know, we didn't have the foresight to think about this needed right-of-way at the time when these neighborhood centers were created in the growth management plan, but they have to be addressed, so we're kind of in a quandary. We have a sense of cooperation with the developer and a problem with meeting with the requirements of the growth management plan here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, before you go, I just want to ask something of the court reporter. I just noticed it's 10 o'clock. We normally break at 10:00. Ifwe were to continue, we'd probably be another 30 minutes or so. Would you rather continue and finish, or Page 51 July 21, 2005 would you rather have a break right now? THE COURT REPORTER: No, I can wait, but I'll tell you when I'm running out of paper. How's that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as you're comfortable. Thank you. I'm sorry, Mike. Go right ahead. MR. DERUNTZ: Quite all right. As was mentioned, there was a meeting this past week with the representatives of the civic association, and as was mentioned, there was revisions proposed, and those changes were provided to you with the proposed PUD. I was not at the -- in attendance when the discussion about the bus shelter was raised, but, as was handled at the previous rezoning neighborhood center, that language was incorporated as of -- they were willing to provide a monetary amount to the school district in development of the bus shelter at that intersection. I think transportation would need to be involved in a discussion about the future plans for Everglades and Golden Gate because I think they were talking about a six-lane improvement on Everglades, so it's going to be quite extensive, and as Mr. Abernathy was talking about, the turning movements into this site on Everglades would be an issue. There would be adequate laneage out there in the future for this traffic. If there are any other questions, I will be more than happy to try to address those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have quite a few, but I will first see if my fellow commissioners would like to ask their questions first. MR. SCHIFFER: Lead on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, in your staff report, Page 5 of 12, you indicate there'll be no alcoholic consumption on site and no freestanding fast food restaurants, and I don't believe I saw any of those categories that were provided, but I want to make the statement for the record that that is -- those uses will not be on that site. I didn't Page 52 July 21, 2005 find them in the listings, but -- you also note on the same page, neighborhood center district permits C 1, C2, and C3 commercial uses as specified within the criteria of the sub district. That's important because I went through all the numerics that were supplied on SIC codes, and I found some that I questioned whether or not they're C 1, C2, or C3, so I'll need to go over those with you when we get to that point in the PUD. I have a question of Mr. Scott, which I know he -- but I'll wait, and I'll get him after I finish with Mike. I know that he's dying to answer another question today. Under the permitted uses under the commercial areas plan, 3.35, it says automobile services, 7549, and from best I can tell in Collier County, those are used on C5 and in an industrial area. Do you know any different? MR. DERUNTZ: Would you repeat that again, please, so I can find it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 3-1 ofPUD? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item 3.3, and under permitted uses, number five. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Automobile services, 7549, I don't have my LDC with me. I did when I looked this up, but it appears that that SIC code is found in C5 and in an industrial area, not Cl, 2, or 3. My concern is, if that's true, I would like you to verify it after this meeting, and strike it from this if that's -- because I -- I'm not trying to make a motion here, I'm trying to simply state that if you can't beyond C 1, C2, or C3, how did these things get into this number -- numbering system? MR. DERUNTZ: This is the language straight out of the growth management plan, so there may have been some -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there? If it's in the GMP, we can't do anything about it. I'm just going by the statement -- Page 53 July 21, 2005 MR. DERUNTZ: So there may be some discrepancies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the other ones -- if you could just check these before -- I can list them for you, and I know you'll check them. MR. DERUNTZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item -- on the next page, number 12 -- I'm sorry, number 18. MR. DERUNTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Individual and family social services, 8322. That's generally a -- MS. CARON: Excuse me, I'm not reading the same thing. Eighteen on mine is insurance carriers. MR. MURRAY: Well, they gave out a new set of papers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They gave out a new one. I can't mark the new one up. I can only mark the old one up, so I'm still reading out the old one. MS. CARON: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know what changes are in the new one, so -- but under the old one, Mike, if you could check out number 18, individual and family social services, 8322, number 22, membership organizations, 8611, 8699. I find those only in industrial and business parks. MR. DERUNTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 23, miscellaneous repair services. The only one that I question there is 7699. I find it in C5 and industrial. MR. DERUNTZ: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 33, I think there's a numeric change. Real estate groups, 6531, and it shows to 6552, but I believe it needed to be 6541 to be consistent with C3 -- up to C3 zoning, so if you could check that one. Those are the ones I would ask that you check between now and the BCC meeting, if you could. Page 54 July 21,2005 MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the -- couple of catch-all statements that are here. On Page 3-3, number 41, we normally strike this kind of language, and it says, any other general commercial use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted uses and consistent with the permitted uses and purpose statement of the district, as determined by the zoning director or his designee. Now, in the past, we've taken that out of these. I'm wondering how it somehow got back in here today. I know you're looking at Mr. White for a reason. If it ain't listed, it shouldn't be, and it shouldn't be less than a public hearing to come back and try to get it corrected. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, that's old language. We'll have the new one inserted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The -- on Page 3-4, B3, same language occurs again. MR. DERUNTZ: Which page, again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3-4, up on the top, B3. Under -- Page 3-6, under open space requirements, they go into a lot of detail on open space requirements, and you know we have a requirement that if there's deviations, they go to be separately listed and separately addressed, and if these are not deviations, then why are they here? Anybody? Okay. MR. DERUNTZ: Aren't those the ones that are coming right out of the growth management plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's another question, then. Why are they here? MR. DERUNTZ: Just repeating what was there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, for the past year I've been asking if we need -- MR. SCHMITT: I just beat them up on the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: He told me every after -- now that Ava Maria Page 55 July 21, 2005 has passed, he's going to have that done by -- let's hear it on the record, Ray, when? September -- by Labor Day. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. MR. SCHIFFER: Joe, can't you just send Ray off to some resort somewhere? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I know. I'm just going to have to send him off in seclusion somewhere. MR. BELLOWS: That's an idea. MR. WHITE: I'm willing to go with him to make sure it's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 3-8, number 3. Now, this issue came up in the prior commercial center, and it was referencing fences and walls, and the language says, walls shall be constructed of brick or stone. I know that's language out of the GMP, but the intent was brick or stone facing. There's not much brick or stone walls in this county, so I just want to make sure that that clarification is understood. On Page 4-1 -- MR. DERUNTZ: Wait a minute. Can you hold for a second, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. DERUNTZ: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My last one for this part of this process is Page 4-1. 4.2, A3, is that same general comparable language deemed by the community development services director that we just talked about striking. MR. DERUNTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, that's all the questions I have of you. I do have one of Mr. Scott, if that's okay with the rest of you? MR. SCHIFFER: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, we have a similar problem here. Their traffic TIS, based their road count on LUC 820, which is your Page 56 July 21, 2005 retail shopping center again, and I just want to make sure that if that's what they're going to submit their traffic study on and tell your department that's the traffic trips they're going to generate, and they're going to tell the BCC and the CCP set in a public hearing that we vote on that that is the most intense use that's in that four page list of uses they're proposing. So, do you have any -- did you review that list, and is the worst condition -- worst case scenario, as we have thought was the policy to show on TISs? MR. SCOTT: Let me defer to ALAN, since he reviewed it, and I don't want to keep avoiding your answer, but it's -- I don't know how we're going to get to exactly what you're talking about because you can do -- you know, if you think about all the different uses, you can do a different size of the uses, you can do different distribution. I want to try to get to where you're going. I don't know -- I know when I said that last time, I'm thinking after the meeting, how am I going to get to that point. I don't know how we want to get there, but that's probably some discussions we need to have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if there was a reasonable attempt to show the real mixes of uses there, instead of taking a global number that benefits the outcome, we'd be better off. I mean, I would rather see a realistic number hit our road system, than a number we know could be exceeded substantially. MR. SCOTT: Well, even from a concurrency aspect, that's not going to be made until site development plan, then I know exactly what they're going to build, and they're going to be subj ect to concurrency at that time. I mean, obviously right now we're -- we don't have a lot of capacity out in that area as it is, and we do have a program in proj ect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, by that time, the public process is over, and the public looks out and sees these roads getting jammed up Page 57 July 21, 2005 three years before they're completed or three years before they're started, and BCC and the CCPC and everybody involved in the process believed that the traffic counts were going to be less, based on these kinds of references, and it turns out that they're more, and it's just something that's a perception, and I think if you're going through the public process, that we ought to be as forthright in regards to the real counts that might go there than just using some global number for a retail shopping center that's 50 percent of some of the uses that are going to be there. MR. SCOTT: I understand that, but if you go back into time, actually, you go back at and look at projects when they first came in and said this is what we're going to build versus what they really build, they're really lower in the end because they can't -- the reality is, like we're going to buy right-of-way in this location, and they won't be able to build the amount that they were talking about originally, so if you look at it from a comparison of actually when it was first approved, most of those have been reduced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then maybe you need to make it clear to us that the conditions that are being -- we're reviewed on are not the worst case scenario for the uses involved, and that the traffic counts, even though they're showing a decrease or a credit in some cases, may not be those true traffic counts in the end because it could be much in excess of that. You understand that the basis of a vote is what's presented to us. If we feel that there's a positive to a traffic count, it's going to lean heavily and that's a better thing to go towards, but in reality, if that's not going to be the outcome, and you're saying we don't really know, well, I'd rather know that at this public meeting than -- MR. SCOTT: I know, and I want to try to give you what you're talking about, but the problem is there's so many different variables. I can come in and say, well, I look at this, this, and this way. I prefer they do it, but we might get to that, but then you'll say, hey, that's -- it Page 58 July 21, 2005 might be a little different, it's this, and even beyond the use itself, I mean, the distribution could be different, depending on what it is. So a lot of issues can change, there's so many variables to that. Now, I want to try to get to where you're talking about, but I know an easy way to get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I want to get to a point where we have stronger, let's say truth in lending. Again, I don't know how to refer to this, but I want the public process to state it like it is or like it could be under the conditions that we see coming forward. MR. SCOTT: And closer to what really is going to built, versus -- yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is just a catch-all for what I've seen them come forward. Now, if it's retail or commercial, they're just going to throw in 820 because 820 is substantial less than some of the intensities that could be on the site, and I understand those intensities and size could change. MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you look at fast food restaurants -- well, this one doesn't have any, but that's a heck of an example. That's eight times 820. A small fast food restaurant is going to have a huge impact. MR. SCOTT: Right. Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we, at the public process, ought to reveal it. That's where I'm coming from. Now, I don't want you got to do internally to make that more conducive to what they -- what's presented here today, but I'm going to be asking this in every one that I see 820 showing up on again. MR. SCOTT: I figured that out. MR. ADELSTEIN: You know, it could be done very easily. Do what you're doing now, and then state, and in the alternative, it could also go to this level if these things are done. In other words, they're going to give you that same 8 -- under all the time. Page 59 July 21,2005 MR. SCOTT: But -- and obviously I can do, like, three different scenarios, but there could be a scenario that's different than that, too, and am I sure -- I mean, without even having a combination because knowing the size, that could also change the trips as you go through it, too so-- , MR. ADELSTEIN: I think you can use enough judgment to say, this is what they have proposed, but it could go to this level, also. Period. MR. SCOTT: Well, let's start with at least a three aspect of it, and then we'll go -- see how that goes. MR. ADELSTEIN: That's right. But again, that way at least we have some idea of what could be, and use that judgment figure for what we want to decide. MR. SCOTT: Right, and we were talking in the back about should we try to tie something to TIS, and then if you do something different, but I don't know. That's going to be fairly restrictive to do that, to say, okay, since you changed that -- because, you know, market changes change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Don, what's better for the road system? Coming here today with a worst case scenario so we know what you really got to look at and the approval process, or letting it go through the approval process and have the applicant come in down the road sometime when it's closer to a three-year start period, and overburden the road system prematurely because we didn't -- we were mislead -- MR. SCOTT: I can stop them if I have a concurrency problem at that point. Now, obviously, the one that was the last one, I can't do if it's not above what they were originally given in their COA. There's not much I can do about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. MR. SCOTT: This one, we can stop that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. ALAN, did you want to try Page 60 July 21, 2005 anything to help Don? MR. EL-URFALI: Alan EI-Urfali, for the record. I just wanted to add one more thing is that we look at, for consistency review, the net new trips on the system, and the net new trips for commercial, and In your case when you're looking at 820 versus -- a shopping center versus a restaurant, a restaurant, if we're applying the ITE code or the ITE rules, a restaurant has a 46 to 68 percent internal capture and diverted trips. So, you know, from the bat, if you use a -- let's say a fast food restaurant, and you put it instead of an 820 shopping center, you're going to have some of the trips that are already on the system use that facility. So 820, I believe, 820 for the size of what we have here, is going to be the maximum use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I don't disagree for this site. ALAN: For net trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure that when staff in the past has indicated to us that this is supposed to be the worst case scenario, I want it to be, and if it isn't, then I want you to tell us. That's all. I want this -- ALAN: I believe for net new trips on the system, 820 will be the highest worst case scenario, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fair statement. Any other questions of staff or Mr. Scott or ALAN? Okay. Ray, is there any public speakers? MR. WHITE: No speakers have registered. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir? MR. EL-URFALI: I believe there was a discussion that had been held amongst the planning staff and transportation planning with regards to one of the transportation conditions, and I was expecting we were going to have an amendment on the record today from Mr. Scott Page 61 -- ".__".....__"_~.~ _""_k_..»_.,_".^_,u,",__,_,_,_,_,_",_,~"",_ July 21, 2005 or his staff, and I would just like to give him the opportunity to do so. MR. SCOTT: Well, the discussion about the right-of-way reservation, to do a reduction in the landscape buffer would cause a growth management plan change, so the way it should be stipulated is either that the right-of-way -- that the project is developed, we'll deal with the right-of-way that we need during site plan, but the project would be developed to reserve that right-of-way, and if they wanted to reduce something like the landscape buffer, they'd have to go through a growth management plan change. I'm not exact on the amount of right-of-way at this point. We just started looking at a design for Golden Gate Boulevard is next year, Everglades is the year after that. The well site actually might -- that she referenced previously, might affect it. We might need to shift more, so I might actually get more or less off of Golden Gate Boulevard. Those are the things that we'll be looking at prior to them coming in for a site development plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I made note of it. I'm sure it will come up in our discussions. Ms. Smith, did you have some closing comments? MS. SMITH: I did. I just wanted to address one item before you close the public hearing. You made a comment that there will be no fast food restaurants, and I just wanted to clarify that a fast food restaurant would be allowed as a permitted use. What would not be allowed is a drive-through facility for a fast food restaurant. So I just wanted to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand. Thank you. I met the drive-through portion. I should have made that clearer. Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing. Gentlemen, I have a series of stipulations, if one of you would like to make a motion. MR. ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-6631 be forwarded to the Page 62 "--'~-""'~'._"""""--"'''-".''''---'--_.".,-".,. July 21, 2005 Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the planning commission recommendations. MR. MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a motion made and seconded for discussion. You want me to read mine into the record, and then you guys can yea or nay or clarify it? The first involves the right-of-way and the buffer that Mr. Scott just addressed. His concept of making that -- leave it as it is, any right-of-way he takes has to retain a 25-foot buffer, unless changed by a GMP amendment. I believe that's it. Mr. Abernathy's suggestion that a decellane be provided in a northbound lane, I think that's a good one as well, and likely it would also facilitate any right-a-way taken in the future, so that they automatically plan for it. Number three, that the actual height be limited to 45 feet, whereas the zoning height is as stated at 35 feet. Number four, that the architectural review would be provided by the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association prior to the building -- prior to the SDP being issued, and a letter of acceptance will be provided with the SDP from the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. Number five, the hours will be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. for non-government uses. Number six, the applicant will provide either a school bus shelter, or build a school bus shelter, or the funding for a school bus shelter within the proximity of the site, not to exceed the cost of $5,000. MR. VIGLIOTTI: I think those are good. MR. ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, I accept each and all of them in my motion. MR. MURRAY: As does the second. MR. SCHIFFER: And I just have a comment, and it's the one on the letter. Page 63 July 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The leather? MR. SCHIFFER: The letter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the letter. When you actually said letter, I don't know what you -- MR. SCHIFFER: That what you do is you provide a letter of acceptance with the SDP application, rather than say that the architectural review will be by the Golden Gate Civic Association. That could be confused with our architectural review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. MR. SCHIFFER: So I think to just simply say that a letter of acceptance from the Golden Gate will be provided at the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good clarification. Thank you. I think that's fine. MR. ADELSTEIN: Accepted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does the second accept it as well? MR. MURRAY: Agreed. MR. SCHMITT: Clarification on hours of operation, was it 6:00 a.m. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. MR. SCHIFFER: The only other question I have, and this will probably chime Patrick up, but can we require dedication of the right-of-way as part of the approval of this application? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure what you mean. MR. SCHIFFER: Well, in other words, I mean, how would the county get the right-of-way in the future? Would we be buying the right-of-way? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SCHIFFER: So can't -- I mean, as we're giving them the rights to do this thing, can't we require a dedication of all right-of-ways? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a contribution? In lieu of impact fees? Page 64 July 21, 2005 MR. SCHIFFER: No. The gift of the use of the land. MR. SCHMITT: I have to defer to transportation. I mean, this is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see that happen a lot on larger projects. MR. SCHMITT: Larger parcels where -- rather small parcel. I mean, larger parcels, certainly the applicant is willing to dedicate the right-of-way in order to facilitate and meet the transportation needs in order to accommodate the development. Sometimes they'll seek an impact fee credit, but this sized parcel -- MR. SCHIFFER: But what I'm saying is that in the future, if the right-of-way is necessary, the county will have to purchase it. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. SCHIFFER: As opposed to -- right now, this is a site, we're giving the man the rights to develop the site. Wouldn't now be the time to do it? MR. VIGLIOTTI: I don't think the parcel is big enough to warrant taking that kind of land for it. MR. SCHIFFER: Well, the land taking is going to occur one way or the other. The issue isn't whether you're going to take the land. The issue is do you compensate the owner for it, or is it part of the approval today. MR. DERUNTZ: Well, obviously, we'd love to have donation, but we assume that, you know, they reserve it. What we're trying to avoid is, you know, you put building in the middle of it, or some essential use that we'd have to replace. MR. ADELSTEIN: Then why don't we insert something about the land -- MR. DERUNTZ: But, you know, I don't -- in fact these credits would be fine by us or FEMA. MR. SCHIFFER: I mean, what happens now? Is that -- somebody does do a dedication, you swap impact fees? Payoff in impact fees? Page 65 July 21, 2005 MR. DERUNTZ: We do impact fee credits in some cases and/or pay for it, depending, and we get donations, too, but -- MR. SCHIFFER: But I personally -- I mean, first of all, the land is going to -- well, it doesn't matter if they give the land or not, the land is going to be given if the transportation needs it. The question is, can we make dedication of the land part of the approval of the uses today? MR. ABERNATHY: I bet not. MR. SCHMITT: I would defer to the county attorney, but that's an exaction basically that is above and beyond the land development code. That would have to be something certainly that the applicant can agree to during the public hearing, but from a standpoint of process, what Don said is correct. Normally that it would either be -- they certainly could donate it, if that's the case, or if they -- if we -- either we purchase it, or if they donate it, we give them impact fee credits for the donation. One of the three, or they then donate it outright. MR. SCHIFFER: It seems fair to me after giving them uses, that now would be the time for them to make that donation. MR. SCHMITT: That's a policy decision, if this board so wants to recommend to go to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to back away from this. This is not a part of our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that this discussion could be passed on to the BCC and let them know that we had a concerns. That would highlight it enough so that if they felt it was necessary on this size of a proj ect to take action, they could. MR. MURRAY: Brad, I think that -- MR. SCHIFFER: I'm just trying to save the time and money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to avoid -- move forward here today. There is one technicality, and, Kelly, could I ask you to answer Page 66 July 21, 2005 one question for me? MS. SMITH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You realize you are not being granted any concurrency determinations for rights, even if this proj ect is approved by us and the BCC, and that you will have to fully meet all concurrency requirements before you can build the project? MS. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now, with that being said, gentlemen, there's a motion made. It's been amended. The amendments have been approved by the motion maker and the second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor? Anybody opposed? The motion passes unanimously, seven to zero. Thank you. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if you do have those --last list of stipulations, and we could get a copy of them before you depart today, that would be of great assistance to me and the staff in making sure that they're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will hang around and give you my list. MR. WHITE: The Board's meeting on this one on Tuesday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Abernathy, I think -- that's the last item on the agenda for a public hearing today? MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're next up, sir. MR. ABERNATHY: Okay. This is not an action item, I just wanted to put some thoughts in front of you. Several years ago, the planning commission limited itself to one meeting each in July and August. My recollection is that nobody had any cerebral hernias or any misfortunes for having done that. It just frees up a period where one can go on a decent sized vacation without vacation without missing a meeting. Now, when this subject came up a couple of months ago, there Page 67 July 21, 2005 seemed to be a consensus of everybody, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, we don't want to have to work too hard and get stuff bunched up, but then of the nine members, three absented themselves from the July 7th meeting. Now, Bob, I'm not getting into why you weren't here. I'm not interested in that. The point is that it put the burden on the remaining six people to make sure that five of us by God got here, or else we would have had the debacle of a no quorum, which, of course, The point of it is, you don't have to be rocket scientist to figure out that the first meeting in July is going to be within three days of the Fourth of July, one side or the other. They learn that pre-K, I think nowadays. So if we want to hedge ourselves and commit to having a meeting within three days of the Fourth of July, well, I think that's unfortunate. Now, I'm not using in support of my argument the fact that we finished at 10:30 last time, we're finishing 10:30 today. That just may be a fortunate happenstance. That leads me to the next item, and that is the August -- in other words, I would propose having, at an appropriate time next spring, having just one meeting in July, that being the third Thursday. I'd like to do the same thing in August, but that brings me to a problem that I want to ask Joe about. Inevitably, it seems that second meeting in August, that being the third Thursday, is preceded by a LDC cycle meeting the very night before on the Wednesday, the third Wednesday. My question is, not just on -- so that might not be a good idea to double things up in August, but my question is, Joe, why do we always have these LDC amendment and growth management plan amendment hearings the night before a planning commission meeting? Does it have to be that way? MR. SCHMITT: No. No. Normally, we kind of back plan, so Page 68 July 21, 2005 we try and prevent a board having the hearings in late December because of some many things that back up in December, so we'll back plan. What we did this past LDC cycle in the fall cycle, try to finish just before or around Thanksgiving, so we kind of back plan, but no, we do not have to there's no requirement for your meeting to be the night before a planning commission meeting. MR. ABERNATHY: I know that -- MR. SCHMITT: And certainly we can certainly schedule that -- MR. ABERNATHY: Like the week prior, maybe. The second Wednesday that would be. Why don't we try that for the rest of the year if it's not too late. MR. WHITE: Mr. Abernathy, I understand that that's one way to approach it, and I think that the way the staff may have looked at it in the past in setting up those schedules, was in order to assure that there would be quorums for both, and if there were going to scheduling issues, by having them -- although there would be more work you'd have to have yourselves prepared and ready for in the succession of two meetings, there was the countervailing idea that it would be perhaps easier in terms of scheduling with vacations and other things like it, to have those commissioners who are available doing so in the closest proximity of time to one another -- to the two events. MR. ABERNATHY: Well, that may have some validity for the August meeting, but I don't know that vacations or whatever the next one is, October, doesn't seem to -- MR. WHITE: Right. Right, and I think what Joe's indicating is that certainly in the back planning, your preference as a commission is to separate them by a week or so, then we can accommodate that. MR. ABERNATHY: Well, I'm not asking for action today, I'm just asking for people to think about it. Some people may like it the way it is. MR. SCHMITT: Before we lock in the dates, we'll come back and ask you if those dates are agreeable. Since we're talking LDC, and Page 69 July 21, 2005 I know this may get off subj ect, so I'll follow up after we're done with Mr. Abernathy. MR. ABERNATHY: Tell me this. If you're going to come and ask us, how about indicating it some way, so we don't have these seat-of-the-pants decisions because we hadn't thought about it. MR. SCHMITT: We certainly can do that. MR. ADELSTEIN: Yeah, we did this a couple of years ago where we had the one meeting in June -- in July, and one meeting in August, and it turned out that come September, we got drowned. It came to a point where now we got drowned, it got very hard to do, and then with the other things that come along in August, it just didn't seem to make sense. Again, we have trouble getting a quorum here, but also we have been able to do it. It doesn't mean that somebody can't go on vacation because this isn't their full-time job, but the idea was that at least by doing it this way, we don't end up with September and October actually drowning us. I would love to see it stay the way it is, and have a few -- have to worry about getting quorums, than to go through what we went through that last year. MR. ABERNATHY: Well, that must have been a anomaly because if we have a meeting -- a second meeting in August and clear the docket, I don't why there should be any glut in September, unless everybody else is taking vacations and is coming back, which may be happening right now. That's why we don't have anything now. MR. SCHMITT: If I can refresh your memory, though, the last meeting, I think, Ray, if I'm not mistaken, we had four items continued. That would have been an all-day event. MR. ABERNATHY: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gentlemen, one at a time for the court reporter. MR. SCHMITT: And I know there's quite a few in the cube Page 70 July 21, 2005 pending that's coming your direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? MR. SCHIFFER: But for August, we're not going to change that LDC date, are we? MR. SCHMITT: No. I'm locked in on that now, unless for some reason we want to change -- MR. ABERNATHY: I wasn't suggesting that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Abernathy's suggestion about moving the two dates apart is real good because I can assure you from experiences recently, we made some horrible mistakes in the last LDC cycle that we approved, and they're coming back to haunt a lot of people right now, and I would rather see us be able to focus very intently on the LDC amendments and what they actually mean and the actions that they're going to take in the field, and we can do that if we had more time and they weren't jammed up together, so I really would appreciate it if we could separate those two. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. Let me ask you this because it depends on the board room and it depends on scheduling, but as Patrick noted, it's maybe good for your schedule to do both in the same week. That way you wouldn't do week-to-week separation problems. MR. SCHIFFER: It's the preparation, Joe, that's the problem. MR. SCHMITT: Well, if we did it like Tuesday, and then had a planning commission on Thursday, would that work? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I don't know what you think it takes, but it takes several days, even for tonight's -- today's meeting, to prepare. To read these two, there's at least four days worth of work here. MR. SCHMITT: Well, then what I'm hearing is you would like to have them a week apart at least because you're basically twice-month planning commission, we would have to do the other week as an LDC hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we've beat that to death. Page 71 July 21, 2005 I think everybody's ideas are on the record. MR. SCHMITT: Since we're talking LDC, I'm going to the board to lock in a special cycle, another special cycle for this year, those dates, but they will be regular hearing dates for you, not special meetings. We still have to come back to you for those LDC amendments that deal with the implementation of the TDR program, and you'll see those, and also, you'll be seeing the amendments dealing with the excess units or what's referred to, as a euphemism somewhat, the phantom units. MR. SCHIFFER: That's what the special cycle will cover? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. That will be a special cycle, but they'll be listed as regular scheduled -- it will be part of the your regular-scheduled meeting. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. One thing is, aren't we all meeting next week for the session? And, Mike, you never did -- because I mean, I'm registered. I know you keep asking me to register, and I registered three times, and you were going to notify those that weren't registered that -- do you consider me registered? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's something that you and Mike can handle. MR. ABERNATHY: Joe, I would like-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get through the public part of this meeting today. Is there any other issues that the board has? If not, we're adj ourned. Page 72 July 21, 2005 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:37 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mark Strain, Vice Chairman Page 73