CCPC Minutes 11/15/2018November 15, 2018
TRANSCRIPT OF TTIE MEETING OF TI{E
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florid4 November 1 5, 2018
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, ftar the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of tle Govemment Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CIIAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Stan Chrzanowski
Patrick Dearborn
Edwin Fryer
Karen Homiak
Joe Schmiu
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager
Nancy Gundlach, hincipal Planner
Je{tey Klatzkow, Comty Attomey
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant Cormty Attomey
Tom Eastrnan, School District Representalive
Page 1of 25
November 15, 2016
PROCEEDINGS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Good moming. Welcome to the November l5th
meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
Ifeverybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge ofAllegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the mll call.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here.
Chairman Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice-chair Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearbom?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, we have a quorum of six.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you.
And while we're talking about the roll call, we did have a new person appointed on Tuesday. So now
we have Fry, Fryer, and maybe we'll get a Fried one ofthese days, because Karl Fry is now appointed to the
Planning Commission. And we have Ned Fryer, so who knows what will happen next.
Karl is - it was kind ofa short notice for him to be prepared for today, so I believe he's going to be
attending the next meeting. He's a long-term resident of the county, so Im sure he's going to be up on the
way we handle things.
Addendum to the agenda. We don't hav€ any changes that I'm aware of. Staffs got anything -
MR. BELLOWS: No changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. This one's going to take a few
minutes to discuss.
And I need staffs comments on the dates. The second meeting in December, which is what the - is
itthe l8th or l9th 20th?
MR. BOSI: Twentieth.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: 20th. Okay. That's the date. We are not - we don't have an agenda for that
day, and we're going to have a meeting; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I checked our report manager, and there's
nothing scheduled for the December 20th datg and ther€'s nothing scheduled for the January 3rd date as of
now.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Wow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we've got two meetings that we're not going to need to have.
Now, as far as the January date, Mike, with the holidays coming up, when can we know for certain
whetler that s going to be - and I'd just as soon, ifyou don't have anything pressing we just don't schedule
that day, because that would require staffto distribute a lot of items over the holidays, and that may be
awkward.
MR. BOSI: That would require the distribution ofyour packes to be the day after Christmas and,
obviously, there's some -- that places some stress and some elongated -
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, why dont we not do the 3rd as well. Just cancel effective today since
you haven't got anything scheduled.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will not be here anyway.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second.
Page 2 of 25
Novembe r 15, 201E
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thal means we would have to get the packets on the 26th or 27th,
right?
CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's what he's saying yeah. So, officially, then, we dont have a meeting
on December 20th, and we don't have a meeting on January 3rd- The second meeting in January for the
standard meeting is available and up and mnning.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ids the l7d1 correcfl
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Right. And this is I 2/6 being handed ont in front of us today. And I'm
going to talk to you-all about January 3 1 st.
I don't know - I can't remember how many ofyou have been on the Planning Commission the last
time we did meet in lmmokalee, but it was for lhe Waknad that came in on the north end of Immokalee, and
it was a large issue relevant to the community. And according to our ordinance, when those occur, we can
make the decision to meet in lmmokalee.
Saffdoes provide transportation, so wejust carpool up in a van - obviously, we can't talk business
while we're in the van - and we carpool back with that.
The date that seems to be the most readily available for the Immokalee facility and for the schedule
for staff is January 3l st. Ifs actually the fifth Thursday of a month. I need to find out - becaus€ we've got to
start setting this up early. Ifeverybody here - what their schedules are. Does anybody know ifthey cant
attend a meeting on January 3l st? It's the Immokalee Master Plan we'll be discussing.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is there a meeting on the l Tth of January?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever the second meeting, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then you'll do one on the 3 I st?
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. Then we'll go back to our standard schedule for February.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You'll be on February 7t]u I show?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever the first Thunday is in Febnrary.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So we'll do one the 3 I st and then the 7th.
MR.BOSI:3lst,andthenaweeklaterwe'llhavethe-justbacktonormalfirstThundayofthe
month.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: So you all -
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm fine with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: SIAN?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Im retired for eight years - I've been retired for eight years.
I look forward to these meetings.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On the ride to Immokalee we can talk about you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen, do you have any -
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nope. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: JOC?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: PAf
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Though I dont share my fellow commissioners' enthusiasm, I
think I should be okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, we'll go with that date and it's - and the time of that - are
you looking at a moming or evening meeting?
MR. BOSI: When I was speaking with Anita Jenkins - she's been the primary lead within our
Immokalee Area Master Plan update and working with fie CRA and the community - she's indicated to me
that the day meetings have been much more attended tlan the night meetings within that commmity. So
she's suggesting for the Planning Commission to have your normal 9 o clock start time.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Well - and I think that's the better way to gq but I'd like the start time to be
at 10.
MR. BOSI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In talking wift our IT department, the setup and everything to get into this
Page 3 of 25
November 15' 2018
particular facility, they need to get there early, they need to set everything up, and they would like an extra bit
oftime, and I think that would help us get out there on time.
So let's start on that meeting on the 3 1 st at I 0 o'cloclq and I'm sure you'll send out comments to the
Planning Commission or a rcport to us and where to mee! how to meet, how to gpt the van and all that stuff.
MR BOSI: That logistics, I will work with our facilities folks in terms of coordinating the
transportation and all those specifics ouq and rll get the detail, kind ofthe itinerary for the day for when you
guys - to report and where at specifically so we can get all this set up.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: That sounds good. And thd's Planning Commission absences.
And while we're at it, ifyou look across the audience, there's a guy who's got a head of hair like the
color of my beard. His is gra.y. My beard tumed gray. Carl, would you mind standing up. This is Karl Fry.
This is our new appointee.
MR. FRYE: I thought you were r€ferring to Rich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: He tumed my hair white.
COMMISSIONER HOMLAK: That's where I was looking.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Carl didn't have the time to get into the packe( and I think he probably
doesnt want to sit on the dais for that reason -
MR. FRYE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - and he wanted to observe our activities today. And what you see today,
Carl, is not like ifs normally going to be, because it may be shorter than normal, and I can assure you the one
in December, based on this lisl is going to be longer than today. But it's good to see you, and congra.tulations
on your appointrnent.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Welcome.
MR. FRYE: I look forward to working with you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay. That takes us to approval ofminutes. We were electronically distributed October I Eth. Does
anybody have any changes, questions, concems or a motion ifnone?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move -
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patriclq seconded by Ned.
All in favor, signifo by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI : Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion caries 6-0.
That takes us to the BCC reports and recaps, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: tast Tuesday the Board of County Commissioners approved on the summary
agenda the Collier Tract 2l PUD amendment. On the public-hering iterl there was a Gronth Management
Plan Amendment and a conditional use for Grace Romanian. The motion to approve was - failed to get a
supermajority. There was a rctraction ofthat motion, and it was rernanded to go back to the Planning
Commission.
CII{IRI\4AN STRr{IN: Okay.
MR BELLOWS: We're looking at possibly January 17th.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Remind me, what was that one about?
MR BELLOWS: Grace Romanian Church. It's at the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and
Weber.
Page 4 of 25
November 15, 201E
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It was in - ifs on a corner of - in the Estates.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was not here for tlrat.
MR. BELLOWS: In the Estates.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It came to us trvice. The fint time they came to us, then changed to a
point where they had to have another NIM. It came back to us. There were differcnces in discussions both
times. The Board remanded it back to us. The only thing I'd like is when staffsends us the packel they
include the mimrtes, those portions of the minutes from that -
MR. BELLOWS: That's fine.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: - discussion so every board mernber can see what happened.
MR. BELLOWS: I agree that's important to have.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. ChairmarL just a quick question. How did we vote - how
did we vote on that beforc it went before them?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was 5-1 in favor.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. There was a disseng okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it was in favor. I was the only dissenting vote.
And then anything else for that dste for Tuesday?
MR. BELLOWS: Those are the only two land-use items.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Did they do the AUIR?
MR. BELLOWS: I believe so, but Mr. -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then - yeah, what happened with the AUIR? We had only one
recommendation as part of ig and how did that sail tlrough?
MR. BOSI: I had - it was - there was one additional recommendation, and that was for the
evaluation of EMS as well as law enforcement as part ofthe Category A facilities. I highlighted that within
the executive summary and within my presentatiorg but at their recommendation the Board of County
Commissioners failed to provide any direction to staff in terms of relationship to evaluating that - evaluating
the issues and opportunities ofclassifing EMS and law enforcement as concur€ncy Category A facilities.
If ifs the pleasure ofthe Planning Commission, we could still provide some - at least a narrative for
the upcoming 2019 AUIR that talks about some ofthe advantageg disadvantages, and limitations of
potentially elevating drose two issues from a Category B of non<oncurrency to concurency type of a
facility.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Im -- and maybe my memory isn't too good on this one. I
thought the recommendation from us was a rcquest to consider adding a helicopter to the EMS line items.
Didn't that have something -
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I mentioned that, but I think I neglected to push that forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So in our - maybe - I'm not absolutely clear on what our
recommendation was. So, anyway, Ill leave it open for discussion. I thought it had come up Tuesday, but I
wanted to make sure that ifwe had recommended something the status of that, and basically our
recommendation didn't carry forward.
MR. BOSI: Well, your recommendation was to acc€pt the - to acc,ept dre ATIIR as presented and
which the Board accepted the AU\ br.rt they didnt take any spocific other actions ulnn any other
recommendation that was provided for.
And staffdid not - and I dont recall specifically related to -- a recommendation related to a
helicopter in EMS.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: lrt me clarif, ftat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was some recommendation in EMS, and I know Ned made it as we
were wrapping up, and so I'll let them -
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I inadvertently didn't bring in the helicopter matter when we came to a
final vote, but the final vote was with respect to law enforcement and EMS facilities, and we voted
unanimously to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that those be upgraded from B to A and
that - I know you meltioned it, Mike, but I don't think it was given adequate emphasis since it had been
omitted fiom the materials.
Paqe 5 of 25
November 15' 2018
MR. BOSI: It was in the executive summary. It was in the executive summary, and it was in my
PowerPoint presentation. The Board ofCounty Commissioners just failed to take action on it. I guess I
could have maybe emphasized it more during their conclusion ofthe deliberations, but we were foaused
upon -
COMMSSIONER FRYER: Well, okay. It might have been in the executive summary. I didn't
have the Board ofCounty Commissioners' packet in front ofme, but I had what was online, and I didnt see
anything there. And I - ofcourse, I hadnt - well, I dont think I saw your PowerPoint either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whar we might do, we're going to have the AUIR every year, and that
evaluation ofthat comment would have been difficult probably to fully evaluate by the time the Board had
heard this on past Tuesday, but now knowing that that was a concern ofthis boar4 and we're all going to be
here next year, why don't staffbe prepared with those two deparenents to discuss and vet that issue in morc
detail on next yeat's AUIR. That will give you l2 months to figure out how to approach it and talk to us
about the statistical basis ofdoing that.
MR. BOSI: Well, that's exactly what I was going to engage the Board of County Commissioners.
We weren't going to ask them to make a decision. What we were going to ask them to do, for us to prcvide
research and analysis as to the pros and cons oftaking that action and tlren bring those pms and cons forward
to the Planning Commission and, ultimately, to the Board next year to evaluate to be able to make that
decision on an informed basis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at this poinl you're acknowledging then, that you're going to prepare
that for the Plarming Commission's purpose -
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: - at leas! and then we'll go from there next year.
MR. BOSI: And we'll have - as I sai4 we'll have factors to evaluate. We'll have an
informed - we'll have a decision thafs framed with some factors for evaluation that I think the Planning
Commission and then, ultimately, the Board will have opporhmities to take action upon those factors of
evaluation, which we didnt have this year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That works. Thank yot4 Mike. I appreciate it. That gets us to -
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask a quick question of Pay?
We approved Grace Romanian Churrh, and the Board disapproved it and sent it back to us for what
reason?
MR. BELLOWS: The Board recommended approval. That motion failed by a3-2vote. It didn'l get
a supermajority. They retracting that motion and then drey made a subsequent motion to rcmand it to the
Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The/re changing something or -
MR. BOSI: They felt there was potential issues related to a concern about notification in terms of
reaching all the affected parties but also the primary focus was compatibility with the existing Estates
neighborhood in which the facility would have been impacted.
So the approach trat staffwill take is, you know, provide the minutes and give you a description of
what the Board was specifically discussing but alsojust to provide you dre l7 conditions ofapproval that
have been associated with that conditional use to evaluate ifthere were some additional conditions that had to
be in place to ensure the compatibility of that faciliry with the neighbortrood. And I think thafs going to be
the focus ofthe next re-review for the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is - typically, when the Board remands it back to us, put it in
succinct terms, hoping that we will hammer the issue out and resolve the issues. This has been done in the
past.
CHAIRMAN STR{N: Yeah. We've done it in the past.
Mike, when you prepare that packet, you know, we get things electrcnically, so those files are kind
ofkept. That project went through stages ofdifferent ty'pes of, let's say, compatibility sandards in their
listing ar the back. It started out in the first Planning Commission meeting then we had another one in the
Page 6 of 25
November 15, 201E
second Planning Commission meeting and I'm not sure ifthe Board had a different one or not. But can you
make sure that all those are - the history ofthose is part ofthe rc-packet that you send out so everybody can
see the evolution ofhow this happened and whether or not that's the right (sic) or no! ifthere's any issues
anybody has with it?
MR. BOSI: Yes; acknowledged.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
That takes us to the Chairman's report and good-news day. Terri, congratulations. Terri got an
award for being the best court reporter in tre history ofthe entire county.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wow.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Next is the state, a state award?
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, befier than that. The Boarrd, I thinlq recognized her - and
did they give you a plaque? You can nod your head yeah.
We're going to give you a new car. We have a budgeq so - we just passed the sales tax. Part of that
said this board can award some money, so you'll have a new car probobly siting in your driveway. Hope you
appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second.
CIIAIRI\,LAN STRAIN: Thank you, Terri, for all you do. I do miss -- I notice there's no brownies
today, but that's okay. We don't talk about the things you don't do.
That takes us to our - thoe's nothing on consent, and we will open the first and only public hearing
today.
***It's Item 9Al. It's PL20180000&16. It's the Youth Haven Planned Unit Development located on
the south side of Whitaker Road west ofSanta Barbara Boulevard.
All those wishing to testi! on behalfofthis iteq please rise to be swom in by the court r€porter.
(The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAN: We'll start with disclosures with Tom.
MR. EASTMAN: None.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Mr. Yovanovich a few weeks ago.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had meetings with the applicanfs team, two or thrce of them. I don't
think Norm was there - he's going to wish he was - but Wayne and Richard and then l,ve talked to staffas
well.
Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Amold.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Joe?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Spoke to Mr. Amold.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: And, Patrick?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay, thank you.
Wayne, it's all youn.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. Good moming. Im Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor & Associates
representing the Youth Haven PUD today.
With me is Bill Henry, who's with Evergreen Senior Housing who looks to develop the property;
Rich Yovanovich is our land-use couns€l; and Norm Trebilcock has performed the t'affic analysis. It's part of
your packet.
The amendment today is fairly straightforward. I think most ofus who have been here long enough
understand where Yorlth llaven is currently located, and it's a youth facility where they house children who
are either fostering or are homeless. And they have some excess land for their needs which is looking to be
developed for a senior housing component. So we have modified the PUD to add a senior housing
component in addition to the youth component.
Page ? of 25
November 15' 2018
We're also adding a small sliver of land that's just over an acre that was a remainder ract after the
county purchased right-of-way for the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension and widening and that's being
added to the PUD. So it brings it from 24 acres to about 25 acres in total. And with that, we're also adding
I 0 - 10 youth or adults to the mix. The current PUD allows 240 people to reside on the PUD property, and it
was based on 10 per acre. So we're adding one acre and adding l0 additional, so that will bring the total to
250.
So that's really, in essence, the change. We are amending the master plan as well- Stalfasked us to
show a little more detail than where we started. I'll show you the approved master plan for Youth }daven-
It's the exhibit in the upper portion ofthat screen. lt's about 24 acres. They showed a series of
cottages and buildings throughout the entire 24 acres. And what we're proposing to do is - reflect on the left
side of your page, that will continue to be utilized as the Youth Haven principal side, WeVe allowed for
either youth or adult housing on the eastem portion that they have yet to develop, and on the proximate
one-acre piece we're adding, we're probably going to utilize most ofthat for water management.
But we've reflected what we believe the anticipated layout conceptually for buildings will be. You
can see that on the east side, which is largely the substance ofthis amendment, we have a culde-sac that will
serve a series ofpotentially five buildings.
And I think we had our neighborhood information meeting. We heard from some of the neighbors in
Royal Wood, and I don't think there were any true objections to what we're proposing to do, but there were
concems and residents in attendance.
One of the things that we would like to modif, is in Section 3.04. That's where we added the
reference to senior adults 55 and older, and we added a phrase that you see in almost every other PUD where
we have senior housing.
So what lve highlighted is language - we would add this phrase that said "including independent
living assisted living and memory care." There's a good potential that memory-care will be a part of this,
and it's not specifically mentioned under group housing but we wanted to make sure that it's clear that a
memory-care facility would also be included in whafs otherwise a group housing use under your Land
Development Code.
So that's the substance of what we're proposing. I know, Mr. Strain, when yoq Ric[ and I met you
had some various comments throughout the PUD document and lm sure you're going to go through those as
well. So maybe at this point I can take any questions that, ifl haven't summarized it appropriately, to address
anything else, and then I'm sure we'll go through the document with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody on the Planning Commission have any questions from the
applicant? Go ahead. Stan? Nope. Ned? It's allyours.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: There was a mention at the NIM of Naples Select Senior Development
as the applicant. Here it's listed as a different organization, something called Taft Budget. Could you
describe the relationship between the two?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know the relationship wilh those. Naples Select Senior Development, LLC,
is the official applicant.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So who is Taft Budget?
MR. ARNOLD: Bill Henry, who is with the Naples Select Senior Development, can probably
answer that.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Enlighten us, okay.
MR. HENRY: Im Bill Henry. I'm the gesident of Naples Select Senior Development.
The partners of Taft Budget that originally were going to be the applicant are also members of
Naples Select Senior Development. So wete all partners.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
MR. TIENRY: They are a pedecessor entity.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the entity that is the applicant is going to be Naples Select correct?
MR. ARNOLD: I think so, yes.
COMMISSIONERFRYER: Yes. Okay. Okay.
Let's see. Where do I go? I come down to -- let's see - the traffic. And I appreciate the reference to
Page 8 of 25
November 15, 2018
tle - for concurrency purposes that Norm ptrt in. That is an important statistic to me, but it - Im not
troubled by the increase here. We're talking about 52 peak p.m. trips in addition, and we're between 35 and 55
percent of capacity on the two roads in question. So I dont think Norm needs to stand up because I'm not
being critical of it. I'm just sort of making a record of it. I'm thinking out loud here.
The other questions I have pertain to the NIM. And there was a -- there was an issue raised at the
NIM that therc should be a wall buffer rather than onty a vegetative buffering between the youth facility and
the adjacent residential neighborhoods, and then tiere was also a mention ofthe need for a wall between the
two proposed uses, the youth and the memory care.
There were a couple ofreferences, I thint from you, Wayne, that you weren't in a position to
comment on this at that time but you would give it further thought and get back. Has there thought been
given to using a wall in those two locations? Where are you on that -
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I dont have any authorization to make changes to the westem portion of this
projec! which is the Youth ltraven side of the pmject. There was a wall that was approved as part of an
administrative variance a number ofyears ago for a portion ofthat site. There's a fence that exists, and then
separating the two ofus we have a preserve. We don't believe there's a need for a wall between the two like
facilities. One may house youths and the other may have seniors, but we dont believe that there's a need for a
solid wall, per se, there.
To the south against Royal Wood, we abut, largely, their road and a landscape buffer, and we speciff
a Ty,pe B buffer, which could include a wall and may include a hedge, but it has to be maintained at a certain
opacity within a year. And we dont believe a solid wall is necessery in tlrat arca either.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. One of the residents from Royal Wood made note of the fact
that occasionally some ofthe children frnd their way into the subdivision, and thar - although they didnt
have any reportable incidents, still it was expressed as a - nonetheless, as a concem. And for that reason, it
seemed to me that perhaps a stronger barrier of some kind than just vegetation would be in order.
Now, I realize that - you're carving out, what nine acres, is that about right, out ofthe 25 for -
MR. HENRY: Something like that.
MS. ARNOLD: It's about nine.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. So I know that the other parcel is not owned by yoq but it's part
ofthe PUD, and it seems to me that it's appropriate for us to at least raise that issue.
MR. ARNOLD: So noted. We just dont believe a wall is a necessity in that location. I think that
the - I'm pretty sure thal the Youth Haven facility predated our neighbors.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, you had - you showed that one-acre piece drat was thoughq
probably, at one time maybe part ofthe right-of-way for Santa Ba6ara. Was tha actually dedicated or
acquired by the county?
MR. ARNOLD: No. It was the portion dlat was not acquired by the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So the underlying owner of that is not Collier Cormty. It was some
private property owner; is that fair to say?
MR. ARNOLD: That's cofl€ct. You can see the little teardropshaped parcel on this aerial
photograph that wasjust outside the limits ofthe right-of-way. I forget the woman's name dlat owned it, but
it was privately owned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just curious, because I hadn't heard how that was acquired. ln the
PUD - and we talked about these yesterday, Paragraph 2.10, it's on Page l0 of23 ofthe PUD, and there's
just a grammatical thing. The word "the" needs to be inserted after the word "with" in the second line. I
think I mentioned that to you. Itjust doesn't -
MR. ARNOLD: You did.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: - flow.
MR. ABNOLD: I tried to make some of the changes or all of the changes that you and I discussed,
and I have a hard copy ofthem I can put on the visualizer as we go.
Page 9 of 25
November 15, 2018
CIL{IRIVIAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. ARNOLD: Bug I mearL most of them are fuirly minor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine.
MR. ARNOLD: That shows in highlight the word "the" inserted in that paragmph as you had
requested.
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: And the stuffI had brought up, most of it's cleanups and clarifications.
So on 3.05 I asked that you add the words rmder the accessory structures where it says "for residents
and guess ofthe PUD," and I think you've done that.
MR. ARNOLD: So in the highlighte4 agafu1 you'll see the reference that I showed you previously,
the Paragra.ph 3.04 including independent living assisted living, and mernory care. And Paragraph 3.05 that
youjust mentiond we added the phrase under permitted accessory uses and sauctur€s, "for residents and
guests ofthis PUD," and then highlighted below, we added a No. 5 that says, "senior housing dumpsters, or
emergency generators must be a minimum 50 feet from the south property line," and that's because our
master plan doesn't identifr where dre required generator would be, but I think we discussed it and thought 50
feet was an adequate distance. It most likely will be near the administration building closer to Whitaker
Road, but I think this is a safeguard to make sure that any neighbor to the south is not imposed upon.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And last night when I reread everything preparing for today and
taking out the questions that have been answered and seeing ifthere's anything else that happened, I noticed
that in &ont ofthe word "master plan" thmughout the document you added "conceptual." And up until a
project that came to us - it hasn't come to us yet, but it was questioned months ago, I wasn't too concemed
about the word "conceptual." I thought I understood it.
But one ofyour interpretations led me to be concemed about the intent ofthat word fiom now on.
And Ijust want to make sure ftom staffs perspective the limitations on what "conceptual" can and cannot
mean.
And I would assume, Ray, that the insubstantial, substantial, and minor change category ofthe LDC
for PUDs applies to the conceptual nature of changes to a master plan; is that tue?
MR. BELLOWS: That is conect.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. As long as weVe got that on record, I'm comfortable with it. I
wanted to make sure, becaus€ that came up as a question in the past. And I don't even -- it shouldn't have
even come up, but Ijust want to reinforce that.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Question of you, then, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So if it is insubstantial, then that is the equivalent of being within the
definition of "conceptual"; is that what we're saying?
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the way the PUD ordinance reads - and there are three levels of
changes: Substantial, insubstantial, and minor. What it does is it lists what substantial changes are. And it
says, any of these things are subsantial. Well, if ifs not subsantial, then it's insubstantial. And then
if- under insubstantial, any insubstantial change includes any change that is not considered a substantial or
minor change. Then it goes into describing what minor changes are, and those can be done by staff.
So it's a little complicated to follow but it does male sense when you go in and look at the issues.
Substantial changes are ones that change dre PUD boundary or relocate nonresidential land uses or decrease
preservation conservation. There's a whole list ofthem. So th#s how that's arranged. Does that answer your
question?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sort of. trt me rephrase it to just test my own understanding. So if
there's a substantial change being proposed, thafs clearly outside oftlre ambit ofdefinition ofconceptual.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That would be a PUDA. If it's insubstantial, ifs considered a PDI, and
an insubstantial would not trigger any of the substantial triggers. And then -
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would also be within the definition of "conceptual" for
insubstantial and minor?
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: I would -
MR. BELLOWS: That's conect.
Page 10 of 25
November 15, 2018
COMMISSIONERFRYER: Got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then staffcan do minor, and they're separately listed.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Irt me get back to where we were.
Okay. Crossing out 4.05 and 4.06 on Page 2l of 23 in the PUD; the references to the Fire
Departrnent rules, which you've got to abide by anyway, and references to the payment of impact fees. I
suggested those are not needed because codes already address those.
MR. ARNOLD: Highlighted on your screen would be the deletions of those. It, of course,
renumbers other sections that appear after, so those have been renumbered as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And the landscape buffer issue, I brouglrt this up to staff. I think staff, the
landscape reviewer is in agreement with me. You had six months in which you had to show 80 perc€nt
opacity from the first CO. And if in that first six months you don't have the E0 percrnt opacity, then you have
to give up another 6-foot-wide landscape area that has to show 80 percent opacity within the six months of
tie issuance ofthe first CO.
The two can't overlap, so tlre first one should be - well, the code allows 12 months, one year for the
80 percent opacity, and you're doing the same thing. If you make those changes like tlrag youVe done the
same thing.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I didn't change it because I wasnt sure. I knew you said you were meeting
with staff, so I wasnt sure -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to pull the mike closer to yoq Wayne.
MR. ARNOLD: Im sorry. I wasn't certain we were making those changes. We don't have a
problem making those changes. I just didn't presume that we were because you were going to talk to staff
about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we are - the change needs to be made b€cause you cant
perform one while you're waiting for the otler one to see if you need it. I mean, they overlap. So I think
what you need to do is say for the firs - if you're going to go with the six months, which it seems you are,
the first six months, ifyou don't get the 80 percent opacity, then you trigger the 6-foot additional buffer area
for which you get another six months to get the opacity inclusive ofthat buffer area- So, basically, it would
be, the second six mont}s would be changed to I 2. So youVe got six and then I 2, both starting at the same
point, but theyre not overlapping. One starts after the otfter, or you could start it earlier if you werent - if it
was obvious you weren't going to have the opacity.
MR. ARNOLD: We're saying we're going to keep the first one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what reads the besr And when staffreads their - when the
staffcomments, they can tell us whether they agree with it or not.
MR. ARNOLD: We're fine with that.
CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That language also occun on the backup page to your master plan,
and it's part of - it's Exhibit B. You need to correct it there as well.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: I also brought up to you and I brought up to staffthe 2008 letter from Susan
Munay in which therc were four conditions based on an administrative variance to remove the requirement
for a wall along Whiaker Road. And I thought it would be better if we incorporated those into the master
plan. And staffwas supposed to contact you about that and look furdrer into it for today's discussion.
So, Nancy, ar€ you pr€pared to discuss it?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, we did contact them.
And, Wayne, did you want to respond to that?
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, we obviously, neither Rich nor I were involved in that administrative
variance request. It appears on Page 421 ofmy packet the letter that -
CHAIRMAN STRAN: 395 of mine.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. But there was - it was tied to a very specific Site Development Plan for a
building.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
Page 11 of 25
November 15, 2018
MR. ARNOLD: And it referenced some landscape variances. Im not sure, in my opinioq
that - that's a stand-alone document and an approval process. I don't know that it is required to be in the
PUD. And it takes it to another level. If for some reason Youth Haven wants to modifo something, then
it - that might otherwise be an administrative approval to modifr that again, ifs going to take it back through
a PUD amendment process perhaps; maybe a PDI through the Hearing Examiner bu! nonetheless, you know,
several, several montls to get through the proc€ss to make something that might otherwise be an
administrative approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concem was that you currently, I believe, in your master plan call
it a Ty,pe D buffer along Whitaker Road, and I need maybe Mark Templeton or maybe ifNancy knows it
does the Type D buffer on Whitaker Roa4 because ofthe use across the stree! require a wall along Whitaker
Road ifthey didn't have this administrative variance?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, it would require the wall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now you're going to need a wall based on what youVe put on the
master plan that I'm not sur€ you want to leave it like that, Wayre, because that means the - for whatever
distance of the master plan wasn't covered by the SDP that got the AVA that we're looking a! you stand in,
possibty, jeopardy of how you're going to ad&€ss the need for the wall based on the Type D you call out in
the master plan with no reference to this document. That's what my concern was.
I don't see you guys wanting to tear out landscaping to put in a wall, and lm not asking you to. I just
want to make sule it's covered.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich.
I thinh Mr. Strain, that - and I understand that you'rc trying to help us and protect us from amending
the document and undoing the variance that we already have.
I don't thint by the act ofwhat we're doing by amending the master plan, we have invalidated the
previously approved variance for the wall requirement.
Now, I'll defer to the County Attomey, but I think we're okay without that reference. I share Wayne's
concem that ifl somehow now reference that administrative variance, that Ile now triggered a change ofthat
administrative variance to now, instead ofbeing administrative, ith a public-hearing process, and that was
the - it's the unforeseen consequences that I was more worried about in saying yes, let's reference it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concem is, though, your PUD says 2Gfoorwide TWe D
landscape buffer. Now, until I brought this up and read that 395 pages, when I brought it up to you guys, you
weren't aware of it. When I brought it up to stafl they weren't aware of it. It was in the packet. But the mere
fact that that exists and gives you a change to what's on the master plan, I just thought it would be beneficial
so when it comes in for review, as you normally understand, that the people in this room today arent
probably the reviewen that are going to see your SDP.
So that group ofpeople might look at this and san yeah, you've got to do 20-foot TWe D buffer.
There's no variable to that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the Youth Haven portion -
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: tught.
MR. YOVANOVICH: - is what that variance applies to. We don't have that same variance
for - I'll call it the adult portion, because I don't know a better way to distinguish it for dre adult portion. If
we wanted to have -
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: trt me address the question you asked earlier, Rich. And in other
applications where there was a PIJD amendment, staffdid require a new wall waiver. So, I agree, we might
as well resolve it today. If you're going to keep the buffer in front of Youth Haven, you might as well spell it
out as to in front of the built portion of Youth }fuven. As to the part thafs not built, I guess you'd have to
build the wall unless -
MR. YOVANOVICH: We anticipete we are going to have to build a wall along the adult portion
unless we come through the administrative process to eliminate the wall.
MS. ASTITON-CICKO: Well, I can only tell you that there was another Planned Unit Development
Amendment that had a previous wall waiver, and they had to go through the process ofgetting another new
wall waiver.
Page 12 of 25
November 15, 2018
MR. YOVANOVICH: For an already approved Site Development Plan?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Conect.
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Yes. In facq I know which one --
MS. ASIIrON-CICKO: So I would clear it up today if that's what you want to do.
MR YOVANOVICH: I dont mind, as long as we could put - maybe put a footnote on the master
plan that says that. But I dont - what I don't want * I dont want it to be something that prohibits me llom
going through any type ofan administrative process to ad&ess the landscape buffer in the future. I dont want
to have to come back and amend the master plan to then be able to do an administrative - for instance, I don't
know if this could happen or no! but let's just say we decide we want to do something different along the
Youth Haven portion of the property and we can do that administratively. I don't want the reference to this
previously approved administrative variance to now require that process to be either a Planning Commission
process, ultimately BCC, or Hearing Examiner process.
That's what we're -- we want to make sure we can still have whatever administrative remedies are
available to Youth Haven, because we're not trying to change ary,thing that Youth llaven has through this
PIJD process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not trying to put -
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know you're not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: .. you in a position where you have to. And my concem is that Matfs
group is not here today, the reviewers. His reviewers look at all the details. I certainly have experienced thaq
and they're doing a good job. I can see Ckistine or someone picking that up and saying well, it says a
20-foot Type D buffer. There's no ability to change tha! and this is what the new PUD says. So why arent
we asking for that? Thafs the piece I'm trying to fx so you dont run into that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I appreciate that. So I dont mind a note going on the master plan that
says -- you know, a footnote.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Subscript i, and then refer to Susan Murray's letter dated.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that either. If that solves the problem and covers
you and makes it clear that you have an exception to that that's all I'm trying to do.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we're speaking the same language. We're just trying to make sure -
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Heidi?
MS. ASIITON-CICKO: Well, it would be up to staffwhether they're willing to accept the existing
fence waiver and -
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The process can be done to stipulate that it's subject
to that memo or that AVA approval, administrative fence waiver.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so by this process staffwould reassert that AVA?
MR. BELLOWS: Conect.
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Does that work for you?
MS. ASI{TON-CICKO: Yes. On the master plan you can reference that there is an existing waiver;
however, Rich indicated he wanted some flexibility, so you might want to have some open-ended phrase that
will allow them to amend that.
MR. BELLOWS: "As amended."
MS. ASFilON-CICKO: "As it may be amended."
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will get us there, and then you guys are covered, and that
makes it clearer on the master plan so there will be no question when it comes into the process.
MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Amold again.
Could we try to agree on language to avoid coming back for a consent hearing?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that.
MR. ARNOLD: Because we had an AVA number; it was AVA2008-AR-13687. So I'm thinking
that if we, in the buffer notation where it says 2Gfoot Ty,pe D buffer on the master plan, we simply add a
footnote number, and tlen on our second page ofthe master plan we could say, see AVA2008, et cetera.
Page L3 of 25
November 15' 201E
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That works.
MS. ASI{TON-CICKO: Well, I think we just did propose language. We said "or as it may be
amended." So I think we can work out the language.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And at the end of the meeting, I'll certainly ask the Planning
Commission, since this is kind ofa benign applicatioq the consent be waived, and I review it since I'm in the
office every day anyray. So that may be okay-
The other item that's on the Susan Murray October 2008 letter is Item C. And it talk about a 6-foot
masonry wall, and ifs in the south property line beginning at a .10 feet west was the westerly wetland line as
indicated on Exhibit A of the submittal. Now, where is - is that wall in right now? And I don't see it called
out on here. I just see a t)?e - 15, TWe B landscape buffer. I'm just curious as to how that got - it got
approved, so how is it implernented? And do we need to make sure that doesn't change anything?
MR. ARNOLD: The area that I've circled on this plan -- this was a plan set that was palt of that
administrative variance approval, and it has a small wall section and a detail shown on one ofthe other plan
sheets that shows a 6-foot-high wall. I honestly don't know if that 6-foot wall has been constructe4 Mr.
Sfrain. And again, it's tied to an administrative variance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you put the same footnote down there as a reference and in the
same language, "subject to the AVA as may be amendd" and then we've got both items covered. The
recognition that it - because this AVA is one ofthese documents thatjust gets mysteriously filed, and
sometimes they're not always easy to fmd again.
MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we have a problem with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the only other questions I have, Wayne - I think that gets
me to the end ofmy questions ofthat nature.
I do have some questions and comments conceming your traffic. And I know Norm enjoys debating
with me in this meeting so I don't want to let him down tlis time around.
MR. ARNOLD: He tells me he's been looking forward to it.
CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
Oh, Wayne, before you leave, Ned's got one more question for you.
MR. ARNOLD: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: It came up at the NIM having to do with the capacity of the sewage
system. I guess you're connecting into Royal Wood?
MR. ARNOLD: I believe there's an existing connection that does exist into Royal Wood.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there a requirement of a study to show that that will not exceed
capacity ofthe existing system?
MR. ARNOLD: I'd probably defer to Mr. Chrzanowski who used to be the county engineering.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mike - can you bring - a little closer to your mike.
MR. ARNOLD: The county's building a new pump station right at the comer of Royal Wood's
property and Rattlesnake Hammoc! so I don't think there's a capacity issue, and none anticipated for l0 more
beds.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's always one of the things they checlq utilities. They
always check capacity. They have you go through an analysis and it's -
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I mean, after we're done with this, they would.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. When it's submitted.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They wouldn't permit it. It has to go - when tley do the review
process or when they go through the plat and plan process, thafs all done as part ofthe review.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And certainly wouldn't allow any - issue any permis until the
capacity is there to pmvide - at least a system is there to provide the needed capacity.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And the engineer would be foolish to think he could run this
project through without doing tha! so he's probably already looked at it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Norm, I think Ned's got some questions of you to start widt,
Page 14 of 25
November 15' 2018
and I'll jump in.
MR. TBJBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Thank you. For the recond, my name is Norman Trebilcock. I'm a
certified planner and professional engineer, and my finn prepared the Traffic lmpact Statement for the
project. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Norm, my questioq did you want to present fust, or may I ask?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, I'm available; yeq sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good. The presentation at the NIM focused really, I believe,
exclusively upon memory care, and now, this moming we're seeing that that will be brcadened to include
things like independent living and dre like. It seems to me tha! as broadened, it could invite mor€ automobile
traffic.
And so my question is, when you did your study and you came up with the concurrency number of
52, was that based on exclusive mernory care, or did you factor in independent living?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No. The land-use code, the ITE, Institute of Transportation Engineers,
land-use code, assisted living facility, it does - you know, there are diferent land-use codes you can use, but
that one, the description is such that it would cover -- you would have some independent living typically, in
an ALF, some memory carc, hause they tend not to generate as many trips, and then also just normal
assisted-type living as well.
So it kind ofdoes cover a broad range. So it would be my opinion and beliefthat the way we've
done the trip gureration, it would cover things.
And also, just for you on that, I jus wanted to maybe correct something there that may be helpful.
The 52 that you reference, whal we did there on that Table 2E is we looked at the existing developed PUD. It
wasn't what it was allowed to. So, basically, they're a! like, say, 69 equivalent beds is what the existing is.
and also Youth Haven used assisted living as the original zoning as well.
CHAIRT{AN STR/{IN: NornS you have a tendency to give us a lot more hformation than -
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He didn't ask that question.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yealu nq but he mentioned 52, and I just wanted to cor€ct that, that's all. I'm
sorry.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Fifty-two was the number that you used for concurrency purposes to
show the actual difference in conditions without regard to what has been approved but is not yet in use?
MR TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir, exactly, but fiom a zoning standpoint, it's actually a negative one trip
based on the underlying mning out there, because it's - the property allows l,l0 -
COMMISSIONER FRYER: In the interest of time --
MR. TREBILCOCK: I'm sorry. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: - let me just make a statement and then ask you to say -
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: - yes or no.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all right.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Am I correct then, that in your opinion the representations that were
made at the NIM that this was going to be exclusively memory care versus the broadened uses that have now
been exposed to us this moming, that therc's going to be no difference in trafiig concurrency purposes?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, thank you.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that i! Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else before I start?
(No response.)
CIL{IRMAN STRAN: Just out of cudosity, are you in depositions very much? Short answers arc
Page 15 of 25
November 15' 201E
really liked in depositions.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: And I just &ought the other side might just have a field day with some of
the things youjust go on about.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. Nq I try to - I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Trying to be helptul.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I know. Norm, it's just that sometimes I -- some of that peripheral
stufi I thinlq wejust want to get to the succinct points.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I understand. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are other ITE references for the traffic generation.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let me start with that. You used 254.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: T\rcrds 251,252,253,254, and 255.
MR TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CIIAIBJ\,{AN STRAIN: Okay. And I looked and read each one of them. And this is interesting
because I don't know how to implement this through our Transportation Departrnen! but when you come in
with a land use for LUC254 that you're basing your traffic oq we've asked that they also, when you can,
supply an SIC code, and I was corrected in that thinking by Mr. Yovanovich yesterday that some things that
we do and we have ITE codes for we don't have corresponding identical SIC codes for, and that's a good
point.
Now, when you went to 254, assisted living in the ITE manual, and I happened to bring it - and it
has a whole descriptive paragraph of what that means, which goes to the question that Ned started with.
Can you take that cover page offthe oveftead and go to the one below it. Oh, the one below ttrat,
then. The one with the new permitted use principal uses -- keep going. Well, you had one on tiere that
talked about the independent living as added principal use.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ad&€ss that?
CI{.r{IIUvf.A}l STXAN: If you use the mike, yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The reason we added those words is because your tand Development Code
under group housing does, in fact, talk about independent living and assisted living.
Bill Henry called me and said, hey, my investors don't see those magic words actually within the
PUD document itself. Would you mind adding that independent assisted living and memory care are within
the defrnition ofgroup housing?
So we haven't increased any ofthe uses. They were already in the definition of group housing. We
just added those words tq frankly, make the client more comfortable that we were, in fac! asking for what he
wants to put on the properly. So Ijust wanted - I don't want the record to imply that we've added some new
uses from what has been analyzed throughout the entire review process.
Now, thafs all I wanted to add. I know youVe got transporiation questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Bu( Rich, youjust went in a direction I wasnt going in. Soljust
want you to know I wasn't questioning the uses.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there have been some statements --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Im questioning - I'm questioning Norm's use of the uses.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Im with yol], but I - there were some comments that could be interpreted to
mean that we've expanded the overall request from what we had always had been reviewed as, and thafs all I
wanted to clarif on the record, so...
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Certainly. I understand. There's nothing being implied intentionally
misleading but -
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: - at the NIM the only use that was mentioned was memory care.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. An4 Mr. Frygr, that's where we clearly emphasize4 because thafs what
Mr. Henry's company does, and that's, fiankly, what we're going to do.
Page 16 of 25
November l5' 20lE
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's still the game plan?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Unless they don't buy the property, but that's the game plan.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. From a zoning penpective, under groupcare facilities, I don't see
that as an expansion of the use. From an ITE manual application of those facilities, I see it as a question of
intensity. That mayjust need to be conected depending on Norm's answer.
Now, Norm's saying that this is part of254, including the independent living. Is that correct, Norm?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. The assisted tiving is a broader range, yes, sir.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The assisted living trip-rate generation for weekday a.m. peak hour
ofadjacent stEet traffic in this old ITE manual I have, because no one will give me a new one, is.l7. I don't
know what you used offiiand. Do you remember what your number was?
MR. TREBILCOCK: I dont recall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm jus reading it. Weekday a.m. peak hour of adjacent street traffic,
. 1 7, and p.m. peak is .29, and weekday pea.k hour generator, .25 . Those are pretty low aip generation rates,
rightfully so. If, because ofthat language, you do all iadependent living you would most likely fit under 253,
congregate-care facility, and the peak hour there, the average rate is 2.0, 2.02, which is many, many times the
rate ofthe assisted living.
All l'm saying is, when you come in for an SDP, you want to have the right trip cap. So if you have a
trip cap based on this assisted living facility and the builder - or the buyer wants to build independent living,
someone may look at 253 as the application because it says, congrcgat€-carc facilities are independent living
developments. And ifthafs the case, youle got a trip problem you could have coming in.
All I'm trying to do is get you to the right one so you don't have that problem because ofa change in
the ITE. And, unfortunately, the different -- our depaftnents don't overlap enough" and tha's kind ofthe next
thing I want to aslq and I'm going to ask our Transportation Departnent. From now on, when you have a 254
or 253 or 678, whatever the ITE issue is, include the descriptive paragraph in the staffreport or in the - into
your TIS so we can read it and see it, because then we know ifeverything you're saying fits and ifyou do
clarifu something like this, then we have a little discr€pancy. It may not fit as neatly as it does when you did
your first TlS.
And now I'm suggesting with this congregate-care facility being the primary, ifthey dojust
independent living might they not be a 253 instead of254?
MR. TREBILCOCK: If we were a congregate care, but that's not what the/re looking at to do.
And, again, Ile done these where we have an independent component. And, again, assisted living typically
will cover a broad range of independen! because you start at independen! then you go to assisted, and then
you go to memory care. You know, memory care is the least intensive of all assisted living. So assisted
living covers that bmad range as typical.
So with what he's proposing - and this was a very similar thing that I've done recently, too, on
Marco where they had - you know, a portion of it was independent as well. And so I am comfortable,
Commissioner Strain, but I can rcview it. But the key, I think, would be to be using the current standards as
well bu! you know, that's - but I am comfortable with that
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And I'm - alll wanted is -
MR. TREBILCOCK: No I appreciate that.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: - if your buyer was so concemed that they had to have the independent
listed separately here and he does just independent living you might stand a problem with staff, and I'm just
giving a heads-up ahead oftime. That's all.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I appreciare that Mr. Strain. lt was actually the memory care that my
client had the biggest stomachache, is he wanted to make sut the memory care was clearly identified. And
we acknowledge that - you know, I think we have 73 two.way peak trips now based upon our PUD - our
haffic study. If it tums out that there's going to be a different mix that puts us above the 73, we'll have to
figure out what's the right process -
CI{AIRJVTAN STRAIN: You'll have to come back for a PUD -
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't remember if ids a PUDI.
Page 17 of 25
November 15, 2018
CHAIRMAN STRAN: - oraPDI.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We understand if we ne€d to do more independent that we're going to have
to come back. Does that help?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just was trying to keep it simple. The more times you come back,
the more times all these boads have got to hear everything. So I was hoping -
MR. YOVANOVICH: But we're doing it for Mr. Chrzanowski because he looks forward to this, and
we want to make sur -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ob Stan.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I'll include, thougll like you said, in the firture, the land-use descriptions.
Thafs, I think, a really good idea. We'll typically - I'll have to pull out from the ITE for yoq too. I think
that's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's in your TIS, then we can expect that review staffon the zoning side
would have looked at that description to make sure it meets the zoning description they reviewed it to, and
both departrnents, then, are on the same page.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. That makes a lot of sense.
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Table 2E, I understand the need to explain what the current traffic is,
but this is misleading because it looks like you're adding 52 trips to the system. You're not.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Corr€ct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would rather that - if there s a need to explain what you're currently
built to and how much - how many trips that's providing just do that in the narative or do it in the
staff- well, the staffdo it in their staffrepor! part of the transportation, but I don't think ifs a good thing to
refer to it this way in your TIS because it really is misleading.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I understand. Table 2D would be the intention to cover the zoning, and that
shows that ifs a negative one peak-hour trip, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are my questions, Norm --
MR. TREBILC@K: Yes, sir. Thank you.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: - for today. Thank you for your time again.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll go to staffreport.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with
the Zoning Division, and staff is recommending appmval of the Youth Haven PUD remne. And if you have
any questions, we have our staff subject-matter experb herc to answer those questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only - some of the changes and things we've just talked abou! does
staff- does that change any of staffs position on this project?
MS. GLJNDLACH: It does not.
CIIAIRIVIAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move to public speakers.
Are there any registered public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: None have registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this
matter?
Well, ma'am, if you'll come up, identifo yourself for the record. Can you tell me if you were swom
in as well.
MS. OBERMILLER: No, I was not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. OBERMILLER: I didn't know if I was able to speak.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're always able to speak. We're hear to listen to the public as well.
MS. OBERMILLER: This is my first time being here, so I had -
Page 18 of 25
November 15, 201E
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: This lady's going to swear you in.
(The speaker was duly swom and indicated in the affrmative.)
MS. OBERMILLER: Sure, yes.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What would you like to say?
MS. OBERMILLER: Suzanne Obermiller. I live on the south side of the proposed 20-foo! or
whatever it is, buffer that they're going to put in. And I know that - I believe myself and our neighbors in the
area would really like to see a wall thoe as opposed tojust landscape bufferjust for, you know, people
getting out or, you know, coming through the landscaping or whatever.
I just think that it would be a better option to do tlat to - and we werc also - we also had concems
over how many stories it was going to be, whether it wasjust going to be one story or whether it was going to
be two stories, because al the last information meeting they were not sure whether or not it was going to be
one story or two stories, which makes it more obtrusive if it's two stories.
And other than tha! I think dnr - I drink most people are, you know, no! you know, overly upset or
anything. I think that it's - but I think that those things - and just to make it more easy for us to handle
where it is. So that's - I guess that's the only thing. I dont know if anybody has any questions of me, but -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? We'll certainly ask questions of the applicant
in response to your question. So thank you.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank yos ma'am.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody else that would like o speak?
(No response.)
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wayne, I would like you to address the neighbols concems. And,
first ofall, the height that's resricted on the development is two stories.
MR. ARNOLD: That is correc! they cur€ntly arc approved for two stories.
CIIAIRJ\,IAN STRAIN: Do you know if you're going to do one or two stories?
MR. ARNOLD: Bill Henry and his group intend to do one-story buildings, but I don't want to
restrict the PUD to a single story for that portion, becaus€ if his sale does not go through, then lve imposed a
standard on Youth Haven tlrat they don't have today.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Does that include a parking level?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a - see, this PUD does not have zoned and actual separated out.
In fac! it has no heighq and I think that is a good point to clear up. So with that in mind and Jeffs comments
right oq we would - we should establislu since this is a new use, zoned and actual heights for this particular
use that aren't on 3.06 ofthe PUD.
Do you have any ideas on what you guys are looking foI9 Because I don't know what the project to
the south, Royal Woods, allows in their PUD. I can tell you probably in just a minute or two. I don't know
what your prefercnces are. I'm looking it up right now in case anybody's wondering.
Wayne, did you look at that at all when you were doing -
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, may I make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Ive just talked to Youth Haven representativesjust to make sure I wasn't
saying anything they couldnt live with. Can we agree that it will be zoned height two stories not to exc€ed
35 feet zone4 45 feet actual?
CHAIRMAN STRAN: That would be typical to every development in the county, so I don't see
why we would object to that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll agree to that condition, because that will be a uniformity condition
throughout.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I mean, even single-family are at 35 fee! so you could do -
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I didn't think it was out of line. Ijust wanted to make sure that it was
acceptable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the maximum height would be 35 zoned and 45 actual for the
memory care, or this new additional - the senior adult section, the new principal uses added?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We would agree that that would be throughout the PUD. So any firture
Page 19 of 25
November 15, 2018
buildings on the Youth Haven portion that haven't been built yet would have that condition as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's even better. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would that make any shuctures that are currently there nonconforming
or-
MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't have arything taller than that. I don't think we have an issue with
height.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the second point - and one of the AVAs that was requested
was for that wall that wejust talked about on the master plan on the south side ofthe property on the Youth
Haven side of this particular project. I think you showed it circled on the - or you had it on one of the master
plans you put up here. They're asking - the lady asked you to consider a wall on the memory-care side. What
is your position on that?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, the current PUD talks about retaining native vegetation along dle southem
boundary to the extent we can, and we're also imposing a Type B landscape buffer requirement along that
portion, which offers opacity. It do€sn't necessarily require a wall. It gives you a berm and hedge or hedge
option. We think that is sufficient. Thads what the code calls out where you have this 5,pe ofuse abutting
residential, and in their case their residential is further separated by their intemal right-of-way from us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as far as that southem property line for the memory-care operation,
what's the closest one ofyour buildings will be to that - not the dumpsters, not the generators, but the actual
one- or two-story habitual buildings?
MR. ARNOLD: We did not change the overall PUD boundary setback, but it's expressed as 40 feet
minimum from the PUD.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your building's going to be 40 feet fiom the south. Ifs separated
from the buildings to the Royal Woods by the buffer along Royal Woods' north side plus the roadway, and
you're putting in a B bufer and leaving any native vege6tion that can be retained?
MR. ARNOLD: That's conect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're going to limit it to 35 feet zoned, which is the effective height
versus the actual?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mearL that's - and this operation -
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And it's 20 feet for accessory uses.
CIiAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Ifs 20 feet for accessory buildings.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Your microphoners not on or something Heidi, so you're going to have to -
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's 20 feet for accessory buildings from the southem property line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does it say ftat?
MS. ASftON{tCK0: That's under 3.06, No. 2.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that says, minimum setback from rear and yard property boundaries,
20 fee! but minimum setback from property boundaries, 40 feet. So which would predominate? I mean,
the - is it the 40 feet from the property boundaries, or is it the 20 fea for an accessory for the rear and - so if
you have an accessory, you go to 20 feet.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah. So it isn't 40 feet. Do you mind -
MR ARNOLD: Well, you asked how far our buildings were going to be, and the principal buildings
would be the rcsidential stnrctures, which would be a minimum 40 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - but accessory, are you looking at -- I mean, obviously they have
dining facilities, recreational facilities, and everything. Why don't youjust, for the memory care, ac{€pt 40
feet as all your structures? Because you're at 50 feet with your accessori€s. I mean, do you have a - your
master plan doesn't - you're not even that close to the master plan.
Page 20 of 25
November 15, 201E
MR. ARNOLD: I would just simply state, Mr. Strain, whether it's goup housing for seniors or
adults. So the Youth llaven side could have a 2O-foot acressory structure setback today in the same location
we're talking about putting senior housing. I dont know whal typ€ ofaccessory structure would b€ utilized
for a senior housing component that wouldnt be used for the youlh side to warrant twice the setback for that
accessory structure. I mean, it could be as simple as a gazebo or a park bench even, for that matter.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, leds see. The assisted living facilities commonly have separac living
quarters for residents, and services include dining housekeeping social and physical activities, medication
administration, and transportation. Some of that stuffmay be a little more intense than the habitable units
that the memory-care residens are in.
I'm suggesting that ifthdre accessory uses, because llrey sound like they all would be, then why
would you want social and physical activities 20 feet from the south property line?
MR YOVANOVICH: Because we can today.
MR ARNOLD: The Youth Haven PUD makes that provision today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then if you want to put the Youth llaven portion of it over
there, then you can do 20 feet But if you want to put memory care, why - what would it - your master plan
right now doesnt show anything in that areq so Im just wondering what it is that you're trying to do that
you're not showing us.
MS. ASIITON-CICKO: Mr. Strain, also the existing PUD has a 60-foot cross-section in that area
that has the swale. And we can put that up on the scr€en ifyou want So you wouldn't put an accessory
structure, I wouldn't thinlq in the middle of the swale.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, are you retaining tlnt 60-foot swale and berm, because I read in the
staffreport -
MS. ASI{TON-CICKO: No, they're not. They are not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put your master plan back up, guys.
MS. ASTITON-CICKO: I have one that's a little slightly mor€ clear than their cross-section, so I can
put that up ifyou'd like. It shows the existing.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. That would be great if you have something that would help. Thank
you.
You see the master plan that you've got thoe doesnt have 20 feet on the rear - on the south property
line. Now, there's your - see that little cut dut's on the -
Thal's good urd clear. Thank you. Thanks, Heidi. That helps a lot.
So from that rear property line, you couldn't go, previously, closo than 60 feet based on that master
plan. Are you in disagreement with that Wayng or -
MR. YOVANOVICH: That doesn't appear conect, baus€ if I'm looking the AA, which is - that's
what's highlighted -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: - Building l3 is in ftat 6Gfoot AA area.
MS. GIJNDLACH: It may not be to scale.
CHARIV{.A}I STIAIN: And then the building - the building's not buil! though, is it?
MR- YOVANOVICH: No, but I'm -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a conceptual master plan, righfl
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm with yoq Mr. St'ain. Can I tell yorr, we started this process thinking that
all we were doing was adding the word "adults" wher€ we previously had "children," and this has really
morphed into something thafs become a lot more complicated by just simply adding the fact that we, I guess,
might have some, you know, rowdy seniors living where we previously could have had kids.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're really looking at - we're really - that's as simple as we were trying
to make this is add the word "seniors" and add one acre. We're just saying we agree to minor tweaks. We'll
add the building heighg stufflike that, but I would like to think that a senior housing project in this area with
a 20-foot accessory is - dmt's already allowed for children is not a major issue that we should have to modiry
our development standarrds. I just put that on the record.
Page 21 of 25
November 15, 2018
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not allowed in this location, Rich. Go ahead.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: They're changing the master plan. fught now there's a required 60-foot
cross-section they showed on tie visualizer. You cannot put a building in that cross-section.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Rich, what made you say that that building is within that
60-foot AA area?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I have no idea. We're in here simply to modi! the word "seniors," modifo
the master plan. We think that the setback is apgopriate.
Ifthe Planning Commission wants to impose a different setback for the senior housing aspecg tell us
what you would like it to be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just leave the cut and this cross-section thafs highlighted in
yellow on the plan?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That cross-section? What?
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, thafs taking care of it. Then you - because you're selling - you're
telling us you'rejust trying to add the word 'adults.u Well, in essence, that cross-section being eliminated
does a lot more than just that.
MR ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, I would recommend that we remove the cross-section, because this part
ofthe project has not been site planned. It hasn't been through the Water Management District permitting.
They may not agree that a swale in that location is the appropriate way to handle our water management. I
think it's probably inappropriate to have that and most of our newer master plans do not put cmss-sectional
detail like that unless wete agreed to very specific conditions.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Matt Mclean, would you mind coming up to the microphone?
Matt's in charge of review for SDPs.
Matt, my question's going to be, if this came in for an SDP under the old master plan and these
changes weren't being asked today, how would your staff look at that cross-section, as being requircd or not
required?
MR. McLEAN: Matt Mclean, director of development review.
We would go back to the curr€nt master plan that's reflected on the overhead here, and we would
look to make surp that no proposed improvements would be within that 60-foot area unless it was some type
ofwater management conveyance swale or water management feature along with the landscape buffer, berm.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And that'sjust the question I needed to get addressed because
that is a criteria. So at that point you're removing that now, and you're saying -
MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- now you want to go from 60 feet to 20 feet. Im just suggesting you dont
need the 20 feet. Why fight an issue that doesn't seem to be an issue with you-all, because had you come in
with this Youth Haven plan, you still couldn't have been there. So what is the point?
MS. ASI{TON-CICKO: Also, if you look at the master plan, the visual depiction of where the
buildings are looks to be much larger than 20 feet or 40 feet. If you look at the last page, they're showing
them quite a distance away. Therers a culde-sac.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thafs what I noticed, too. Thafs why I can't understand. And thafs a good
poin! Heidi. What are we arguing about? You guys don't seem to want to use it anyway.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we just agree that both accessory and principal stuctures will have a
50-foot setback from property boundary?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a very good compromise.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that okay, instead of 60?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that works.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 40? Is that what it is? Whatever the principal one is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Principal and accessory -
MR. YOVANOVICH: They'll be the same.
CI{AIRMAN STRAN: - nothing will be closer than 50 feet to the south property line.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I misspoke. The cunent standard is 40 feet. The issue became, number one,
3.06(l) says 40 feet. Can we just say that's both principal and accessory?
Paqe 22 of 25
November 15, 2018
MS. ASIIION{ICKO: That 50 feet is just -
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Your mike's not working again, Heidi.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The 50 feet is for the unbuilt area, mrre€t, that youirE adding the adult
option?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I misspoke when I said the 50. I thought that's what the PUD already said.
The PUD aheady says 40 fee! and what I'm simply suggesting is let'sjust say ztO feet for both principal and
acc€ssory structures -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: - for the senior portion of the proper.ty.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: And for what portion?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The senior portion of the property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That way they're all the same.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: And I - I don't have a problem with thar. Does urybody on the Planning
Commission have any issues?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So principal and accessory for the senior housing will all be at 40
feet with the exception ofthe generators and -
MR. YOVANOVICH: Which we agreed to 50 fe€t.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: - will be 50 feet.
MR. YOVANOVICH: ConEct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then your stories will be 35 zoned.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thi4y-five zone4 45 actual. You wanted both heights, righfl
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, right. But that work. That cleans everydring up, and I think that's a
pretty good compromise for the people to the south in the end, so I don't have a problem. Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairmarl agreed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that wraps up our discussion. Do you have anything you want to
add, Wayne or fuchard, to your - before we close?
MR. ARNOLD: No, I dont think so, other than I hope we can agr€e to the changes that were
discussed today and not have to come back for consent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - and Ile made the comments on my copies of what you've said. So
I don't have a problem being able to review this on behalfofthe Planning Commission ifthat's what they'd
like in lieu ofconsent, but with that in mind, is there a motion - we'll close the public hearing and entertain a
motion for this subject to tlre discussions weVe just had.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion to approve subject to all $e changes we've agreed to
today.
CE{trUVI{N STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIOMR HOMLAK: Second.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded bv Karen.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signif by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposdl?
(No response.)
Page 23 of 25
November 15' 2018
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries G0.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: An{ frrthermore, that the Chair can review conformity to the
exceptions in lieu of coming back for consent.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. All in favor, signift by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: AYe'
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AYE.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: AYe.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: AYe.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AnybodY oPPosed?
(No rcsponse.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to the most complicated part of our agenda: Is there any new
business?
(No rcsponse.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None listed. Is there ury old business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None mentioned. Is there any public comm€nt?
(No rcsponse.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No memben of the public commenting.
Is there a motion to adjoun?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSTONER DEARBORN: Second.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Joe, seconded by Patrick. All in favor, signifr by saying aye'
CoMMISSIONER CTTRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: AYe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AYE.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: AYe.
COMMSSIONER SCHMITT: AYe.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: AYe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AnybodY oPPosed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries G0. Thank you.
| * l:l'l:l:l
There being no fintlrer business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjoumed by order of
the Chair at l0:lE a.m.
COLLIER COUNry PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 24 of 25
November 15,201E
ATTEST
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF TT{E CTRCUIT COURT & COMPTROI-LER
These minutes approved by the Board on l{?- lt . as presented r/ rras corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, [NC., BY
TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 25 of 25