Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/20/2006 R April 20, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 20, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti Tor Kolflat Russell Tuff ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Comm. Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Asst. County Attorney Don Scott, Transportation Planning Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 20,2006, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZA TION 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 AVAILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 6, 2006, EAR MEETING; MARCH 8, 2006, EAR MEETING; MARCH 9, 2006, EAR MEETING; MARCH 16,2006, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MARCH 14,2006, REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 28,2006, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT A. Proposed Emergency Services Complex at Lely - Briefpresentation by Peter Hayden, Senior Project Manager, Facilities Management - TIME CERTAIN - To be heard first on the agenda 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: CU-2005-AR-8081, La Playa Golf Club LLC, represented by Fred Reischl, AICP, of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage Inc. and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel & Andress, is requesting a conditional use allowed per LDC Section 2.04.03 of the RSF-3 (Residential Single Family) zoning district for a Golf Course Maintenance Facility. This proposed conditional use will permit a reconfiguration of the site and construction of a new maintenance structure. The subject property, consisting of 2.5 acres, is located at 220 Cypress Way East, in Section 24, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) READVERTISED FROM 4/6/06 1 B. Petition: RZ-2005-AR-8483, Michael Arbitman Trustee of Land Trust UAD and Mahmoud Rahim and Raya Hussain, represented by Clay Brooker of Cheffy Passidomo Wilson & Johnson and Laura Spurgeon, of Johnson Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Commercial Professional and General Office (C-1) zoning district for project to be known as Tivoli Office Building Rezone. The subject property, consisting of 2.23 acres, is located on the southeast comer of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) C. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8561, BRB Development, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from the C-l and C-3 zoning districts to the "CPUD" Commercial Planned Unit Development zoning district proposing a variety of retail, office, professional and business service, and indoor self storage land uses with a maximum of 163,000 commercial floor area to be known as BRB Development CPUD. The subject property, consisting of 3.2 acres, is located at 1025 Piper Boulevard, Section 23, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) D. Petition: PUDA-2005-AR-8745, II Regalo, LLC, requesting a PUD Amendment for Carlisle Regency PUD. The PUD Amendment proposes to allow for a two-story single-family or two-family home as a replacement for the current one-story single-family or two-family home. The amendment is also requesting to revise the ownership of the PUD. The subject property consists of 11.7 acres and is located on the south side of Orange Blossom Drive, immediately east of Yarberry Lane, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) E. Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6283, Lely Development Corporation, represented by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., request an amendment to the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD by revising the PUD document and Master Plan to amend Tract" J" from a 1.74 acre utility site to a .73 single-family residential development site and 1.01 acre mangrove preserve area. Tract "J" consists of 1.74 acres and is located at the southwest corner of Barefoot Beach Boulevard and Bayfront Drive, located in Sections 5, 6, 7 & 8, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Flori (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) CONTINUED FROM 4/6/06 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 4-20-06/CCPC AgendaIRB/sp 2 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. If you'll please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, and welcome to the August 20th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will the secretary please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A full quorum. Full group of people today. That's great. Nine out of nine. Addenda to the agenda. Mr. Murray has one issue to be added to new business for sustainable community discussion. Are there any other additions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to add something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? You want to tell us what the subj ect is or are you going to be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Planning. Page 2 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still confused by that, so -- that's broad, you can fit anything you want to under that. Planning commission absences, the next meeting -- the next two meetings in May, Ray, are? MR. BELLOWS: Next two meetings in May -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 4th and 18th. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 4th and 18th, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody planning on missing any of those days? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes. We have one, two, three, four minute packages in front of us. The first one is March 6th EAR meeting. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 117, seven lines from the bottom, the word stuff should be staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stuff, staff, okay. Is that the only correction? COMMISSIONER CARON: That was the only one that I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any others? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion for approval? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Adelstein to approve as amended. Page 3 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Minutes of the March 8th EAR meeting? COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a correction there as well. On Page 11, Mr. Arnold, according to the minutes, talks about rural friends, and I think it should be the rural fringe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Move as amended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein to move approval as amended. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. Page 4 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. The March 9th EAR meeting. Ms. Caron, do you have any corrections? COMMISSIONER CARON: I didn't find any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Maybe I missed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded the motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The March 16th regular meeting. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Pages eight, nine, 10, I believe, all were with Mr. Rocky Scofield, not Mr. Sculfield, or whatever they said -- Page 5 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sculfield was S-C-U-L. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the name on the pages is Scofield. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Page 33, in the middle of the page under Commissioner Caron it is -- it reads thing, and it should be think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other question, any other concerns? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other question, any other concerns? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein to approve as amended. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded. Sorry Paul. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Page 6 April 20, 2006 Item #6 BCC REPORT- RECAPS Finally, we're to Ray's BCC report. MR. BELLOWS: There were no land use items heard at the last board meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a simple report. Thank you. Item #7A PROPOSED EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX AT LEL Y And the first thing on today's agenda is Item 7(A). It's the Emergency Services Complex at Lely. And when you start out, if you could explain to us why you're here today. I know we're not hearing this as a regular approval. I think it's for a briefing. But just so we know what action to take at the end, if any, we're clear on where we're going. Okay, thanks. MR. HAYDEN: My name is Peter Hayden with Facilities Management. I'm Senior Proj ect Manager for the proj ect. Back in this past September last year we had failed at Bembridge PUD, as you were well aware. You heard it last February. At the September meeting, Commissioner Fiala had requested that we come and give a briefing before you commissioners, and that's why we're here today, just so we can brief you on what we're doing on the Lely project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so we know, as we go through this, you're giving us a briefing. Do you want comments? MR. HAYDEN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think you'll have some then. Thank you. Page 7 April 20, 2006 MR. HAYDEN: The project location, as you can see, it's on Lely Cultural Parkway in the Lely Community, just south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and west of Collier Boulevard. This is the proposed site plan that TKW has put together. We've most recently pulled our package together for the SDP submittal that was just submitted a couple of days ago to community development. As you can see, the emergency services complex is to the north on the parcel, and the south regional library is south, more closely to the road. The project -- the acreage is about 20 acres on the site. It's going to have common utilities for both buildings as far as the lift station, you know, water services, electrical, telephone service. This is a rendering of the South Regional Library Project. It's an old Florida style, which I guess has different meanings in different people's minds. But certainly it's going to have a metal roof. And you can see from the rendering how it's laid out. This is the emergency services complex rendering, which you have seen before. This building, we had more direction basically to take it from that Bembridge site and site adapt it to the Lely site. It's a four-story building. Go to the library first, briefly. It's a 30,000 square foot library that's being planned right now. There's room for future expansion on the site for the library for an additional 30,000 square feet. It's a one-story building, as I said, old Florida style. And we're anticipating construction this fall. Emergency services complex, it's a 130,000 square foot building, four stories tall, as I mentioned, total height of 94 feet. This will have many occupants in the building. There's a Sheriffs Substation, Emergency 911, EMS, Emergency Operations, Information Technology, Board of County Commissioners and Public Information Studio. And that's also going to commence this fall. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it more appropriate that we interrupt Page 8 April 20, 2006 your presentation? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that's what you indicated. MR. HAYDEN: Yes. And again, we were asked to be brief, so I'm brief. If you have some questions, I can go back. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just bring that slide back. MR. HAYDEN: No problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There is some concern, there has been concern repeatedly shown with regard to the height. Now, that total height of 94 feet, is that the height of the structure alone or is that the total height as someone would see it from the road? MR. HAYDEN: Structure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Structure. So the total height of this building, inclusive of all FEMA and other requirements of the hardening as well brings it to what total height, please? MR. HAYDEN: The -- actually, I'll go back. If I go back to the -- you probably can't see it very well, but the finished floor elevation for the emergency service complex is at 17-5. Okay, and that's, you know, up to that finished floor, which is that fill added. And then the road elevation is approximately -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nine. MR. HA YD EN : Well, nine to 11. So what you're going to see, approximately 102 feet, I guess, around -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But this is -- the truth, as it were, is 102 plus or minus? MR. HAYDEN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's what I wanted to establish for the record, because there are a lot of folks who are really unclear about that and they need to know what the true height is. That's important to them. And I thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you want to -- I think you can continue on with your presentation. Page 9 April 20, 2006 MR. HAYDEN: Actually, I'm ready for questions, actually. It was brief. I figured I'd open up to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the Planning Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a few. I looked at your grant that you supplied as part of the library proj ect, which I know is not what your presentation is about, but since you did supply it, I notice that in that grant there was a paragraph that described other uses on the property and it said the only other use on the property is an 8,000 square foot government services building. No other county department has expressed interest in the building on the property and none is anticipated. Do you think that's going to have any impact on your ability to get the grant for the library? MR. HAYDEN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other item I noticed, you've got a lot of detail in the presentation package concerning the systems that are in the building. And I am a state licensed general contractor, I am familiar with some of these systems and I know they're top quality. There's no hesitation there in the fact that it's probably going to be a top-notch facility. But that brings the question to the cost. Do you have a cost estimate for the building? MR. HAYDEN: Yes, we just -- for the library or for the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, for the EOC. MR. HAYDEN: The emergency services complex? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. What is that? MR. HAYDEN: Around $45 million. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't that interesting, that's exactly the number I came up with. Because the S.O is taking 39,000 square feet, which is valued at 15 million; the government building, the admin. of the government building is taking 55,000 square feet at 18 million, Page 10 April 20, 2006 leaving 37 for another 11 or 12 million, so -- okay, $45 million. How is that allocated in the county budget? Just out of curiosity. Because the AUIR only addressed the 55,000 and the 40,000 square feet furnished by S. O. and the government administration services. Do you know how the other 37,000 is allocated in the budget process? MR. HOVELL: For the record, I'm Ron Hovell, Principal Project Manager of Facilities Management Department. I'm not familiar enough to give you an exact answer. I think in general, my recollection is that because the emergency management folks that are moving in there are in existing space, that portion has to be covered by ad valorem dollars. There's some impact fees related to emergency services for growth, and there's also some impact fees related to the sheriffs portion for growth. But if you want all the exact figures, we'd have to ask the budget office to provide those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I was just curious, because it is an expensive building. It's obviously got very well done components and has been thought out, but the cost is always a concern, so -- are there any other questions from the planning commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, the site plan. What is going to happen to the north of the EOC building? What's going to happen to that property up there? And how far are you from that property line? MR. HOVELL: The EOC and library site are the blue hashed area. The property to the north that you see outlined in green is all designated as a conservation area as part of the Sierra Meadows PUD. So that should not change from its current state other than things like recent brush fires that may have impacted it. As far as how far we are -- how far the EOC building is from Page 11 April 20, 2006 either the north property line or that west property line, if you mean the building itself, I think it's in the neighborhood of 75 or so feet. If you want a more exact number, we have the site development plan, we could open it up -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it's going to be conservation land, it doesn't matter. MR. HOVELL: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, thank you very much for your presentation, we certainly appreciate the update. MR. HAYDEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good luck. You guys came prepared for -- if we had known that, we would have done a little bit more for you here this morning. Item #8A PETITION CU-2005-AR-8081 Okay, the next item on the agenda is the regular advertised public hearings. The first one is 8-A, Petition CU-2005-AR-8081. It's the LaPlaya Golf Club, LLC, represented by Fred Reischl. All those wishing to participate in this, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I think the petitioner starts off. And is it going to be you, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress Law Firm, representing Page 12 April 20, 2006 LaPlaya Golf Club LLC. Also with me today to answer any questions that you may have are Katie Sproul; Fred Reischl, the project planner with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage; project engineer Jim Carr, also from Agnoli Barber; Pat Crebs (phonic) from Outside Productions, landscape architecture firm; and also present is Mr. Duane Dungan, a Florida registered professional geologist with Environmental Consulting and Technology, Inc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, before you go too far, I forgot one thing. Is there any disclosures on this matter from the planning commission? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I visited the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat visited the site. Any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a brief conversation with Mr. Anderson before the meeting started. And I've met with the homeowners association in the area actually on another project, but this one was briefly mentioned, and really no discussion at that point. So with that, proceed, thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. This is a conditional use application for a golf course maintenance facility. It is important to recognize that this application is not for a new use of the property. The golf maintenance facility has existed on this property since at least 1972, and that use will continue regardless of whether this particular conditional use application is approved to redevelop the property with a new golf maintenance building. Simply put, the decision before you is whether the new site plan, the buildings represent an improvement that is preferable to maintaining the existing conditions. Property owner's in agreement with the staff recommended conditions, except number three. And it's my understanding that staff Page 13 April 20, 2006 is correcting condition number two to add that if the use does not commence within three years the conditional use approval expires. That's consistent with the language in the Land Development Code. I think just a few words were left out when it was typed. I want to briefly address staff proposed condition number three. This condition references a Land Development Code section that can be applied by staff to require a six-foot wall on property only when it is zoned commercial or industrial next to residential zoning. All of the property here is and will remain zoned residential. So as a matter of law, this LDC section does not apply to the facts of this case. Further, it's my understanding that most of the homeowners closest to these new buildings who live in the Sawgrass Homeowners Association subdivision on the south here prefer a fence with supplemental landscaping, as is required by the Land Development Code. And my client has agreed to beef up the landscaping requirements that are required by the LDC as well. We would ask the planning commission to honor that agreement with the neighbors by deleting condition number three. Just yesterday we were made aware of for the first time a letter from one of the residents of Sawgrass who apparently disagrees with their property owners association, and we have not had a chance to meet with them. And my client pledges to you that they will do so before the county commission meeting to show them the landscape buffer diagrams that we'll be showing you this morning to see if that might help address their concerns. Lastly, I want to address head-on the fact that there is some arsenic contaminated soil on this property. Mr. Duane Dungan, the Registered Geologist I introduced earlier, will be available to answer any technical questions at the conclusion of our initial presentation, and after any public comment. Mr. Dungan, on behalf of the property owner, notified the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in 2003 of the Page 14 April 20, 2006 existence of arsenic contamination on the property from an old gladiolus farm that had included the subject two and a half acres. In June, 2003, the Department of Environmental Protection approved a best management practices recommendation to dig up the contaminated soil and place it under concrete slabs in the new maintenance buildings, or used as road base material. Mr. Dungan has again recently been in contact with the Department of Environmental Protection and with the county Environmental Review Department to provide them with answers to any other questions that they had. My client has agreed to staff condition number four, to submit a contaminated soil management plan and provide copies of additional soil sampling results that DEP is requiring to be conducted when construction is ongoing. The bottom line is that the experts at the Department of Environmental Protection and at the county and the property owner's geologist have all agreed on a best management practices plan to keep the arsenic on-site from traveling off-site by burying it under concrete. Unless you have any particular questions for me at this time, I would ask Pat Crebs from Landscape Productions to come forward and talk to you about the landscape buffering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, Ms. Caron and Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Where are you putting the wash down facility? MR. ANDERSON: Let me ask Mr. Reischl to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, one other point of disclosure, Fred, you did send e-mails out to each planning commissioner, if I'm not mistaken. MR. REISCHL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I got back from a long trip. I did not get time to open your e-mails but I saw that you sent them so I'll Page 15 April 20, 2006 disclose that. And on behalf of the rest of the planning commission, for those that had gotten e-mail, we'll all acknowledge that he sent those out. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage. This is the site plan and the -- basically, the wash down facilities and storage area will be in this portion of the site. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What will be the distance from that building to the closest residential area? MR. REISCHL: We don't have a scale -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you push that up farther, I think your closest residential is on the bottom of the page over on the opposite side of that lake, isn't it? MR. REISCHL: Here's the closest residence, and here's where the wash down area is going to be. So this is over 300 feet, I would estimate, just by the size of the property, and it's on the opposite corner. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are they aware of the contamination? MR. REISCHL: Okay. And yes, there are some multi-family structures on the opposite side of the road. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the shortest -- the shortest distance from that to -- MR. REISCHL: A residence? Across Cypress Way East, looks like approximately 150 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Has that been checked out to make sure that it won't harm anything or anybody? That's pretty contaminated stuff. MR. REISCHL: Are you talking about the arsenic or just the chemicals for the -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm talking about the chemicals that are being taken out each day. MR. REISCHL: I know that there is a new facility that LaPlaya Page 16 April 20, 2006 has purchased, and I believe it's a state-of-the-art facility that they use for this. I don't know what -- right, it's currently being used under the existing facility. And I believe that that controls any of the runoff, and so it's not discharged out into the environment. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Good, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Mr. Reischl, there is on the property currently an aboveground petroleum storage tank. Where is that going to be on the new site plan? MR. REISCHL: I don't know. It's in the same area. COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And fuel out there. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's where it is currently and that's where it's going to remain? MR. REISCHL: No. That's the future location for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we can't have comments from the audience, so if someone has to comment and maybe you get -- they're part of your team, you can ask them to move forward. Do you have any more follow-up on that? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I wanted to hear-- MR. REISCHL: No, it's not at that location currently. Go back to the aerial. And you can see where the current facility is up here. And it's going to be located down in the southwest corner of the property. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And where is the tank currently? MR. REISCHL: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, were you sworn in? I saw you walking in when we were swearing people in, but I'm not sure you were sworn In. MS. SPROUL: I might not have been. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the court reporter please Page 1 7 April 20, 2006 swear this witness in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SPROUL: Katie Sproul, S-P-R-O-U-L, with LaPlaya Golf Club LLC. The current aboveground fuel tank is right there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Great. Okay, thank you. MS. SPROUL: It's right directly against our northern property boundary. So it will move down here so it will no longer be adjacent to any residential -- what we did in this plan was try to move as many of the noxious uses as far away from the residential as we -- or what would be considered you know, more -- less attractive uses. I probably should not use that, because that's not a proper word -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's okay, we all know. MS. SPROUL: -- but the less pleasant ones as far away as we could. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, on this parcel of land to the east here, which is not part of the petition, what is the existing zoning for that? MR. REISCHL: RSF-3, residential single family. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And that will remain the same? MR. REISCHL: Yes. In fact, the zoning under the subject parcel will also remain as RSF - 3. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Conditional use. MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I know that the 18 holes is what was there when Palm River was there. Is the area of the golf course about the same now as it was at that time? MR. REISCHL: At what time? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: When Palm River had the course, prior to LaPlaya. Page 18 April 20, 2006 MR. REISCHL: I know that when LaPlaya bought it, I worked for the county and there was a change in design to the golf course, but I don't believe it changed the number of golf course holes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, the holes didn't change, but the area remains about the same, that's my question. MR. REISCHL: Oh, the acreage? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. That pathway that leads across Cypress Way there onto the golf course, I think it's about 11 feet wide, who owns that? What's the ownership of that? MR. ANDERSON: It's an easement dedicated to the Sawgrass Homeowners Association and Collier County for drainage and utilities. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: My question, Bruce, pertains to the ownership and the perpetuity of that remaining as an access point. If that were to close, it would be a much longer distance that the vehicles would have to travel to get onto the course. MR. ANDERSON: I'm not certain who owns it, who owns the fee title. I just know that a number of entities have easement rights on there. And my client applied and received from the county a right-of-way connection permit to cross that easement area to connect to Cypress Way East for that equipment crossing. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So it should remain permanent? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a point of clarification for me. If I'm not mistaken, I read in here that there were two buildings that were going to be going in. Is that odd shape, that L shape, is that a set of buildings or a building? Page 19 April 20, 2006 And I'm not in error, I hope. I may have gotten that confused with another, but I thought there were two structures that were talked about in here. MR. REISCHL: No. Those -- well, those are aboveground, the containment area for the fertilizer and pesticides. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What brought my question up is I see one single building pad. MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I was trying to locate the other building in there. Are there going to be two buildings on a single pad, is that what -- MR. REISCHL: No, it's one building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One building. So there's only one building in this discussion? MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Must be from another one that I read. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I have a couple of questions for you. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was reading your site assessment by ECT. I just want to make sure, based on some of the questions I heard from the Planning Commission. One of the statements on Page 3-2 in the last sentence is talking about the arsenic contamination. It says, all the samples were far below that level -- the level being the state minimum for hazardous -- thus exposure to the soil is not considered to be toxic or hazardous. Is that the most current information? You don't have a hazardous situation out there with the arsenic? MR. ANDERSON: No. I'm advised by our geologist that no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the -- another recommendation in the report on Page 4-2 says it is recommended that a deed restriction Page 20 April 20, 2006 be instituted that precludes the installation of shallow water production wells. Is that something your client is going to be instituting or has instituted? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. They've agreed to that. I believe it's a condition of the county as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure someone's aware of it. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also the disclosure of information concerning the owners of the property, it simply said LaPlaya LLC, I think it was 100 percent, LaPlaya Golf Club LLC, 100 percent. And then you provided the corporation's on-line statement providing the entities who own LaPlaya Golf Club LLC. That statement produces two entities that aren't individuals, one is Stephen J. Lockwood and Company LLC and the other is the Halstatt Partnership. I'm not sure, Ms. Student, is that consistent with the rules in requiring disclosure of individuals, or is this LLCs, incorporations or partnerships accepted in lieu of individuals? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The staff report was reviewed by our office and it was signed off on and found to be okay. If you feel more comfortable with additional information, I don't know if Mr. Anderson has that information to provide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that wasn't my question. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question was, I don't care if you signed off on it or not, is the LDC, in the process of providing this information, are they allowed to supply simply LLCs and partnerships, or are they supposed to list individual owner's names so that if there's a conflict we know it then. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think if there are additional owners, it would be wise to have that information. Page 21 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce, at some point could you make sure that's supplied prior to the BCC hearing? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with this one, but I would think that it would be necessary to be done correctly for that meeting. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, I will. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want to follow up briefly on what you were asking about the contamination, because -- and again, I'm certainly no expert on the -- all the backup that we got. However, I did try to plow my way through it here. And if you read the qualifiers down below, it says anything with a star, values exceed maximum contamination level. So how can we say that there isn't a problem? MR. DUNGAN: Hi, I'm Duane Dungan, Professional Geologist that's been working on this. I'm with Environmental Consulting -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You're the man we want to talk to. MR. DUNGAN: I suppose so. The State of Florida has different cleanup levels that -- target levels that they use. One is for residential. They have another one that's being used for commercial, industrial. These are levels that are far below toxic levels. Toxic levels are what would be considered to be hazardous waste are considerably higher than these. We have used the residential guidelines on these cleanup target levels, even though the actual use in there is more of an industrial nature with a golf course maintenance area. But the levels are not toxic to people. In other words, they're so low it would take very long-time direct bodily exposure to the soil to cause any serious detrimental health effects. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you are using residential standards. Page 22 April 20, 2006 MR. DUNGAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there other questions? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just had one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you ask, when you were questioning -- I'm sorry, I was looking up my pages -- did you ask about the recommended deed restriction? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I did ask about it. And they said that it either has been or will be instituted. Thank you, sir. Okay, is there a staff report? MS. VALERA: Good morning. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. As noted in the staff report, we are -- staff is recommending approval of this petition, subj ect to the conditions that are outlined in the report. We did have some correspondence in regards to the applicability of the wall, the concrete wall for this use, and it was an interpretation of the zoning manager that it does apply. Also, staff believes that it is necessary to ameliorate the impacts of this use in this area. I'd be glad to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other questions of staff? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I was reading -- I was obviously reading. I was looking at the aerial photographs, and particularly the ones where the view is -- there's a fence -- on Page 5 of 10, there's a fence with very little in the way of vegetation and clear View. Even if they were to put a fence in and put some vegetation, we could -- in the future we could potentially see this, couldn't we? MS. VALERA: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're recommending a wall rather than the fence; is that right?h Page 23 April 20, 2006 MS. VALERA: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any others? Carolina, I have a couple. On page three of 10 of your staff report, in the second paragraph from the top, the applicant maintains that a vegetation in lieu of the required concrete wall, and then goes on in the second sentence, in regards to architectural standards the applicant noted that proposed maintenance facility would not meet architectural requirements. I mean, I know it's a maintenance building. I'm not sure architectural requirements are absolutely necessary there, but if they do apply, are we looking at deviations that have not been applied for? COMMISSIONER CARON: That is correct, yes. And as part of the Land Development Code, they may apply for deviations in this type of use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what I'm getting at, if we're here today to discuss this, why aren't we handling it all at one swoop? You're going to make them come back in here again for a deviation? Is that necessary? MS. VALERA: No, this is just to let you know as an informative -- just to inform you that that's what they had said at the pre- application meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But knowing they said that and knowing what the building is apparently shaped like, I know our architectural standards, as you well do, have some ins and outs. MS. VALERA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a straight linear footprint. MS. VALERA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that going to meet architectural standards as it's shown on this plan? MS. VALERA: No, it won't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's just -- what I'm trying to Page 24 April 20, 2006 get to is -- MS. VALERA: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're having a meeting today to resolve this project and approve a site plan based on -- for a conditional use. Are we going to be seeing this again because of architectural -- of deviations needed to the code? And if we are, why don't we just continue this and get -- MS. VALERA: No, you will not be seeing -- the deviation is an administrative process that is reviewed by staff at the site development plan process stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because in other PUDs -- I know this isn't a PUD, but in applications deviations are all stated and spelled out and presented for approval at the meeting. MS. VALERA: Right. No, this will be part of the site development plan process, and it will be reviewed by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the architectural standards and the concrete, the fence if it's approved in lieu of the concrete wall? Or is that something that will come out of today's meeting? MS. VALERA: No, the concrete wall is not part of the architectural standards, it's separate, and it is part of today's meeting's decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I have a couple other questions. On Page 8 of 10. You said, I think, first of all, the site currently doesn't have a wall, does it? MS. VALERA: No, it does not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's got a landscape buffer or a fence -- MS. VALERA: Portions, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --landscape buffer. MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are any of the lands -- currently existing landscape elements or fence elements being removed in this Page 25 April 20, 2006 process? MS. VALERA: That I do not know. I believe portions are being removed, but I'm not completely sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if what's there is being enhanced by this conditional use? MS . VALERA: It will have to be enhanced in order to bring the site up to compliance with the requirements with the landscape Type B buffer that is required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The buildings that are there today are closer to residential structures than the buildings that will be placed there -- MS. VALERA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- being proposed here? MS. VALERA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are the buildings that are there today any higher than the building being suggested here today? MS. VALERA: I believe they will not be higher than what exists today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there is no increase in intensity on the site. In fact, there might be an argument that there's a decrease. MS. VALERA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 9 of 10, the applicant has suggested a couple changes. I had circled number two as well, because if the conditional use expired every three years, they'd be back in front of us every three years, and this is a permanent facility. So their correction there is acceptable to staff? MS. VALERA: That is correct, yes. My mistake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number one says the use is limited to what is depicted on the site plan as identified as LaPlaya Golf Course maintenance facility. Number five says approval of this conditional Page 26 April 20, 2006 use shall not be construed as approval of the attached conceptual site plan. MS. VALERA: Conceptual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MS. VALERA: I'm referring to the conceptual site plan, not-- oh, I see what you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, number one says it will be tied to the site plan and number five says it will not be construed to be tied to the site plan. I'm just wondering which one is correct or how they should be interpreted. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The fifth condition is typical of the intent that the final design is determined at the time of site development plan review. I think the intent of the first condition is to say that the general uses depicted is what is going to be part of the conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess then what my concern is, if -- we're going to hear, I'm assuming, public testimony, and this is going to have an impact or could have a greater impact on neighborhoods if this site was allowed to be moved around to any great degree. So to assure that there is a less intense impact and that it's not going to be any worse than it is right now or than it's shown on this plan, how do we tie this plan to this conditional use? MS. VALERA: Yes, we need to tie the locations of the buildings and the areas of the fertilizers and chemicals that they have depicted in the plan. I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then maybe questions or statements one and five will need to have some rework -- MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- before they go to the BCC, but the intent will be they'll be tied to the building location -- MS. VALERA: Location. Page 27 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that is shown on this site plan. MS. VALERA: Correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Carolina, I understand staffs position on number three. It's -- a six-foot masonry wall, fence must be provided. But I thought I heard the applicant say that they don't mind providing a fence but they didn't want to provide a wall. MS. VALERA: No, concrete. What the code requires is either a block wall or a concrete fence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Concrete fence? How do you do that? MS. VALERA: I'm sorry, but that's what the Land Development Code reads. But it has to be concrete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chain link fence made out of concrete? MS. VALERA: Opaque masonry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has anybody done this in the county before? I'm curious what a concrete fence -- MR. SCHMITT: It would be similar to most of the walls put up today, they look like concrete slats, but -- or wood slats, but it's actually a concrete wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That Cedar Creek stuff is what you're talking about. MS. VALERA: Yes. And prefabricated concrete. MR. SCHMITT: Prefab concrete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's interesting. Okay. I think when this came -- MR. SCHMITT: What's the technical term for that fence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cedar Creek is what it's -- panelized concrete, yeah. MR. SCHMITT: Panelized concrete. MS. VALERA: Panelized concrete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think maybe next time we do LDC clarifications, we -- MR. SCHMITT: We may want to clarify that. Page 28 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I'm not sure this panel understood that when you said fence you meant concrete, so -- okay. And I guess we'll hear testimony on that as time goes on today so we'll discuss that further. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question. Before they stated there would be one building put up, on the top of Page 9 they're talking about two one-story buildings proposed? MS. VALERA: I believe they're only proposing one. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Vigliotti, this building here, where the mouse is, that is going to be a storage building. So there will be two. The state requires the chemicals be stored inside a building. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions before we hear -- Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: This map here shows two locations for the buffer, one on the north boundary and one on the north side of the road. Which alternate is being proposed? MS. VALERA: The way I understand it, the code requires a Type B buffer, and as you see it on the site plan. Now, the type D buffer that is required for the private road, I understand the applicant is proposing instead of locating it along the road, he will place it along the property to the north. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Carolina, are these lots already subdivided the way they are? MS. VALERA: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No? So this is essentially one parcel. MS. VALERA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That boundary line that's drawn Page 29 April 20, 2006 there is just -- it's not a legal boundary line. MS. VALERA: It's the limit of the conditional use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question is what's the logic -- Bruce read what the code said and you come to a different conclusion. Why is that? MS. VALERA: The code reads non-commercial uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not zoning, like he said? MS. VALERA: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then so to put that wall in though, we would have to disrupt mature trees that are along that boundary line? MS. VALERA: I believe there will be -- many of them will be disturbed, regardless. But the applicant can confirm that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant's representative on the landscape want to confirm that response for Commissioner Schiffer? MR. ANDERSON: In the shuffle, I apologize, we didn't bring up the landscape architect, as we had intended to do. So if we could maybe have him speak at this time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. ANDERSON: And just for the record, I do want to put on the visualizer here the applicable section of the Land Development Code that staff wants to impose on us that clearly applies. The heading is commercial and industrial districts. MR. TREFZ: Good morning. My name is Pat Trefz, Registered Landscape Architect with Outside Productions. T-R-E-F-Z. I have some exhibits here I'd like to review with everybody. On this first exhibit, the very top portion is -- this is the western boundary of the proposed -- or the renovated maintenance facility. This is what faces towards the multi-family that we looked at a few minutes ago. Page 30 April 20, 2006 Presently there's an existing hedge along the property line. It's actually almost right on the property line. It's a probably 10 to 12-foot ficus hedge, and then there's queen palms that are spaced intermittently through that hedge. From our understanding, that hedge will not need to be disturbed and we would like to maintain that hedge. Weare comfortable that we can meet the native requirements when proceeding with the site development plan, that we could keep this ficus hedge and provide some great buffering that already exists. We will have to supplement behind it where the landscape buffer will be proposed some additional shade trees, as well as some proposed palm trees for some higher buffering. On this -- let me get it straight here -- on this here, this is our proposed sketch. And it's a little hard to see, but we are proposing masses of cabbage palms between the existing queen palms that will pop up over the hedge, as well as we've agreed to do some additional ornamental or aesthetic landscaping in front of this hedge. Even though the property between the hedge and the right-of-way is not owned by our client, we've got agreement from the neighboring homeowners association that we could do some enhancements along there to provide a little aesthetic relief. The second drawing here or image is the existing photograph of the south buffer. Right now you can see that there are some existing canopy trees. There's remnants of an existing hedge. It was a cocoa plum hedge, which is missing in a lot of parts; there's a lot of holes in it. The proposed construction would not impact any of this. This is actually on the neighboring property. And we would not impact that, and actually would like to work with it. We've got a nice start with these existing trees. As we work down to a proposed plan, it's a little dark here, but we are proposing canopy trees on our property line, as well as more Page 3 1 April 20, 2006 massing of cabbage palms. We're proposing a double row of trees, 12 feet tall, as well as, again, a massing of palms, and a six-foot hedge, a six - foot solid native hedge along this side. So if a wall is proposed or does move forward -- we're planning on mitigating that completely anyways visually, to just kind of soften up the exterior of the property. And that's -- as well as we have agreed with the neighbors to provide some additional color, some flowering material on the outside of that hedge. It's not required by the LDC, but we'd like to do that to again provide some aesthetic relief to this buffer. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What do you propose on the east boundary, if anything? MR. TREFZ: The east boundary we'd continue the same hedge and tree situation around the whole property. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And the fence would remain there? MR. TREFZ: On the east property I'm not sure if we have an existing -- we would have a fence on that side as well, yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, this concrete wall you talk about, what is the actual routing of that? Is that on the south? MR. TREFZ: Well, as I understand I would think that the proposal by staff was to surround the property with the wall. Our agreement for the fence with the neighbors is just down along the maintenance facility. And it would be back behind the proposed six-foot hedge. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, is staffs recommendation then to enclose the entire property with a fence? MS. VALERA: That is what the code requires, yes. And also I would like to point out that the code allows an applicant also through administrative process to deviate from this concrete wall requirement. Page 32 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, would that -- when you say the entire area, what about the eastern side? Is it the part that's under the petition today or is it the other part that's not in the petition? MS. VALERA: The part that is under the petition's boundary. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So this concrete wall would cut right through the center of this property? MS. VALERA: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, before you leave, a couple of follow-up questions on the landscaping. First one is the ficus existing. Since this is a new application for a conditional use, they do have existing ficus, is there going to be any challenge by staff to remove that ficus, since it's not considered applicable in the code any longer? MS. VALERA: I was just asking our landscape reviewer. He's not sure if the ficus is one that we prohibit. Do you know? MR. TREFZ: I believe it's Ficus Benjamina is what is existing here, not the nitida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the ficus could remain. Ficus makes a nice hedge, but I know the county doesn't like it. So rather than have this applicant come in with an SDP and get problems at that time, I'd like to get them on the table today, addressed and over with. So the ficus that are there, from staffs viewpoint, don't have to be removed? MS. VALERA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other question I had is this gentleman mentioned several issues involving cooperation with the neighbors to place additional material there. Is this material above and beyond the B landscape buffer; do you know? MS. VALERA: Some of the ones that he mentioned, yes. What the code requires is a Type B buffer. Type B buffer is trees 25 feet Page 33 April 20, 2006 on-center with a six-foot tall hedge or wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So ifhe's trying to sell this proposal today, based on a more supplemented landscape hedge than what the code requires, yet obviously not all of it's going to go on their property, it's going to go in cooperation with the neighbors, how do we lock that in so that we make sure that if it goes through today that happens? MS. VALERA: I guess we'll put it as part of the conditions that -- you know, they enhance -- I don't know what will be appropriate. We'll have a suggestion. Mike Sawyer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure that if someone's suggesting something today and they intend to do it, that everybody can be satisfied that no matter what happens, it will get done. So if we need to include another stipulation under staff recommendations involving this supplemental landscape, then I think we need to make sure that language is added when it goes to the BCC. MS. VALERA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have another question, but Mr. Murray, why don't you go with yours. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just to be absolutely clear in my mind here, we have currently, I believe, surrounding the entire conditional use area a chain link fence, that would appear to be so. MS. VALERA: Um-hum. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: However, when you speak of putting in the new fence, we're talking about concrete. MS. VALERA: Concrete, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you would remove the entire fencing and replace it with this woven material or whatever, the concrete material. MS. VALERA: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you don't intend to leave anything that is there as a residue. Page 34 April 20, 2006 I have my question answered, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, I have one more question for you, and that involves the language that the applicant's attorney, Mr. Anderson, put on the thing for the code, and it showed commercial and industrial application for the section of the code that you're citing for the wall requirement. Can you explain to us why this comes under that application? I think E-2 is the one you cited in your number three on the staff recommendation. MS. VALERA: Right. What the code reads is that nonresidential developments, you know, next to commercial or industrial uses, the code requires a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but is this considered a commercial or industrial district? MS. VALERA: I'm sorry. Yes, I believe it's commercial or maybe light industrial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a conditional use in a residential zoned area. MS. VALERA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the underlying zoning is residential. MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just trying to get to staffs reasoning behind making E-2 apply when it says it's for commercial and industrial district -- MS. VALERA: Yes, it's not a residential use. I mean, the conditional use is not for a residential use. It's not for a assisted living facility, for example, it's for a use that is not meant to for, you know, residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it says commercial and industrial districts. That's the only reason I'm asking the question. It keeps saying districts. It doesn't say use, it says districts. And this is a residential district. Page 35 April 20, 2006 And I'm just -- maybe Ms. Student can comment on the applicability of this, if she's familiar with this particular issue. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm getting familiar with it, thank you. I note that it does say district there and not use. And I -- you know, staff is on the front line on interpretation of the code, and then they come to us if there's an issue. So I think what it's trying -- the purpose of it, though, is to buffer the residential from any nonresidential use. I think that's the underlining purpose. And it may be an unfortunate use of the term district rather than use. But I do note that it says district instead of use. And I think another important thing to note is it appears that there is an ability to get some kind of deviation from this at site plan, so we may want to allow that eventuality to happen and then it kind of moots out the whole thing anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, staff has made it clear their position here today. So I'm not sure why, when someone submits the site plan, their position would change. If they're going to change their position, why don't you just simply tell us today and get it over with. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, could you position this so we can read the whole thing? A little more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Keep going down, down, down. And Margie, I'm just trying to get as much resolved at today's meeting as we can. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I am, too. And it appears -- I mean, the plain reading of this would be that it applies in commercial and industrial districts. It doesn't say use. And in the plain reading in paragraph one says industrial districts and then it says nonresidential development. And then leading one to believe that -- then it doesn't seem to say anything about commercial. Page 36 April 20, 2006 So what I'm trying to say, though, is I think it's an unfortunate use of the term. But the underlying purpose goes with what staff is saying, is the idea is to protect the residential uses from nonresidential uses. And I think it's an unfortunate use of the term to -- you know, that districts is put in there. Because I think the one reading of that could defeat the purpose of what's trying to be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, you had a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, more ofa comment. Here's what we don't want to have happen: We don't want to have the public sit out here and at the end of this meeting think that there is going to be a concrete wall around the entire property, and then it gets to site development plan where the public is not involved and have staff suddenly say then, oh, we'll give you a deviation, and suddenly the wall that the public thinks is going to be there is suddenly gone. And this is why we need these things cleared up now, not necessarily at site development. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're heading in that direction. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, on the site plan that I'm looking at here, there are two means of ingress and egress. Are they to be fenced? Are they to be enclosed so that nobody can trespass, no children, or is that going to be an open roadway? MS. VALERA: I think it's being discussed right now. MS. SPROUL: Katie Sproul for the record again. Yes, there are currently gates across both -- well, there's currently a gate across the one that is the equipment entrance, and there is one on the vehicle access now, and we would continue to do that with the vehicle access, because obviously this one here, there would be a gate there as well, because obviously we don't -- you know, there's lots of equipment in there that we don't want -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you also want to prevent Page 37 April 20, 2006 children from getting into those chemicals, et cetera. MS. SPROUL: Absolutely. And the chemicals will all be locked in the storage building as well. So there will be a fence -- and actually what we've agreed to with the neighbors, they've requested an eight-foot fence as opposed to a six-foot, because they'd like it bit higher. And we're happy to agree with that. And then all the entrances would be fenced or gated as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As a follow-up, do you intend to take any part of your fencing down by putting in the other additional vegetation? You currently have the entire conditional use area enclosed by fencing, that we've established. MS. SPROUL: Not the entire -- we actually have the entire property, the entire five acres fenced. And where the fence would go would be surrounding -- the new fence, shall I say, would then go surrounding the entire, enclosing all of the maintenance site area with the buffer around that entire area as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So whether it would have been a barbed wire or a chain link or a concrete, you intend to completely enclose that area. MS. SPROUL: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the key question for us is what kind of fencing are we really talking about. MS. SPROUL: Exactly. And we would do the same buffering around all four sides of the site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you so much. MS. SPROUL: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Ray, could you put down that other site plan that shows the other acreage to the east of this, as well as what's there? Now, could someone draw a line there exactly where this concrete structure's going to be, fence, or whatever you call it? Page 38 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's where the black solid line is, isn't it? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Would be there and what other boundaries? So it will go right through the center of that piece of property. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's kind of my question, too, is how are you coming up with the requirement to fence that split down the center? I mean, you testified before it's not a property line, it's the edge of a conditional use, or the limits of a conditional use, which is -- MS. VALERA: Because the remainder of the property will be still residential. And I understand the applicant is proposing to build -- maybe build homes there. So those homes also do need to be protected from this nonresidential development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in other words, I'mjust confused as to where the requirement to come up with that line -- obviously they can build a fence there if they want to. They can crisscross their site with fences. But, you know, is conditional use a way to subdivide land or a way to create property lines -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The conditional use has to be placed over certain property area. Sometimes it follows existing tract or lot lines. In this case the conditional use is going to be bisecting the lot line. It's not subdividing it, it's just the limits of the conditional use, and that's where the line is drawn, based on the legal description they provided to staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So your requirement of the wall is based on the assumption that they'll some day subdivide it and put a property line there? MS. VALERA: No, based on the limits of the conditional use Page 39 April 20, 2006 that is being sought. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we have a requirement that we have to have buffers on conditional use limits then. MS. VALERA: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, the purpose of the conditional use is to address impacts of uses that are permitted in a zoning district but may need additional mitigation for compatibility purposes. Therefore, this planning commission can recommend any kind of wall and have it as permanent record not to be subject to any kind of architectural deviation later on at the time of site development plan. So if the type of wall is a concern, you can make that as a condition of the approval of this conditional use to be placed on the property boundaries of this conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, Ray, are there public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: We have one registered speaker. Peter Burke. MR. BURKE: I'll pass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have no speakers. With that, we'll close the public hearing and open it up for discussion and a motion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I think that concrete wall is a-- will look horrendous. You talk about adverse impact. You're looking at a concrete wall right in a residential area, and I think that's wrong. I think the landscaping that was proposed by the petitioner attempts to mitigate that adverse impact visually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll entertain a motion. Page 40 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, Mr. Murray, you had more discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a comment. The enclosure by vegetation is good, but eventually vegetation, if not maintained, can leave opportunities for others to invade. Now, we've been told that there we will be some kind offence, and I assume then that that fence, in the absence of concrete or other form, would be the vegetation. So I'm concerned with children getting into the area and so forth. And obviously there should be a concern on the part of the corporation for fear of theft. And I would agree, it would be nicer to have the vegetation, but I'm thinking that as a conditional use it needs to be enclosed and kept away. So I'm leaning toward the concrete fencing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the applicant's made it clear they're going to fence the property. It's not a matter of it's not going to be enclosed, it will be enclosed, period. It's just a matter of whether it's made of concrete or chainlink or some other material. I think that's the issue, not whether it's going to be enclosed or not. Because it will be secured. I can't-- MR. ANDERSON: Please let me confirm that on the record, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, did I hear your comments earlier that you were going -- if it's not a concrete fence but just a regular fence, it's going to be eight feet? MS. SPROUL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I heard someone say that, okay. Okay, is there -- we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-8081 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendation of approval subject to staff recommendations. Page 41 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For discussion, is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. Motion was made by Commissioner Adelstein. Before we -- okay, Mr. Schiffer? I've got a whole list, if you want to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, don't we want to remove some of these staff recommendations? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can walk through the list that I made notes on, if you want. First one is items -- on the staff recommendation, items one and five will be rewritten to reflect that the building locations are to be consistent with the conceptual site plan, which I believe was the intent as indicated by staff. Item two will be modified in the conditional use, instead of will expire in three years it will say the conditional use does not -- if the conditional use does not commence in three years. Number three will be modified so that it would be an eight-foot high fence must be provided. MR. BELLOWS: Commissioners, I'd like to make a clarification. The Land Development Code for residential zoning has a six-foot high limit. The conditional use is in the process to exceed the LDC requirements. It's not a variance, per se, or a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, the applicant's volunteering to put a higher fence and you're saying we can't stipulate that to be -- MR. BELLOWS: There's a height limit of six feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a height limit of six feet. So we can't stipulate that the -- MR. BELLOWS: It's not a PUD. It's not -- you can't get a variance through a conditional use process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then how are we discussing any of Page 42 April 20, 2006 this then? I mean, everything here we're talking about -- MR. BELLOWS: You can add more to buffer widths, but you can't add to a height of a fence. That's like adding to the height of a building. There's a maximum height limit. We have a variance process to exceed the height limits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, would you comment on this, please? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, yes, there is a variance procedure to exceed the height. I don't know if we have -- so there's another procedure for that. And yes, generally conditional uses are limited by code requirements. There's a provision in the code that talks about reasonable, you know, stipulations and safeguards. And I don't know how staff has interpreted that. But these things are supposed to follow the code. I think the stipulations and safeguards come in when there's a hole in the code. And also, there is a limit on that, and there is another process to go above that limit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: May I ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, let me have -- you wanted to comment before Bruce? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, the section that you were requiring them to put the fence in allows eight feet. So the point is now here you're saying you have to build a fence according to this section. We're kind of saying well, maybe we're going to back away from that. But that section allowed an eight-foot fence as a maximum height. MR. ANDERSON: And also, I would point out for the record that the eight-foot height was requested by the neighbors and agreed to by my client. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce and Ray, as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to continue as I have been, and if the planning commission Page 43 April 20, 2006 recommends it and somebody wants to challenge it on up the chain, let them do it. The eight-foot high fence -- number three will read the eight-foot high fence must be provided along the subj ect property lines and will continue. Striking-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Will that be concrete? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No concrete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why, if you look at number three, when I said the eight-foot high fence, I was deleting the words masonry wall and per LDC Section 5.03.02.E.2. Those elements will be deleted from that number three. Number four will remain as provided. Number five will be combined with number one, as previously discussed. We'll add a number six that the applicant will provide complete ownership information by the time it gets to the Board of County Commissioners. And we'll add number seven that the supplemental landscaping as presented today will be incorporated into the conditional use criteria by the time that it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. Those are the notes that I had. If the motion maker and the second agree to those notes as amendments to the staffs recommendations, I'd certainly like to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will accept them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein accepted the recommendations. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to be -- I apologize for being a little slow here today, but you mentioned something about that maybe these things are doing it. Six-foot high masonry fence, you're not including it or you are including it? Page 44 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, eight-foot high. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I'm sorry. But you don't care -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not a masonry fence, just a fence. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a fence -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- could be chainlink. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's what I wanted to have clear. Take this out. I'll go along with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The motion maker and the second accepted the clarification of the staff recommendations to the motion. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'd just like to remind everybody to turn in their conditional use reports. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I only have the one that says Page 45 April 20, 2006 chairman. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's all I've got, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Me, too. Let's take a minute and fill that out and we'll move on. (A short break was taken.) Item #8B PETITION: RZ-2005-AR-8483 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move on to the next advertised public hearing. It's for Petition RZ-2005-AR-8483, Michael Arbitman, Trustee of Land Trust UAD, and it's for the Tivoli office building rezone along Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. All those wishing to be testifying on behalf, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any disclosures? Hearing none, we'll move on. Oh, I spoke to Clay Brooker. Clay, I forgot what project it was I spoke to you about. It was this one here. I was what, 1,000 miles away when we talked, so I think -- MR. BROOKER: I hope that doesn't mean our discussion was meaningless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. F or the record, I went over it with you and a representative of your applicant some of my concerns about the applications on this particular proj ect. And we'll address those today. Thank you. It's all yours. MR. BROOKER: Thank you. For the record, my name is Clay Brooker. I'm with the law firm Page 46 April 20, 2006 ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson. I'm here on behalf of the contract purchasers of this property, Doctors Rahim and Hussain. With me, our development team, if you will, our rezone team, is agent for the contract purchasers, David Bartley of Bartley Realty Services; Laura Spurgeon, our planner, from Johnson Engineering; and Arnold Kenly from AKDM design. He's our traffic engineer. As you know, I've placed on ELMO here an aerial, color aerial. You can see the property location there. It is approximately 2.2 acres located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The owner of the property is Dr. Michael Arbitman, as trustee. He has in fact signed the application and has given us authority to proceed on his behalf. The current zoning is agriculture, as is most of the zoning to the south, east and west. We are here to propose a zoning of C-l , commercial one. The property is unimproved currently. To the north of the property across Veterans Memorial Boulevard as you see there is the Mediterra PUD. As I mentioned, the proposal today is to rezone to C-l. And this proposal simply is attempting to bring the zoning of the property consistent with the land use designation and the growth management plan. Back in October of 2004, the county amended the growth management plan, the future land use map, to create a subdistrict on this very parcel. That subdistrict is entitled the Livingston Road-Veterans Memorial Boulevard commercial infill subdistrict. That particular language I'll put up on ELMO for you. This is a current copy out of the future land use element. We're looking at the top of the page, paragraph nine. This -- if you read through that language there, basically what this subdistrict allows is those office uses, medical uses and financial institutions permitted by right, and by conditional use in the C-l district as that district existed Page 47 April 20, 2006 at the time of the growth management plan amendment. There is a maximum of 50,000 square feet of building area. I've circled the 50,000 number; a maximum height of three stories and 35 feet; and the last sentence of the subdistrict is that access is restricted only. So access to the property is only by Veterans Memorial Boulevard, not by Livingston Road. Again, our proposal today is designed to be exactly consistent with that language. You did see, I believe, in the package a conceptual site plan. It is one rendition of what may be able to go on the property, given -- if the rezone is approved by the county ultimately. The traffic issue generated by this -- by that particular conceptual site plan was found to be consistent with the transportation element of the growth management plan. That particular TIS or traffic impact statement that was included in the submittal was based upon the conceptual site plan configuration of 21,780 square feet of office. I know Mark's going to correct me. It was based upon 21,600 square feet of office and 5,000 square feet of medical/dental office. And obviously we are found to be well within, based upon that configuration, that use on the property. Weare found to be well within the three percent threshold in the transportation element. We have since run a number of scenarios of other configurations on the property. That supplemental traffic data has in fact been supplied to transportation staff and planning staff. We even ran -- amongst these uses as permitted in the subdistrict, the most intense traffic generator was a medical/dental office. We ran the hypothetical granddaddy of them all, 50,000 square feet of medical/dental office, which by the way we can't put on this property, because it requires too many parking spaces. Just can't do it. But we wanted to try to create a worst case scenario and alleviate any concern in that regard. And we are still well within or under the three percent threshold. Page 48 April 20, 2006 We did, on January 12th of this year, hold the neighborhood information meeting, as required by the Land Development Code. It was quite lonely. No offense to the development team or the planning staff that were there, but no one else showed up. The staff report recommends approval. As you've seen, it does have some conditions at the end, all of which relate to the site development plan stage. Weare in agreement with all of those conditions, and we would ask that you recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. I'm available to try to answer any questions, or have any of our development team answer any of your questions, and would like to reserve any time if there are public speakers to rebut or respond accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there questions from the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, I do. Let me start out. You said that you ran the worst case scenario? MR. BROOKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The worst case scenario was some kind of office structure? MR. BROOKER: It was an office structure with the use of medical/dental being placed inside that office building, the commercial use of a building, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I remember I spoke to you last week about some of these issues, and forgive me if I forget. I sometimes do that. The uses that you chose as the most intense, I thought day care was a use allowed in a C-l zoning district. Would that be allowed on this site? Does anybody know? Staff? MR. BROOKER: I can respond to that, if you will. The subdistrict is very particular, the language is very particular as to what the uses are permitted. It's not just an open C-l zoning. It's office, Page 49 April 20, 2006 medical dental and financial institutions, as permitted in the C-l. So we're not here asking for every single C-l use that may be permitted in the Land Development Code. We are in fact limiting ourselves to that subdistrict, because that is the law. No matter what you say here today, the subdistrict language is going to govern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So under that -- and I haven't read that overlay, but then you're telling us that child care or day care is not included in that overlay. MR. BROOKER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice you submitted your site plan. This is straight zoning, so the site plan is irrelevant, if I'm not mistaken. You're not bound by the site plan; is that correct, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got staff questions. Let me see if I have any more of you. COMMISSIONER CARON: While he's looking, under conditional use, you're saying you couldn't come back and ask for a day care, for example? MR. BROOKER: No, we could not. Because the language of the subdistrict specifically limits it to office, medical or financial as permitted, or by conditional use. So we are limited to office, medical and financial institutions. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Clay, if you've supplied the information that you indicated on transportation to staff, then my remaining questions will be of staff. So thank you. If there's no other questions of Clay, we'll ask staff for their presentation. MR. BROOKER: Thank you. MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. As noted in the staff report, we are recommending approval, subject to the conditions that you have in the staff report. Page 50 April 20, 2006 I would like to make some corrections in the rezone findings. I made some errors there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You talked to Clay, didn't you? The inconsistency in transportation I bet will be one. MS. VALERA: Yes. On page number one, and in the first consideration, the first line it says the comprehensive planning department has indicated that the proposed PUD -- the word PUD shouldn't be there, it's just a rezone, a straight rezone. Condition number six, again the first line refers to a PUD document. This is to refer to the Land Development Code. And condition number 17 is to be consistent, not inconsistent with the transportation element of the GMP. I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, I've got a couple. You've cleared up most of them, so let me thumb through here real quick and see -- the 26,780 square feet, I believe it is, that they're asking for, are they limited to that square footage by this rezone? MS. VALERA: They're not limited, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. So they could fit more if the property could take more in some manner. MS. VALERA: Within the constraints of, yes, what the Land Development Code will require. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you in your professional review taken a look and seen how practical it is to add much more to it; or what's your thought on that? MS. VALERA: Well, I've thought about it. There's a height limitation, there's also the setbacks, parking requirements, preserve requirements, and it would be very tough to cap the site with the 50,000. I don't think it's possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under your staff Page 51 April 20, 2006 recommendations, number two, I'm trying to understand where it came from. It says, at the time of SDP review all unit or suite numbers shall be approved by the Collier County addressing department. Is that required by the code? MS . VALERA: I'm not sure. And it is a condition that the addressing department requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling. There's a separate ordinance, I don't have it with me, that deals with addressing issues, and I think it's probably required by that ordinance, that they be assigned address -- numbers for purposes of addressing. MR. SCHMITT: It's redundant and it can be removed. It's already required as part of code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's why I was wondering, because I don't want to get into recommendations if we don't have to that are redundant. We'd be doing this for pages then. So strike number two? MR. SCHMITT: Since we're on recommendations, they would defrock me with the spelling of Corps, here, C-O-R-P-S. They'd dock my retirement pay. It's not Army Corp., it's Army Corps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're sure? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If anybody was an authority, sir, I bet it would be you. That's all the questions I have. MR. SCHMITT: I'm amazed I missed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all the questions I have, Carolina, thank you. Does anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, are there any publics Page 52 April 20, 2006 speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion on this matter? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-8483 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, second by Commissioner Murray. Discussion. I would just suggest that we would -- staff recommendations are one, three and four. Two is being struck. Is that in agreement with the motion maker and the second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So agreed. Any other discussion by planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, recommend by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 53 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you. And with that, we will take a 10-minute break to gather coffee and other things we may need. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bring the meeting back to order. Item #8C PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-8561 Next item on today's agenda is Petition PUDZ-2005-AR-8561, the BRB Development LLC. It's a rezone from C-l/C-3 to CPUD. All those people wishing to testify at today's meeting, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. I have to slow down in my talking. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the planning commission? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I visited the site and attended the NIM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? I had meetings with the homeowners association, several individuals with that group. We discussed the uses on the property. And everything we discussed in that meeting will be discussed here today. Anything -- nobody else? Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, would the applicant prepare to make a presentation. Mr. Y ovanovich, I'm sure, is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today is Bob Soudan, who is the contract purchaser for the property; Wayne Arnold, the planner for the project; and Dean Page 54 April 20, 2006 Smith, civil engineer who can address traffic questions or engineering related questions regarding the project. On the visualizer is an aerial of the property. It's outlined in yellow. It's the existing Naples Dinner Theatre property on the comer of Cypress Way East and Piper Boulevard, just to the west of Airport Road and Immokalee Road. The property is approximately 3.2 acres. It's located in activity center one. The existing zoning on the property is C-l and C-3. Several years ago Mr. Julius Fisk, who was the original developer of the Naples Dinner Theatre, became ill and his daughter Sandy Fisk realized that the zoning had changed on the property and had gone to C-l, which would no longer allow the dinner theatre to operate on the property. It had closed for a while, as many people know. So it was no longer a legal nonconforming use. So what we did was we rushed through a zoning petition to get the dinner theatre back in good graces zoning-wise. So what we did is we went straight zoning. The only zoning category that would allow the dinner theatre was a C-3 use. So if you look at the existing zoning, you'll see we have the C-l plus the dinner theatre as the existing zoning. We had to do that because we didn't have time to do a PUD and go through all of the different uses that would be allowed in the C-3 zoning. Interestingly, what happened, as we were going through the rezone process some people tried to suggest that we should have all the C-3 uses. We had not discussed that with the neighbors, so the neighbors naturally became a little concerned. I said we're not asking for that right now; all we really want to do is preserve the dinner theatre. Please don't give me all the C-3 uses, just give me the dinner theatre use right now. So that's how we arrived at the zoning at that time, because it was important to get the dinner theatre approved before Mr. Fisk passed Page 55 April 20, 2006 away. We did that and shortly thereafter, you know, he passed away, and they reopened up the dinner theatre. It's been in business for the past several years. The building is getting old, it's tired, it really needs to be replaced, and the dinner theatre is really not a viable use economically on the property any longer. Mr. Soudan has the property under contract. The PUD is in front of the planning commission. We had our neighborhood information meeting. We received a lot of feedback from the individuals who attended the neighborhood information meeting. We also met with some of the representatives of the homeowners association. And we have revised the PUD document to address many of the concerns raised by the residents at the neighborhood information meeting and the homeowners association. We took out fast food, which was something that nobody wanted. We took that use out. We took out some of the retail uses and have left in what we believe are less intense retail uses, including a sit-down restaurant, currently being proposed for the site. We don't know that we're going to put one in there, but we'd like to have that flexibility . One of the questions that was raised is we were saying, listen, we want to do indoor self storage on the property similar to the indoor self storage we've done on Pine Ridge Road and on Golden Gate Parkway. I think everybody's familiar with those two projects. I think you can see that they're clean users, low traffic generators, they're not 24-hour operations, there's no outdoor storage. People say we don't -- I got the sense from the public that that was not an issue. But the question became, well, how do we know that that's actually going to happen on-site, because we asked for 163,000 square feet, which we can't fit unless we do indoor self storage. Page 56 April 20, 2006 And we thought about it. And I haven't had a chance to discuss this with staff, but I hope there won't be an issue. But what we'd like to do is make a revision to the PUD document that will require that we do a minimum of 100,000 square feet of indoor self storage. So people -- we have an obligation to do that, we know it will be a low traffic generator, it's in the PUD that says we have to do that, and that we would be allowed a maximum of20,000 square feet of the other uses. So we couldn't do an entire retail office PUD, we would have to do indoor self storage as the major component of the project. Because that's what we intend to do. And we wanted to provide that assurance. Because even though we said it, that we were going to do it, the PUD document didn't clearly obligate us to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me understand what you're saying so it's real clear, because we're going to have a lot of questions. You're now saying that instead of the 155,000 square feet of storage, you're guaranteeing a minimum of 100,000 square feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that instead of the six to 7,000 square foot of office, you put on an additional 20,000 square foot of office? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the actual six to 7,000 square feet is not correct. What we said was that was -- what we talked about is what's the potential on the remainder of the property? At the neighborhood information meeting. And we had laid out a potential footprint of a building of six to 7,000 feet. If you went three stories that would be 21,000 square feet for the building. So somehow the staff report says six or 7,000 square feet. That's not the numbers we talked about at the neighborhood information meeting. So we never guaranteed that. We talked about -- the issue was what was going to happen on the remainder of the property, and we said well, right now we're in discussions with the bank and an Page 57 April 20, 2006 office -- you know, an office developer. We think that's what's going to happen but that could fall apart. We want to have flexibility to put other uses on there. So that was the discussion. So what we wanted to do, and I think what this provision does is assures people we're going to have the dinner -- the indoor self storage, and it assures them that there's going to be a maximum of 20,000 square feet of other uses on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the minimum self storage now is -- you're pegging that at 100,000. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the minimum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Your maximum has not changed from the 155? MR. YOV ANOVICH: One-sixty-three is the maximum overall square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So at the maximum, we could do 143 -- if we could park it we could theoretically do 143,000 square feet -- actually, we can do 163,000 square feet of indoor self storage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And nothing else. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And nothing else if we wanted to. Or we could do 20,000 square feet of other uses and a maximum of 143,000 square feet of indoor self storage, or any combination never exceeding the 20,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you're saying. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. We'd like to also add a provision that would basically allow the Naples Dinner Theatre to continue in operation so it doesn't become an improper use when the rezoning is approved, assuming it's approved, until June 1, 2008. It doesn't mean it's going to stay in operation until then, but it would give us an opportunity to get through the permitting process. Page 58 April 20, 2006 And if we end up extending the Naples Dinner Theatre at least another year, we'd have the ability to do that, as we're going through the permitting process to get the other uses permitted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you own the property at that point? Would the sale have been consummated, or -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's an interesting -- it's a lease purchase. We will be the landlord at that time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're leasing back. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, to the dinner theatre. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And right now it's only contemplated that it will go through till May '07, but, you know, it would give us the flexibility, if it took us a little bit longer, to permit the project, to add another year. We agree with the staff recommendations and we're available to answer any questions you may have regarding the PUD and the proj ect as a whole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just am a little frustrated, confounded sometimes. I read in the staff report 163,000. I read in the BRB Development CPUD rezone petition doc. 150,000. And then further down in the clean doc. it says 163,000 again. Why -- if we have a so-called clean doc., why would we still have the original rezone petition so as to create those questions? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, when we were looking at our TIS and trying to figure out, you know, kind of a worst case scenario, we had modeled 150,000 square feet of indoor self storage, with the remainder being office. And then we also, if you look at the TIS, you'll see we did 32,000 square feet of retail, which was kind of what we thought we could fit on the property. So in doing a traffic analysis, we looked at the worst case scenario. And if you'll see when you read the TIS, you'll recognize we Page 59 April 20, 2006 didn't even take any credit for the existing traffic generated on the site right now. So we did a very conservative traffic analysis as to the potential impact of the project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand you -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's where the numbers -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not arguing with you. But I want you to note that it does say the following: the BRB Development commercial planned unit development proposes a maximum of 150,000 square feet of commercial land use on 3.2 acres. Now, that's the old document -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can you tell me what page you're on? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's on -- well, you don't have it paginated, so I don't know. But it's at the beginning -- it's right after the legal description. It's -- well, you don't have it paginated, so it's hard for me to relate to you. But it's after the disclosure of information, and then the BRB Development -- I don't want to make a big deal out of this and I'm not taking issue with you. I'm more concerned with when I read something and I ask myself which one should I give credence to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If there's an inconsistency, and I believe you that there is, we'll correct that to show the 163. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, we are clear that it's 163 that's the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the maximum number. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, most of my questions will be of the staff, involving the staff report. I think we're going to find on the rezone findings we have some of the same issues we had on the previous one, because it does read differently than what the staff report does. Page 60 April 20, 2006 But I have to ask you, in the BRB Development LLC, percentage of ownership is not provided, at least I couldn't find it. Did you have that -- do you know who the entities are? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can you tell us, Bob, the -- what's the percentage? In the document, the three individuals are the same, but it's 33 and a third percent each. Bob Soudan, Sr., Bob Soudan, Jr. and Rick Hillshire (phonetic) is the third person, each at 33 and a third percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could the County Attorney's office make sure that this issue is clarified by the next meeting -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, we will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if we're supposed to have the individuals, so we know for conflict of interest purposes who those are? That would be very helpful. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, we will. And I think we need to provide some direction to staff that when they have an application come in, that they need to make sure that they obtain that information. And they also need to check before an item comes to hearing if they haven't, if it's not in there, and we will work with them to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the Naples Dinner Theatre, Limited, one of the partners is listed as Anderson Fisk Partners, Limited. Again, no individuals associated with that name. I doubt if there's a conflict on my behalf, without even knowing it. I don't recognize the name. But I would think it needs to be clarified before it gets to the BCC. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It does say that, and it looks a little confusing. If you look under limited partner, it talks about Finway Trust, and the beneficiaries are Richard Fisk and Paul Fisk on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's in reference to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: To the limited partnership, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hopefully that clarifies that. Page 61 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a -- the rest of my questions will be of transportation and staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're not discussing, you want a deviation of the perimeter landscape requirement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. That we agree with. What we're going to do is, because of the doors obviously for the indoor self storage, we will take the landscaping and supplement, not use it as part of the minimum requirement, but supplement the landscaping requirements for the project. And I believe staff is fine with that. And if you need any detailed discussion, we can talk about that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, if you look at the -- you have an exhibit that's called foundation planning deviation exhibit, from Q. Grady Minor. And just, Wayne, comparing it with your Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you may need to bring the speaker closer, please. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Comparing it with your Exhibit A, I think what you're trying to show is that this is where the perimeter landscaping has been spread out. But first of all, that little bit of strip on that parking down the front, that doesn't jive with Exhibit A. Exhibit A kind of shows the buffer coming up to that paved area. So which one of those do you think would be right? MR. ARNOLD: What we did on the -- hi, for the record, I'm Wayne Arnold. For the buffer exhibit, what we did was look at realistic parking in front of the building. And what we tried to do was displace this perimeter foundation planting area in front of the building primarily and in other areas what would make the most impact for hiding what's considered a tall building in Collier County because of the wall Page 62 April 20, 2006 height. We're maintaining a 20- foot wide buffer along Piper Boulevard that's required because we're in the activity center. And the small strip that exists there was really just a few feet left over that we could actually put some additional supplemental planting between the physical parking and the landscape buffer and try to get a little more credit for that as well, in front of the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exhibit A doesn't show that there is any more area there, so -- MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- between Exhibit A and the deviation, which one's correct? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think the deviation becomes part of the PUD packet. The conceptualized master plan is different, and I think you'll find the note that staff was comfortable with it. It basically says, you know, this is the general area we're planting this. I don't think it requires that we plant it exactly in this manner, but staff wanted to see generally where this deviated planting area could be accomplished on the site. One of the things that, just as an aside, I mentioned to Mike Sawyer, your landscape architect before the meeting, it talks about meeting the minimum. One of the requests they had for us was supplementing the western buffer, for instance, the 10-foot wide buffer, with more landscaping to help on the western side, on the left of your exhibit there, supplementing that buffer, for instance, with more material to help hide the building. Because we have the Eye Center of Florida building that's to our west, but it sits a little further back. So there could be some visibility from Piper Boulevard of the building. Impractical to put the landscaping adjacent to the building itself so we were going to push some of that into the buffer, but achieve more than the minimum. And I think staff is fine with that as well. Page 63 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this exhibit that's now on the monitor, that's showing landscape that would be in addition to what would be required? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there would not be a buffer required on the western boundary. MR. ARNOLD: Well, there is a buffer required, but it's a minimum Type A buffer. And what staffhas said is work with us and put some taller trees and some additional opacity in that buffer to help hide the taller wall that you have. Because under the -- if you exceed 35 feet in height for a wall in Collier County now for a commercial building, you're required to put a continuous 15-foot perimeter foundation planting around it. Except for probably a typical office building, it's a pretty impractical situation to be in because you have so many potential openings and exits and you get to subtract those. But when you start looking at traffic circulation and putting in a two- foot wide strip that's 15- foot deep around your building, it's really impractical. And I think we could get more benefit by putting this landscaping on the front and side of the building where there's visibility from the traffic. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The island to the east then, that would not be required to be landscaped, or you're going to upgrade the landscape? MR. ARNOLD: That island that's shown there to the east that separates the two development areas is something that we put in to help really separate the storage use from the potential other use on the site, and it's a wider than typical island. It's not required necessarily by code, depending on the final configuration of the parking itself, but it's another area where there could be visibility and help shield some of the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks. Page 64 April 20, 2006 MR. ARNOLD: And we did some -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to be absolutely clear for me, please, the crosshatching represents additional landscaping, and the dashed line opposed to the boundary line, property boundary line, still continues to represent the setbacks and the normal vegetation that would be there; is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, while you're up here, in the PUD document the maximum height is stated as three stories not to exceed a zoned height of 45 feet. What is actual height going to be? MR. ARNOLD: Actually height's probably going to be very close to that. We are -- the building for instance that's at Pine Ridge, we were -- we kept that at three stories, not to exceed 42 feet. I don't think that, while the buildings are going to be similar, we haven't specifically designed it. We've essentially given ourselves a couple of extra feet to play with in terms of roof line, parapet, whatever the case may be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this says you could have a zoned height 45 feet, so you could have a usable height of 45 feet. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And without a limitation on actual height, you could add another 45 feet on top of it of facade. So why don't we just peg the number and get it done so we know what the real height is going to be. MR. ARNOLD: Why don't I talk to Mr. Soudan and I can get back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoever is going to speak has to come to the microphone, unless you're going to address the issue, or somebody else. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold again. Page 65 . ."_._^"'--~-----""-----""-'----'-"-~"'--'''-'''''''-''-''."-""'''-,' .,,~ -. ""-.""'.,-_..,--,___ Tt I April 20, 2006 Mr. Soudan indicated that his zoned height could be his actual height. So we could put in there -- we could change the zoned height to actual height. Because I think that would be the reference in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I understand that. You're going to put a septic treatment plant on that site? MR. ARNOLD: Not intending to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then 2.9.A.3 can be struck? MR. ARNOLD: I'll go to that page. But is that the general reference to permitted uses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yes. I don't think you want a-- that anybody would want a temporary sewage treatment plant there. MR. ARNOLD: We don't, but I'll tell you the reason that that is in there, and that's some fairly standard language that we use. But if you decided to go ahead and put a construction trailer, sales facility of some sort, you have your own containment or temporary sewage facility. I think it was -- this all began as really because of some potential conflict we had with the temporary use section of the LDC and how these temporary holding facilities and things were viewed. It's probably unnecessary in this case, and I don't think there'd be an objection to striking that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I made a note under recommendations that we might consider striking it. Wayne, are you representing the TIS portion of to day's meeting for your applicant, or is there somebody else going to be doing that? MR. ARNOLD: No, I'm not. Dean Smith from our office would be able to answer any questions you had regarding the TIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is now an appropriate time to talk to Mr. Smith, or -- I guess as good as any, huh? MR. ARNOLD: Certainly. MR. SMITH: Good morning. For the record, my name is Dean Page 66 April 20, 2006 Smith with Grady Minor and Associates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Morning, Mr. Smith. MR. SMITH: I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. I'm going to have some of our own transportation staff, but it was my understanding that when you do a TIS, you're supposed to do it under the worst case scenario to show that if you got everything you asked for and then you decided to build maximum most intense use of everything you asked for to the maximum square footage you could, then we see what could happen to the roads as a result of that. You use shopping center 820 as your ITE land use code, and that has a formula 3.4 equation, a rate formula, but yet you're getting uses, or you're applying or asking for uses such as grocery stores which are four times the shopping center use of 820 for your rate equation. And banks are 10 times, for drive-through banks. So how do you justify the TIS in the way you did it? MR. SMITH: Well, what we tried to do with the TIS, from the beginning the plan has been to develop it with a large portion of the site being the indoor storage. And I understand your concern about the lack of limitations on that that were in the original request, but we knew that they were going to be developing the site for storage uses. And the main trip generation calculation that we included in the report was with that intent, with the 150,000 square feet of indoor storage and 13,000 of other uses, in addition to that, which was representative of the proposed project, in my mind. The trip generation calculation that I was using for the maximum was the land use code 820, the shopping center code, with the maximum developable square footage that we saw for the site of 32,000 square feet. That still is the highest combination that I've come up with. I've been working back and forth with Nick Casalanguida in the transportation division to do a number of other development Page 67 April 20, 2006 scenarios, including the storage site with an office building that includes a bank. It still generated less once all the pass-by traffic was considered. That combination was slightly less than the 32,000 square feet of land use code 820, when I ran the calculations. Once pass-by traffic was accounted for, the straight retail use generated 177 trips in the P.M. peak hour. With the combination of the storage, bank and office uses, it was 171. So it's comparable, it's just slightly less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, it's interesting you relied on pass-by traffic to the extent you did. The ITE percentage that you use, 40 percent for pass-by traffic, is equivalent to a convenience store type of pass-by traffic criteria, yet I notice that you didn't use the formula, the rate calculation for convenience stores you used for shopping centers. A shopping center pass-by traffic is generally between 25 and 30 percent from my reading of ITE, so how did you get to the 40 percent? MR. SMITH: Well, it's -- various percentages have been accepted by the local agencies here in the area, in Collier and Lee. But the software that we used to calculate the trip generation calculation also provides us with a pass-by calculation which was in excess of what we were calculating for that use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, by using the formula rate of a shopping center and a pass-by rate of 40 percent you've taken the best of all worlds to come out with a scenario to where you're at. Do you have any concerns if there was some recommendation limiting the number of trips generated by any combination of uses on this proj ect so that we would be assured that the most intense uses are reflected in this particular TIS? MR. SMITH: From a traffic standpoint, I would not have a concern, because I know that wasn't planned for the site. And with the additional conditions that were discussed by Mr. Y ovanovich that the actual traffic generation from the project that would be proposed and Page 68 April 20, 2006 developed would be below those levels. I'm confident of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the rest of my concerns on the traffic, I guess I'm going to have concurrence with our own transportation department in order to formulate some plan. MR. SMITH: And in addition to that, Mr. Strain, Mr. Y ovanovich touched on it very briefly, but we hayen't taken any reduction for the existing use in terms of projecting the traffic volumes on the surrounding network. So there hasn't been any reduction for the existing traffic that's on the backbone system from the dinner theatre itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is not generally peak hour. MR. SMITH: Well, during the p.m. peak hour it is. They open in time and their clientele tend to get there early for the buffet. So I just didn't have any data to base it on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I don't have -- Mr. Schiffer I think's got a question for you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's for Rich. And it's hours of operation of the warehouse, the mini-storage. 24 hours, probably? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, we don't allow 24-hour operation as a rule. Rarely, and I don't think ever so far in Naples have we actually given somebody access to their unit beyond the normal business hours. We do have the flexibility to do that, but the general -- people generally don't have access to their unit other than when the office is open. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question, I mean, I've designed some of these, and I've always put a caretaker's cottage in it and found that to be successful for the operation. Is that something you considered? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We haven't. We haven't asked for it and we haven't considered that. I've tried to encourage -- I rent one of the units, I've asked for satellite TV, but I haven't been able to get that added. Page 69 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, there's two reasons: One is there's better control. And the second thing is it does provide an affordable housing unit for somebody who will probably need one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- I think if you've seen or visited the two operations, we're not -- security-wise we've got cameras all over the place, they're very safe, they're very secure. And we really haven't found a need to include a residence for the manager or the person who's going to run the place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now we move to the staffreport. Thank you. MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. As noted in the staff report, staff is recommending approval of this PUD, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. I want to note also that on Page 3 of the rezone findings, condition number 17, again I have inconsistent, it should read consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew you were going to say that, Carolina. Is that the end of your report? MS. VALERA: Yes. I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, Carolina, discussing the perimeter landscaping requirement, would it be better to talk to Mike about it? MS. VALERA: I'll try to answer you. And Mike is here if I can't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what's shown on the Page 70 ..."-~""---'"--,-_.__._---~._---,--,--_. . .,,, .--"...-'-.---_._...M.~_..__~___~_.,_._~.."........'n'''.'__ U..l ___..,.,.".." April 20, 2006 screen is what they intend to do. And I guess what they're saying is they're going to beefup some -- at least the western buffer, which would be required. They're going to add something to it and consider that. But wouldn't the requirement be that the total perimeter have landscape all the way around it? MS. VALERA: Yes, there are two requirements: There is the requirement for the perimeter buffer, which is just, you know, on the subject property, you know, the outlines of the subject property; and then we have the requirements for the foundation planting, which is around the building. What they are deviating from is the requirement for the foundation plantings all around the building. They have some concerns that they cannot have all the plantings in all the facades of the building. And we figured that because of the height -- the proposed height and the uses around, it would be more appropriate to have that foundation planting be displaced to the required -- in addition to the required buffers in the perimeter of the property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my confusion is, what this says is approximately 50 percent of the building perimeter. What do you think that means? MS. VALERA: It is the foundation planting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it required on approximately 15 percent? Or what does that note mean on that drawing? In other words, when you calculated the total foundation planting required, that was taking 15 feet all the way around the building. MS. VALERA: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then this thing in parentheses means what? MS. VALERA: I'm sorry, I don't have that page in front of me right now. Page 71 . '~"__._". _,~~~__'.'._a_'U~"""___~""_40__.",._._,,_..-_~~____......._.~....""_....,_ April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm not a big fan of perimeter foundation planting. I fought it when it came through. I mean, I was the only vote against it. I remember the meeting over at the health department we had. I tried to lay down in front of that train, because nobody presented any documents from the landscape department showing what it meant. It was noted as fiscally -- there would be no fiscal issues, and there was massive fiscal issues. But the problem is, I mean, who can waive it and who can't is my problem. There's a lot of people that have designed using it. And the code says what the code says. MS. VALERA: Right, absolutely. It is a requirement of the code. As part of the PUD process, staff agrees that we need more vegetation in the perimeter, more than around the building. So as part of this process, not -- and that is why it's a deviation from the Land Development Code. In regards to what happens in the everyday review of the landscaping for the other properties, I don't know. But with regards to this process, this PUD, we thought it would be more appropriate to have more additional plantings in the perimeters of the property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could I ask Mike some questions? MS. VALERA: Sure. MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Senior Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, so what this would require, I mean, would be 15 feet, which essentially would be the depth of the buffer that's in that on the way this is oriented, the northern jog part. That's a 15-foot buffer, right? MR. SAWYER: Yeah, the requirement for the building foundation is, on a large tall building like this, would be to do as you were saying, 15 feet continuously around the building itself, except for points of ingress and egress. Page 72 _._--"._-,"",,,,,.,--_..__.,.,-,.,-..-,,--'--~,...... '~--'-'-'-' ..,,-~ "--"".".~" '.'-'"''''-~''''-''"''''''' , April 20, 2006 Now, in this type of building, that gets very difficult to determine because you've got a lot of ingress into the building because of the overhead doors. And so what we're trying to do with this particular PUD is reach some sort of building foundation situation planting area that addresses as best we can what the building type is and trying to get that building -- you know, the facade of the building brought down or solvent, if you will, from the more public areas around the site. So in other words, mostly along Immokalee Road and views into the building both, you know, right directly onto the site, as well as from the side. So that's why we're recommending that the one buffer to the west get -- that actual buffer would only be required to be a Type A, which is one tree every 30 feet, that's it. Here we're recommending that that actually get increased. That would get some screening material that would actually, again, soften the view of the building of those overhead doors from that direction. And then also certainly beefing it up to the south as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the reason why you're not recommending it on that northern thing for the residences? MR. SAWYER: That's already required to be a B buffer already, so we've already got trees, one every 25 feet and a five-foot hedge going through there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron. MR. SAWYER: I'm sorry. I apologize, I misspoke. They're also doing a Type B buffer in that location. According to zoning, that would only be a Type A buffer. That's been increased voluntarily to a Type B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute, before you -- on that one thought, you're not -- it says in the PUD, a required Type A buffer along the northern boundary will be supplemented to meet the opacity of a Type B. But they're not putting a Type B in, they're Page 73 April 20, 2006 putting a Type A in. That's what the PUD-- MR. SAWYER: Yeah, the Type A is being supplemented with the plantings that relate to a Type B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a Type B because of the width, is that -- MR. SAWYER: Correct. We still get the opacity of a Type B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's perfectly fine. Having to do strictly with the foundation plantings. A question, having -- these are not necessarily directly adjacent to the building, I mean, directly right by the building. Can they not be extended out further? Carolina knows what I'm referring to, I think. Do we not take a position that the plantings can be as far out as 10 or 15 feet and still considered to be foundation plantings? MR. SAWYER: Definitely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in that context, the variation will allow for a break-up of structure and create the look that we want to achieve. MR. SAWYER: Definitely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to be clear on that -- MR. SAWYER: Yeah. The requirement isn't to have the plantings necessarily right up against the facade of the building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which I think a lot of people think it is. MR. SAWYER: Right. Yet it's supposed to be close to that area. But we have to take into consideration that a lot of development, such as shopping centers and that sort of thing, strip centers have sidewalks that run along the building, in which case they're on the outside. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you for the clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Carolina, we have an actual height here now on this building of 45 feet. What are the heights of Page 74 ._-_.,-"-_...._-".,-'~<,._.,"~,..._.~"-,--.,,.<-"",~-"-""'""-'.'''-'''~-~''-'''~'''''''-"''" April 20, 2006 the buildings to either side? What's the Eye Center of Florida? MS. VALERA: Right. I'm not sure. I know it's one story. COMMISSIONER CARON: Does anybody know? MS. VALERA: And it's a flat building also. It's not a sloped roof it's -- , COMMISSIONER CARON: Nobody knows how high the condos are or how Piper Medical Center -- MS. VALERA: I know they're one story. But the exact height, I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Carolina? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Carolina, I've got questions -- oh, wait a minute, I do have one of you. I knew you couldn't get away that easy. Page 4 of eight of your report, the last -- second to the last sentence. It says, this request is essentially a lateral rezoning. What do you mean by that? I haven't seen that referenced that way before. MS. VALERA: It's the opinion of our comprehensive planning staff in regards to the type of uses. That is in their opinion that -- because what exists there is C- 3, and what is being sought -- the uses that are being sought in the PUD are C-3, then it is a lateral rezone. It is their opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason I'm pointing it out is what is there is C-l, with one use of a C-3 specifically for a dinner theatre. And I'm just wondering, I think it seems to be more than a lateral. Lateral in my terminology, I thought, would mean like to like. And this is I think less intense to more intense in some cases, and that's the reason I'm pointing it out. And on the next page, it starts on the page I just spoke about, the subject property is already zoned commercial and will be replacing its present commercial end uses with other commercial uses, given this CPUD. That's correct. But there are uses that potentially could go Page 75 ---"-''''''~'''''~'''''-"'''-'- .. ". -"--'--"-"'.'. .____m..__'.____.,._"._'_'____........______._,~____"" .. 1 April 20, 2006 there based on the C- 3 zoning, could be more intense than what's there right now. MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on that same question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't mini-storage be a C-5 zoning, though? MS. VALERA: Yes, it is. Self storages are only permitted in C-5 zoned properties. And that is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not exactly lateral then. MS. VALERA: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Carolina. I think whoever's going to represent transportation from the county, from our county, would be appropriate. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Division. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're nominated, huh? Does anybody want to start questions of Nick before I do? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, my first question is Immokalee Road, currently the county is working in the direction that conditional uses on roads that have difficult levels of service have to be either -- the road has to be either under contract -- or has to be under contract and funded. Is the Immokalee Road section that is below its adopted level of service in this area under contract and funded? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it is? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Under construction. And the portion to the east is under contract and starting construction right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's going to follow Page 76 April 20, 2006 through? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, that's been approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In previous meetings, Mr. Scott has told us that the most intense uses are the ones that should be utilized in the TIS. And you heard, I'm sure, my discussion with the gentleman earlier of Grady Minor and Associates over the different uses that I found and the rate equations that I referenced. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The redeveloper seems to come in using shopping center 820 because they just love that. And they also use pass-by at the highest percentage they can possibly get to. My question to him, the previous traffic consultant, was that if we limited the peak hour trips, 295, under any scenario that was used on that site, would that then effectively stop any additional intensity that could be produced on that site, even though they got C- 3 zoning that allows uses of much more intensity than the shopping center code? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you tied the trips into the uses, is that what you're asking, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you tied the trip generation, peak hour trips, into a fixed maximum for the site, regardless of what use or the square footage of what use they put on that site. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could be limiting what could be done based on that, p.m. peak direction trips, if you went that route, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if295 turns out to be an acceptable peak hour trip, and in our recommendations we limit it based on that, then we've in effect limited the impact on the road system and no hidden uses or no uses could be used higher than what the TIS that was supplied to us here today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The only variable would be you'd have to agree on the trip generation and pass-by and capture with Page 77 April 20, 2006 anything to do with that. So there's a little bit of a caveat that would go with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you bring up an interesting point. Pass-by rate of 40 percent, is that logical? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it's a little high. I think we -- what they mention, typically with something like this we would recommend 30 percent. But I discussed this with Dean yesterday, and also with Carolina. Two problems we had was that you had 163,000 square feet, and with Mr. Y ovanovich's comments limiting that specifically to the uses, that solved our situation that we ran across yesterday where you had a gross floor area versus a trip generation for 32,000. So I said it's got to be more specific than that. And Carolina and I discussed that yesterday. And then I had Mr. Smith from Q. Grady Minor run several scenarios for me and sent them to me yesterday evening all showing me worst case scenario. And he noted the 40 percent. Where we might consider 40 percent a little high, we also took into consideration there was an existing use on site, so we said that's fine for this review, because I wasn't concerned, because there were some trips already in the background. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I know you guys are swamped and you've got a lot of things going on. Before these TISs get to us, the questions that I ask -- I'm not a traffic engineer -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You do pretty good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'm taking stabs in the dark and I'm finding different requests -- different answers, I mean. Could you look at this in the light of some of the questions you're hearing here today -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so that maybe these issues are addressed before it gets to us? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We actually are. Page 78 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Especially the scenario with the pass-by rate being realistic, combinations like that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We discussed it yesterday with Carolina, but -- we already are. There are several other petitions that are starting to come through the preliminary stage of review. We've asked them to do two different things: One is to show, for instance, you mentioned general shopping center, to show the gross square footage. And then if you already have a defined use -- because a lot of these run concurrently with site development plans at the same time -- to show us the worst case scenario as well, too. We would use the worst case scenario for our analysis. So they're doing that. Although they won't commit to those scenarios because a lot of times they haven't even sold the outparcels yet. So they would say okay, we're shooting for a bank, a pharmacy, a Publix, so we'll put all those in there, but we can't commit to that because we haven't sold a building yet to those out-tenants. I said that's fine, that would give us worst case scenario. So we're working towards that goal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I kind of liked the idea of considering recommendations tying this to a peak hour generation total, regardless of the combination. I think that kind of closes the door on anybody slipping something through where they could expand to an intensity greater than what they put forth at this meeting. Anybody. So that might be one solution to it. And I also have another question. Are you familiar with the aerial of the site? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As you know, Cypress Way has a one-way connection onto Immokalee Road. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the main entrance is at the end Page 79 April 20, 2006 of Airport Pulling Road where it crosses Immokalee. Now, I have a dentist up in that Piper Boulevard building. I have to sit at that mess that's there quite frequently trying to get into that intersection. Are you intending to take out that bridge that extends Cypress Way over to Immokalee Road? And if so, how is that and what's that going to do to that intersection that is shallower, doesn't have a lot of stacking space north of Airport Pulling Road where it extends across? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Let me put this on the viewer, if I could. You're absolutely correct about the stacking space. What they're going to plan on doing as part of the Immokalee Road proj ect is widening that bridge to allow for more turns to come in, receive more and to expel more from that intersection. I reviewed that yesterday with Dale Bathon, our project manager. I anticipated there would be questions about that. There are also three other -- two other bridges, one to the east and one to the west that are to be signalized on Immokalee Road that will accommodate traffic as well, too. So as part of the design plans for Immokalee Road, that bridge is intended to be pulled out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you planning on widening a right lane, decellane on Piper Boulevard approaching that bridge from the west going to the east? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have those design plans at the intersection with me, sir, so I can't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would increase your stacking capability as you approach that intersection. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That airport bridge, that's correct, it would. I would imagine they are. Right now there's just two-way flow behind it. I have a copy of the intersection where Cypress Way would meet the area that the existing bridge is and putting a turn lane in Page 80 April 20, 2006 there to accommodate that, but I don't have any design plans that take me past that bridge in front of me, so I'd hate to make that comment without seeing the plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if the shopping center, the brand new one that's to the northeast of that crossing over the canal, has provided any additional right-of-way so you could put a stacking, a large stacking lane for a left turn going onto that bridge? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Approaching from -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the east going to the west. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't -- I think they have. I think we restricted them to ingress only on the crossover of the bridge. But I don't have those plans in front of me so I couldn't answer that question today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The key issue I think is going to be stacking -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- from both directions. And if you already have commitments to be able to do that somehow it sure would alleviate a lot of maybe concerns on the part of today's meeting. I don't suppose Mr. Scott knows any more about that than you. MR. SCOTT: I would like to -- Don Scott, Transportation Planning. Some of the issues you're talking about specifically are what we address in part of the site plan with the intersection analysis. But obviously you need to touch on some of the issues that we are taking the bridge out based on some design issues, and that is going to take -- is going to put more traffic at the existing bridge locations. And obviously we're talking about more traffic with this, too. Those are the type of issues we're looking at during site plan, and we can look at those as we go forward with the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any -- I'm more concerned about the stacking lanes. Do you know -- since you're in charge of the Page 81 April 20, 2006 planning section of the transportation department, have you got any plans to increase the stacking lanes approaching that double bridge that's there now? MR. SCOTT: Not that I've seen, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That bridge is fairly new. Are we going to tear it down and rebuild it again? MR. SCOTT: No, I think we're adding to it, not tearing it down. And it is fairly new, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you think of anything that could be done, requested from this developer today that would improve the traffic situation to that bridge? MR. SCOTT: Well, first of all, limiting the trips based on what mayor may not happen does help from that aspect of it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, without replacing that existing bridge that's there, as you mentioned, I think that would be an exorbitant cost to have them do it. I think when I spoke with Dale Bathon, the project manager, the concern of the existing bridge was that it was substandard, would have to be totally rebuilt and replaced and there wasn't a budget for that. So without putting in an additional bridge at -- not at the county's expense, at someone else's expense, at the existing one that's there would be the only way to alleviate additional trips at that intersection. I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't suggesting we request from the applicant to replace the bridge. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wish I would have thought of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was looking at other avenues to make sure that if there is something that can be done -- MR. SCOTT: I know, like right-of-way's an issue at the intersection, but they're not at the intersection. We would look at turn lanes into them as we go through the site plan process, and that also takes right-of-way. Page 82 April 20, 2006 Offhand we don't have anything in our back pockets that says yes, this would be what to put into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cypress Way East makes a left onto Piper Boulevard to approach the bridge to the east. Is there a stacking lane in the left turn -- a separate left turn stacking lane there? MR. SCOTT: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would one be effective if one was there? And if so, wouldn't you need the property that was on part of this C-l -- or C- 3 parcel to do that? MR. SCOTT: That would help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you -- it's like you're pulling teeth. You have an opportunity here to possibly make things better. Has anybody got a recommendation that would help? MR. SCOTT: Well -- and these are the issues that we deal with at site plan. If we need -- you know, we look at the intersection analysis during site planning and say yes, we need 12 feet from you to do these -- you know, or whatever. Obviously we get into disagreements at times when we're doing the issues as we go forward. But those are the type of issues that we try to get to work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Many times you have stated at these planning commission meetings requests for additional language that allows you the ability to request that. I don't see that here. Would that be something that should be added to today's meeting? MR. SCOTT: Would we appreciate it? Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're making my life difficult today, Don. MR. SCOTT: I know. I'd like to comment a little bit back on what was said about the analysis of -- and what we should require and what we can provide. Obviously we need some resistance with what we request, because they'll say hey, this is what the worst case is, and it's not always the Page 83 April 20, 2006 worst case. I believe we've touched on this before about updating the TIS. We've also talked about standards for pass-by, for internal capture. We think that's probably a way we'd like to go, but we've also had some resistance to that. I believe we'll directly have specific conversations about that where those issues can be addressed by both sides, us and applicants, because I think that is the way we need to go, ultimately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've adopted the seventh edition of the ITE. And in there they have specific recommendations for pass-by. Why don't we just go by what the book says instead of going by what people submit and request? I mean, obviously they're asking for the best of all scenarios; why don't we just limit it to more practical -- MR. SCOTT: Well, and the problem when we're talking about this level is not always exactly knowing what is going to be built. I mean, I know we had this discussion before with a property that was office, and they said well, maybe we'll turn it into medical/dental. Well, medical/dental is not going to have that kind of a pass-by that they're claiming, too. So every time you talk about a different use, it changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think you understand some of the direction here today, so maybe we can follow through with that. Is there any other questions on the transportation issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we've had applicant, we've had staff. If there's no other questions -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one more question to follow through with the applicant. Maybe Wayne Arnold can answer it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick and Don. We all Page 84 April 20, 2006 appreciate your time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Wayne, what it was on the deviation drawing you did. What does the 50 percent perimeter mean? MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold. The 50 percent is we estimated -- you exclude, as Mike Sawyer said, ingress and egress points into the building. And because they have garage type door openings around two full sides of that building and a partial on the east side of the building, we estimated that about 50 percent of the overall building perimeter would be excluded from that calculation anyway because of the ingress, egress points. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the number you're providing is the number with the exclusions. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The uses, though, prohibit garage doors. If you look at your permitted uses and structures -- MR. ARNOLD: Prohibits rollup garage doors. Metal rollup doors. They do not use metal rollup doors. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What do they use? MR. ARNOLD: They use panel type garage doors. They're not rolling type doors. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Carolina, maybe I'll ask you a question. In the architectural standards -- and Mark, this is one of the reasons why I wish we could access the code, because I would have looked it up -- are we allowed garage doors on perimeters of buildings? If I recall, that has to be -- MS. VALERA: For self storages, we do. For the use of self storages. It is part of the specific requirements for specific uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's no other questions of staff or the applicant, we'll move to the public participants. Are there any, Page 85 April 20, 2006 Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The first speaker, Francis Hoy, followed by Tom Bartlett. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know the total number of speakers we have? MR. BELLOWS: Five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Each speaker I'd like to ask be limited to five minutes, and we'll go from there. Thank you. MR. HOY: I'm Francis Hoy. I'm a resident of Palm River and a president of the Palm River Homeowners Association. I think you know that Palm River is a development of about 1,800 condos and single-family homes north and west of the dinner theatre. The homeowners association, as I should tell you, it's a voluntary organization, but we do have membership of about 50 percent of the residents in that area. We have talked to a lot of those people, and the -- there will be three speakers from our organization this morning. They'll be some other people, fortunately, too. But we think that we represent -- what we will say represents the opinion of the majority of those that we've spoken with. As I said, there are other speakers. We've encouraged those people who disagree with our position to appear and speak for themselves. We do have -- there are two other residents here. I'm not sure what they have to say, but they will speak. And I want to make the point that our main concern is traffic. The rezoning of the dinner theatre, we're afraid if it's not done well will bring a lot of extra traffic to that intersection. One of our speakers will explain more fully the problems that we face at that intersection. I noted this morning it was said pass-by traffic, traffic on Immokalee Road was referred to. And of course we're not concerned about the traffic on Immokalee Road, we're concerned about the traffic at Cypress Way East and Piper Boulevard, Page 86 April 20, 2006 particularly because of the fact that that bridge, which we have depended on, is going to be taken away. Our position is that we don't oppose the indoor storage building. We're not eager to see it, it's a low traffic use, as we see it, we're not eager to see a 45- foot building there in front of our development. But we don't oppose it because we consider it a low traffic user and will leave that decision up to you and the staff. We don't either oppose offices because I think offices are allowed as C-l uses. What we do oppose, and we oppose it very strongly, is the request for eating places and retail stores that are included in the petition. These uses are, by their nature, high traffic uses. Some of them could be almost continually traffic in and out. Fast food has been given up, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be convenience stores, Subways, anything like that, people popping in, get their sandwich and get on their way. We've met with the buyer a couple times. We've asked him to eliminate high traffic uses from his petition, and he has removed repair facilities and fast food. Unfortunately, eating places in general, retail stores in general still remain in the request. The buyer said that his desire was to build the indoor storage area and offices, and if the petitioner had stopped there we probably wouldn't be here talking with you today. What muddies the waters and brings us to this hearing is the inclusion of eating places and retail stores as possible uses. And a county planner set up C-l zones for commercial, professional and offices, general offices, as a buffer between residential and more intensely commercial uses. The property under review today, as has been pointed out, was rezoned to -- apart under the building of the dinner theatre itself, was rezoned to C- 3 in 1999, but uses other than the dinner theatre were limited to C-l uses. The parking lot itself has always been C-l uses. Page 87 April 20, 2006 The -- there was no other C- 3 uses allowed in -- at that time, even though it's C-3. No other C-3 uses were allowed. The C-3 uses do include retail stores and eating places. And in the zoning descriptions, it's stated there that they are preferably located at arterial level intersections. There's no way to describe Cypress Way East and Piper Boulevard as arterial level roads. C-3 uses just don't belong there. Just to sum up, ifin the wisdom of the planning commission, the staff and the commissioners that is a proper place for a storage area, storage building, we accept that, on the basis that we're concerned mainly about traffic at that intersection. But we'd ask you, please don't recommend other C-3 uses. One other thought. The current zoning of the property, C-l, in those cases would allow offices, I believe would allow offices. And if the developer wants to put an office building to replace the dinner theatre building itself, then I don't think a rezoning of that is necessary. That can stay as it is, C-3, Naples Dinner Theatre, C-l uses only. Other than that, it should solve what the developer has said he wants to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, your time is getting close. MR. HOY: Okay. Just that then the only issue would be the parking lot itself, and we'd not like to see eating places or retail stores at either of those locations. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker, Tom Bartlett, to be followed by Jim Hudson. MR. BARTLETT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I happen to be Tom Bartlett. I am also a board member of the Palm River homeowners association. I have a long list of things here that will take me hours to go through, and I'm not going to do it because you've just heard from Fran Hoy, and he has explained exactly how he feels about it. I think the important thing is that you people understand what Page 88 April 20, 2006 Palm River is made up of: Falcon Ridge, Sawgrass, we have Candlewood, we have Quail Crossing, and then we have all the Palm River homeowners. Weare additionally going through a new development which is called Horr's Creek, which adds another 100 houses to the area, plus the other 1,800 we have. And if we are all trying to get out of Palm River in an emergency, we have problems. Now, if I may just show one thing up here to make sure you're all aware of what's going to happen, number one -- is this working? Can you hear me? This bridge is destined to eternity. It is vital to the increase and exit from Cypress Way East. People along Palm River -- along Piper Boulevard there, it's a very narrow street. And right now we're having major problems at this comer. It's one of the highest accident places in Collier County. When we go this way, we can only get one lane out and one lane in on the airport bridge right now, and that will be corrected. However, we've got the cars coming from Willoughby Acre, and when they want to go west on Immokalee, they have got to come to the airport bridge. Our problem is -- and believe me, if we can save it, we should -- this bridge here, which I understand is going to go when the expansion on this major arterial highway here is completed. So we feel save this bridge, not too much traffic at the dinner theatre. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Jim Hudson, followed by Daniel Haacke. MR. HUDSON: Yes, for the record, my name is Jim Hudson, I'm also a resident of Palm River, long-time resident of Palm River, as a matter of fact, and I'm a member on the board of the homeowners association. Just to continue what these two gentlemen have said. Everyone -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hudson, you need to slow down-- MR. HUDSON: I'm sorry, I'll talk a little bit slower. Page 89 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're getting like me, and that poor lady has got to type. MR. HUDSON: You've given me five minutes and I'm going to make it short, too. Anyway, it is very difficult right now getting in and out, egress and exiting Palm River. And if we allow anything like what they're proposing, it would just -- I'd really just think it would just make things much worse. And right now, like Mr. Hoy said, there are 1,800 residences in Palm River with an additional 100 that are just about to be completed in the Horr's Creek. Now -- and also to the west of us -- excuse me, to the east of us with Willoughby, there's another -- I believe there's about 2,000, so we're talking 4,000 residences that have to -- can only leave across Immokalee Road through three bridges. And if we allow another big development -- or CPUD, whatever this is going to be called, at any high traffic area, it will just make things much, much worse. And we strongly hope that you would take all this into consideration and limit the development to the C-l, and everyone would be much happier. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Daniel Haacke, followed by Pat Parisi. MR. HAACKE: Hello. My name is Dan Haacke, spelled H-A-A-C-K-E. Thanks for giving us the attention that this deserves. I'm a new resident to Palm River as well. I moved in this year. One of the things that attracts us to Palm River is the quaintness, the great neighborhood feel. We left the east coast, Fort Lauderdale, to come here for that reason. And as you start mixing high density commercial traffic right on top of the neighborhood, you begin to lose that feel. That's not what we came here for. Page 90 April 20, 2006 My wife and I do agree with the storage unit. We've seen those around. They usually are low traffic. They're kept well landscaped, they look nice, they're not an eyesore. What we disagree with is the C-3 uses that they are trying to get in on the other side of the property. After being here at the meeting, we're not even sure how big -- they're not even sure how big of a C-3 use it would be, because they're kind of varying, it sounds like, how big the storage unit would be. So it's kind of up in the air. But as everybody's been telling you about the problems in and out of the neighborhood, if we bring in a high use, high traffic use, it's going to exacerbate that problem, especially with one of the bridges gOIng away. That's about it. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I hope the east coast doesn't follow you here. MR. HAACKE: We ran like hell. MS. PARISI: Good morning. My name is Pat Parisi. P-A-R-I-S-I. I am a resident of Palm River. My concern here today is as I've been listening, and I'm sure some of you can attest to it by the last name, I get this daily, about developers, developers, developers. I've listened to and I have researched everything that you have seen. And I thought well, I'm going to come loaded for bear, I'm going to layout everything and just let you know . Well, you have that. You have all the facts and figures. You have everything. But what you don't see is beyond that property are people. And we have to walk those streets, we have to walk our dogs, we have to run, we have to jog on streets that are woefully narrow, do not have sidewalks, and -- excuse me, I'm a little nervous -- do not have sidewalks. And as someone who has had a serious accident at the comer of Piper and Cypress Way East, I can attest to the traffic there and the problems there. Page 91 April 20, 2006 Now, listening today, listening to Mr. Yovanovich say about their original plan had to be rushed for the Naples Dinner Theatre to get C-3 usage. Well, why should the residents now five years later have to go down that slippery slope? In five years if this is rushed through or if we don't know if it's going to be 100,000 square feet, 150,000 square feet, are we going to face this again? Also, with Mr. Dean Smith's projections on traffic, he did a traffic projection on 150,000 square foot storage facility out of 163,000. I apologize if I'm not getting this right, I'm a lay person here. Now they're saying that it's going to be a minimum of 100,000 square feet. Well, wouldn't that traffic have to be adjusted now given the 63,000 additional square feet of additional usage they can have? That's my problems just sitting here listening today. I ask you to consider the residents of Palm River, what is beyond that little square yellow in your dealings. I don't know how you do it, this is dizzying. I've done the research. Between all of the initials and the CPUD and PP -- I don't know how you do it. I do not envy you, but I do wish that you would just take into consideration the 2,000 homes that are back there that we do have to walk those narrow streets, which I believe that if we tried to put this neighborhood in today, you wouldn't allow it, because there are no sidewalks, they are too narrow . We don't have the luxury of a beautiful gated community, of landscaping. And I feel that some of the questions here today were more on what are people coming, driving on Immokalee Road going to be seeing. Well, I don't think that should be the question. I think the question is, what do the people that have to go in there 10 times a day bringing their kids home from school, what do the people that have to stand outside on Cypress Way East with their children waiting for the buses to come going to have to deal with? What is the -- I believe it's -- I don't know if they changed the name, Summerhouse, which is directly behind this house which is an old age home, what are they Page 92 April 20, 2006 going to have to deal with? I've seen people in wheelchairs being rolled on Cypress Way East to get a little air out there, what are they going to have to be -- deal with? And I don't think they answered any questions today. I really don't. I don't think they gave us property owners any feeling of what their intentions are, what are they going to put in there. Is it going to be 150,000 square feet storage, is it going to be 100,000 square feet storage with, you know, "X" number of high traffic areas? And that's what I just wish that you would consider, us the residents, when you consider this. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I -- before the meeting's over, we'll get to the bottom of what could actually be built there. Ray, is there any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm sure there's questions, or at least I have questions of Mr. Yovanovich. And others, if you want. I would like to start. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have just one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why is this bridge coming down? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not a -- a lot of the bridges stay. Okay. Go back to transportation. MR. SCOTT: There are design issues that deal with the condition of the bridge, and it was decided through the process, and this has been vetted with the neighborhood before, but I'm sure, and if I don't miss my guess, we'll have the same conversation from the BCC too, that because of all the issues with the design and where it's at, that it needs to come out. And it was decided not to replace it in kind. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is there any possibility that might change? Page 93 April 20, 2006 MR. SCOTT: At the moment -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They don't have an egress, and to take that out just because it's got a problem -- MR. SCOTT: At the moment the answer is no. But obviously some of the -- you know, looking at -- we've had conversations about what is the other developments that are up here. There has been discussion about trying to get an entrance out to Livingston also, so you'd have more opportunities to get in and out. One of the things that, you know, in hindsight that I would like to see in the area is all the development in the area, if you look at it operationally at these locations, you know, how is it going to operate in the future if I didn't get another entrance out onto Livingston. It's not something staff has done at this point. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : You will give that some serious thought? MR. SCOTT: I'm sure I will by the time we get to the BCC, yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard. I'd like to go back to our original opening conversation. If you produced the minimum amount of storage, which is 100,000 square feet, which is what you're suggesting now is the minimum. So you were to build 100,000 square feet. How many square feet remaining would you then be able to build for other uses on that property that you feel? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under what I propose, 20,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the maximum, if you build a minimum of 100,000 square foot of storage, the maximum additional uses on this site will not exceed 20,000 square feet. - MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're talking 120,000 square feet total. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, no. Page 94 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you go to the minimum. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I -- right, if we do the minimum self storage, there would be 120,000 square feet on the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you -- of that minimum, you could change the self storage to go up to 163,000 square feet -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you wanted to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You go up to 143,000 square feet with 20,000 square feet of -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I could park it, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the use intensity that they're asking for. There are minimums and there are caps to the use, which is -- I'm trying to -- there seems to be some confusion. I want to make sure -- the speaker was Ms. Parisi, I want to make sure she understands there is a cap for the uses that are being allowed on this site -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and that is 163,000 square feet. Now, if we further define that as relationship to traffic impacts, that will also limit those square -- the amount of square footage of particular use that can be built. Concerning the issue of the retail uses and the restaurants, do you have any problem in striking the 5000 series of the CIC code uses from your list of required uses on that site? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be -- shall we go through the list of uses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have them all -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I figured you did, but I just want to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have 144 uses requested. This would take out 13 uses. It would take out 5331,5399,5411,5531, Page 95 April 20, 2006 5712, 5719, 5731, 5734, 5812, 5813, 5912 and 5948. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. The 5000 series. Which I think, stated a different way, would be on our list of uses, item number three, item number six, item number eight, right? Am I -- are we all -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Item number nine. I tried to quickly make sure I didn't miss any of the 5000's. Item number 12, item number 15, item number 2-- no. And item -- under accessory uses, it would be the item number two, cocktail lounges. Did I catch them all? I didn't miss any? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe so, yes. Okay, so you wouldn't -- you would have no objection to that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about under his 23, veterinarian services with household pets and overnight boarding and outside kennels. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we're not allowed any overnight boarding. It would be a vet office would come in and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- your pet and they would not stay overnight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tried to follow along with what the representative from the residents had indicated, and that was retail and eating establishments, which are all the 5000 series. And they correspond, I believe, to the numbers in the PUD or referenced just now by Mr. Y ovanovich. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was group 0742. That's the reason -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, and that was not a 5000 series. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of Page 96 April 20, 2006 the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Richard. Do you have any closing statement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And obviously we're available to talk to anybody who's confused after today's meeting. We did appreciate meeting with the homeowners association, and we understood their issues, and I think we've -- hopefully we've resolved those today through striking the items we just talked about. And with that, we would hope that we could get a recommendation of approval from the planning commission. And we now have a -- there wouldn't be any obj ections from the neighbors regarding the petition. And with that, if you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them. We did have -- on the height issue, the elevator shaft, actually, if we can limit that to just going to 50 feet, just the elevator shaft. So it would be 45 feet, but for the elevator shaft, that could go to 50 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be -- if I may, that would be hidden in some fashion? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, right. But it's -- that is something that will go above the roof when we've had a chance to sit down and think about the response to the question of -- when you say there's a 45 feet zoned height, yes, there would be and there would be 50 feet actual height only for the elevator, the elevator protrusion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But from the residents' points of view, they will see an architectural design that will please them. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, on that, what do you have for floor heights, then? I mean, with 45 feet you could essentially have pretty high floor heights. It's going to be a hydraulic elevator. You're not going to have a Tracten (phonetic) elevator up on the roof. Page 97 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good point. MR. SOUDAN: For the record, my name is Bob, Robert Soudan. S-O-U-D-A-N. I'm one of the principals. We don't know. We haven't designed the building yet. Everything depends on how this goes. So the floor heights are going to be an average of 10- foot clear, because we have to allow for air conditioning. This is a fully heated and air conditioned building, climate controlled and -- considering structural design and everything else. We're just trying to make sure we don't design something that we can't build through what you're allowing. We said, you know, 45, I'm sure we can do it. I believe we did the one at Pine Ridge under 42. And that would be our intent, to build exactly like we did on Pine Ridge. And I represented that to the homeowners, I'm representing it to you. That's our intent. There might be some facade things because of some new rules in the county about building design ins and outs and the fact that they want some facades that go up and down and not -- to get rid of the big box look. Fine, we're happy to do that. But we can't restrict it at the same time. So it's sort of a give and take here. All I'm trying to do is make sure that because of regulations regarding clear space above an elevator, that we don't make an elevator that only goes to three and a half -- or two and a half floors. So that wouldn't work. And that's all I'm trying to do by asking for that 50 feet. It will probably be substantially under that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It will. My opinion is you don't need it. But knowing what hydraulic elevators need, you won't need an overrun like that. You do need a little overrun. MR. SOUDAN: Yeah, you do need overrun. There's a federal regulation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, is this mic on? I mean, is Page 98 April 20, 2006 it me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's you. You have such a gentle . VOIce. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A quiet voice. MR. SOUDAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I would like to make a recommendation for approval, subject to all the conditions and stipulations that we discussed on the 5000 series. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion was made by Mr. Vigliotti to recommend approval subject to stipulations, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. I have a list of eight stipulations. If I can just read them for the record so everybody understands them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Prior to doing that, can I discuss that deviation a little bit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the reason we have PUDs is to -- at least the code says, is to create creative uses of land. I don't think it's really there to be a relief from code requirements. Like I said, I'm not really a fan of that foundation planning requirement. But everybody else in the county who designs, we all have to work with it. I mean, I'm not sure why -- this is an example where we don't need it. When it was sold to us -- again, I fought it when it was sold to us -- it was to prevent big blank walls with no landscaping in front of it. Page 99 April 20, 2006 And that's -- the back side of this building is going to be 20 feet of paving, 24 feet of paving with potentially a 45-foot-high wall. So I'm not a big fan of us letting this deviation go through. I think they could design a site plan and use it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, what's the feeling of this panel? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to get something clear. I was under the impression that the -- this is -- we're talking about foundation planting? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was under the impression that was going to be surrounding the entire building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's primarily facade only? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's only the facade on Immokalee Road. And I think the point the girl made is the people living in the residences, they have a right to have a nice facade, too. I mean, taking away this planting takes away trees that would be in front of the facade. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I just respond? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, first of all, the property behind us is C-l commercial property. It's not a residential use. And they -- I don't believe anybody was here from that use who objected to -- because remember, we're increasing the opacity of the buffer adjacent to them. And we kind of worked with them through the public meeting process, and we actually share -- they actually put their trash dumpster on our property, so we actually have a very nice relationship with our neighbor to the north. And I think the fact that they're not here speaks to the issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is that red roof building? Page 100 April 20, 2006 MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the assisted living. Zoned C-l. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think in some cases, as staffhas pointed out, the code can't be literally applied, especially when you have openings on this building that you can't put landscape in front of it. It just wouldn't work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I guess I've learned that's the trick to avoid it is put doors everywhere. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, look, this use wouldn't be allowed anywhere in the county if you went with a literal interpretation. I don't think anybody's objecting to the use we're proposing regarding the self storage. And in order to do that use, I mean, the reality is there's going to be those doors, and we need to -- you know, we're still providing the amount of landscaping, it's just being supplemented at other areas to block views. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm not sure you're providing it. First of all, what you've done is you've taken an across-the-board 50 percent discount because you're going to claim that there's so many driveways that you wouldn't have. But still, I think that maybe that little island that would be between driveways would have a tree and that tree would block that facade. Again, it's a requirement in the code. I don't like it but we all have to live with it. I think why should this project not have to live with it is my point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need to continue. We're under a motion right here. Staff is recommending that a deviation be applied in this case because it can't be literally -- the code can't be literally applied to this building; otherwise, the openings couldn't be opened. I think that's reasonable. I mean, I'm just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, what you said is that it can't be applied because the openings would be unreasonable. What staff actually I think said is because there's a lot of openings you wouldn't have that much of it. But you still would have it. You're not Page 101 April 20, 2006 going to have 100 percent openings across the back of the building. There would be gaps and you would at that point put landscaping. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, if you want to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If the board would like to use that -- I mean, add that, let's do a quick straw vote. If no one's interested, then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's where I'm trying to go. If you want to make a recommendation to amend the motion, please do so and we'll get that off the table. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I make a recommendation that this be one of the conditions, that the deviation not be allowed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The deviation not be allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That the deviation not be allowed. Does the motion maker accept that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I don't think it should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does the second accept that? Well, I guess it doesn't matter if the motion maker doesn't second it. Okay, your request has failed. After this vote, if it doesn't succeed and you want to make another vote, then we can go that direction. So let me go ahead and I'll suggest some stipulations that we talked about, just to make sure the record's clear. Mr. Schmitt, by the way, before I go too far, the second recommendation by staff is, and it says the following, at the time of SDP review, the petitioner shall provide proof of water and sewer availability from the Collier County Utilities Division. Why would we need to say that in the recommendation? MR. SCHMITT: Redundant. It's required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So number two of the staff recommendations can come out, number one would stay in. Number three would be added -- well, number three would be number two. But let's go in order so I can keep this numbering system straight. Page 102 April 20, 2006 My number three would have been requires a minimum of 100,000 square feet of self storage with a maximum of 20,000 square feet of any other use. The dinner theatre can remain until the other uses are permitted. Number four would be Section 2.9.8.3 of the PUD would be struck. It's the one referencing a temporary septic plant. Number five would be number 3.5.8.2 of the PUD. It would read, the actual height would be 45 feet, with the exception of the elevator shaft, which would be allowed to go to 50 feet. Number six would be that the trip generation maximum will not exceed 295 peak hour trips through any combination of uses on the site. Number seven would be after transportation's review of stacking needs for either Piper Boulevard or Cypress Way East, that the applicant will contribute to the transportation department any needed additional land to accomplish the stacking needs if any are needed after they review that aspect of it. Number eight would be we would strike all of the references to the 5000 series of the SIC code uses, and those are items in the PUD three, six, eight, nine, 12, 15, and accessory item number two. And that's the summation of all the notes that I had on this issue. Does anybody have any comments on this? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could I try to add another one? It's not the same one, I promise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think, again, the housing issue is a problem. I would still like to see if he could put a caretaker's cottage in there. It's allowed by code at the request of the applicant. But one way to start fighting that battle is to make sure that this doesn't cause the need for another affordable housing unit. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are you asking him to put that into the motion? Page 103 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm not. Mr. Schiffer's asking to add that to the motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would suggest that, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the motion maker is the one that would have to accept it. Personally, I don't see the need for it. If they're not asking for it, why provide it. But it's up to the motion maker. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't think they need it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion maker-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the county needs it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the motion maker is not accepting it. The motion that's on the floor and has been seconded-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I did have -- you asked if there were any other issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would just check with -- now, I'm not unhappy with your recommendation to add land in the event that it's needed, but just to qualify, is there sufficient space for you to do that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's a general traffic requirement that we provide for site-related improvements and why should we be treated any differently than anybody else? If it's site related, we deal with it. If it's not our -- if our site's not causing the issue, taking property from our site is not justified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I didn't ask you whether you liked this or not. As far as I'm concerned, if somebody's having a greater impact on a road system of any type, they're up to help resolve it, period. And we've had plenty of testimony that there's problems on Cypress Way East and Piper Boulevard. And ifin any way your project can help, I think your project should do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't remember whether you gave us just a general opening statement on that, no specifice Page 104 April 20, 2006 numbers, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said that any additional right-of-way needed for stacking purposes along Piper Boulevard and Cypress Way East that can be utilized from the land as part of this proj ect be provided as a contribution, subject to the needs of the transportation department. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida. That would be consistent as well with what we do at site development review. He may not require -- he may not be the one that fulfills or meets the goal of a turn lane, but he may trigger that turn lane, so he would have to provide that right-of-way. So that is consistent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I feel more comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've had the motion and it's been seconded. There's been a series of seven different recommendations, actually numbered one through eight, because number two was dropped. There's been an attempt to add two more that have been denied by the motion maker. So now I think we all know where we're at. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just want to understand the motion, because I'm not sure that I did understand the motion when Mr. Vigliotti said with all the stipulations that were agreed to in the motion, we had not agreed at that time. What I had agreed to on your one through eight was the 100,000 square foot minimum, the 20,000 square foot maximum, if you will, the deletion of all the series five type things. I don't believe we had agreed to anything different than the standard stipulation regarding site-related improvements. So I don't know if Mr. Vigliotti's motionincluded all of the things that you summarized, Mr. Strain. I'm just asking for clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was getting there, Richard. Page 105 April 20, 2006 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, as the motion maker, do you agree to the recommendations and stipulations that I read back to this panel from my notes? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I just need some clarification on the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The right-of-way that I'm suggesting is that if there's a need for stacking lanes on Piper Boulevard or Cypress Way East, the lanes that border this property, that that additional land to provide those stacking lanes will be provided by the applicant, as requested by the Transportation Department. And we had the Transportation Department come up here a few seconds ago and say that's already part of their requirements during SDP review anyway. So I don't think anything changes by that, it just emphasizes the point. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, here's the issue. One, I would like to know that the county has exhausted its opportunities to build it in a right-of-way that already exists before you start asking us for some of our land. And what happens, quite honestly, is if you take some of our property, that creates a new property line, it creates an increased setback, and then we have buffer issues. We may not be able to meet the buffer requirements if you start taking some of our land for improvements that really we're not creating the need for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what? If you can't put the buffer in because of 15 or 25 or 30 feet, then you shrink the building down 15 or 25 or 30 feet and then you've got room for the buffer. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, okay. If that's the approach you want to take, that's fine, we understand it. But I don't think you've done that on other proj ects, other than leaving the standard stipulations, and we respectfully request that you just leave the standard stipulations in. Page 106 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think we're being as flexible as we can here. I think this is an issue that you should really go along with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion maker accepts the stipulations. The second -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So does the second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second accepts the stipulations. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion with the stipulations as stated, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you. It's now 11 :46. We have two items to go through. We probably should take lunch before we go into the new one. What I'd like to do is resume this meeting at 12:45. Thank you. (A lunch break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from our lunch time. We'll continue with the planning commission's advertised public hearings. Item #8D Page 107 April 20, 2006 PETITION: PUDA-2005-AR-8745 Next one is Petition PUDA-2005-AR-8745, the Regalo LLC Carlisle Regency PUD on Orange Blossom Drive. Would all those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Applicant. MR. DURANT: Yes. Hi, I'm Mike Durant. I'm the attorney for II Regalo Development LLC. This is Curtis Gunther, who is the managing member of the LLC. We're here today on a petition to -- for a variance. The original PUD for Carlisle was for a 35-foot height restriction with a one-story maximum. And we're here to request that we stay within the 35 feet but be allowed to have a two-story structure there. II Regalo is a 35-unit single-family subdivision that's already been platted, and we're in construction right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too much further, just so we're setting the proper tone for the meeting, our documentation said this was to amend the existing PUD. You're saying it's a variance? MR. DURANT: Well, I believe we just had -- yes, sir, it is an amendment. I'm sorry, I used the wrong term. And just to set the property, so that everyone can appreciate. To our immediate east is a three-story, the Carlisle nursing home. To the west is a two-story condominium. To the north -- condominium complex. To the north is a two-story county building that's just being completed. And beyond that is Emerald Lakes which has one and two-story. And we're asking that we be allowed to have that same prerogative of having two-story to offer to our customers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I have just a question here. Page 108 April 20, 2006 This -- although this is the county's document here, their staff report, just to clarify something real quickly, to allow for two-story single- family or two-family home, which is it? MR. DURANT: Two-story single-family. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's -- so this is not an either/or. MR. DURANT: Oh, no, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Two-story single family, okay. MR. DURANT: It's our intention -- as I understand from the county, that we have that prerogative. But that's not the intention of the builder. The builder is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if you had that prerogative, that would change density, I would think, in some way, maybe. But anyway, we'll get into that. Has any building, any vertical construction at all been done? MR. DURANT: It has begun. Where are we, Curtis? This is Curtis Gunther. MR. GUNTHER: For the record, I'm Curtis Gunther, the managing member of the project. We do have one home that's under construction currently and four other homes that are permitted for construction. All single-story at this time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Otherwise, you would be getting close to sunsetting if you had no real activity; is that correct? MR. GUNTHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. On the PUD, on Page 2, your PUD. MR. DURANT: That was a -- we are the successor to that PUD, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have a copy of it? MR. DURANT: I don't, no. Page 109 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I can wait for staffs part then. I'll-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, is this more of a staff question than applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't know. I thought-- ifhe doesn't own the PUD, it's for staff. The other question I have is on permitted uses, you're crossing out two-family dwellings. Is that something you can discuss, or that's not yours either? MR. GUNTHER: Yes, I can. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You are crossing it out, yet table one still includes it. Should it be totally crossed out there? Or is that two-family -- MR. DURANT: We can do that. Our intent is -- in the way we're building today is to just replicate this rendering right here of 35 single- family homes. So that's the way we're marketing and selling that today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you're crossing out the principal uses, then we should cross them out in table one, don't you agree? Because I have a problem with allowing as big a building as you could get on table one. MR. GUNTHER: Yes, we can make that correction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the concern I had is that you could build a rather large two-story chunk. So if the two-family thing is totally taken out and -- that's good. On Page 9, you removed the minimum of two canopy trees for each lot. Is there a reason for that? Is that code already? Okay. And then the other question was -- and staff was kind of nodding they would answer it. On two, you changed the proposed outfall and you changed it to Yarberry Lane versus going into the Carlisle. Is that a physical change? Is there something happening other than that the heights with Page 110 April 20, 2006 that or-- , MR. GUNTHER: The original intent of the project was to be kind of a sister project to the Carlisle Regency assisted living. And there was a connection between the two properties. And we have since -- the county has allowed us to make the connection. There is an easement for the connection, but not to actually make that connection to the proj ect, to the Carlisle Regency. But they wanted an easement there. And we've done that. Through this property right here we've made an easement. There is an easement that enters there, but the Carlisle Regency owners have said we don't want it, so they said just keep the easement there and you can keep the fence up and just leave it alone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my question is this is advertised as just changing the height. Is there also a site drainage change then? MR. GUNTHER: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Yarberry Lane is on the opposite end of the property from the Carlisle. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Manager's -- on Page 6, section three, residential area's plans. Manager's residences and office. Is that first structure, is that going to be a model home? Is that what that is? In other words, it's being transferred in fee to a resident? MR. GUNTHER: At this time there will be no model homes built on the proj ect. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So there will with be no offices or temporary trailers or anything of that nature? MR. GUNTHER: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we could strike that as being inapplicable to this particular thing. MR. GUNTHER: Let me clarify one thing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One moment. The county attorney may Page 111 April 20, 2006 want to -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We're not opening up this entire PUD, we're just looking at strike-throughs and underlines. And it was advertised very narrowly. So if you start doing that it, you know, causes some problems that we've identified earlier. And again, it was advertised in such a way as not to open up the whole PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to thank you for reminding me. I lost sight of that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I wondered, has there been a change of ownership? MR. GUNTHER: Yes, sir, we purchased the property from the original owners who took it to the PUD process. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. MR. DURANT: That was 18 months ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have questions. Mine will be of staff to help clarify some of the things that have already been said. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is the size of the units that are proposed the same as the existing size of the units? MR. DURANT: The size of the -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Area, square foot area, as far as living space. MR. DURANT: Living space. Well, obviously a two-story could have more space than -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: How much increase is the living space? MR. GUNTHER: Well, it could vary. I mean, say plus or minus 500 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your PUD only refers to minimum, so it doesn't matter how big or bigger it is, as long as you don't go less than the minimum shown in the PUD. The PUD refers to 6,000 Page 112 April 20, 2006 square feet and 5,000 square feet. You can't go below that. They can go to anything they want above that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: They can go up higher? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, by the way the PUD reads. Any other questions of the applicant before we hear the staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Melissa, save us. MS. ZONE: Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. This petition before you is a PUD amendment, and the action is to amend the PUD to allow a two-story home built in replacement of the current permitted one-story home. The original PUD document allowed for single-family, as well as two- family dwelling units. They're not changing anything except for the interior to be built as a two-story, as opposed to a single story. But the height has already been permitted. In fact, you heard this December 4th of2003, and from the meeting notes from back then the issue of height was addressed. It was staying at 35 feet. It was very unclear why single-story as opposed to two-story, because the density is not changing, it's just more -- it's more of an interior amendment. And then in addition to that, the new owners came in, so during this modification we're asking to update to reflect the current ownership on this PUD. First time using your visualizer. What I'm showing you is a location map here, which you have in your packet. And as you see where Carlisle Regency PUD is located, and it is just east -- or just west of Airport Pulling Road. This is actually north. I did have it right, my mistake. My north arrow is not on there. Page 113 April 20, 2006 If you look at the surrounding zoning, you have Emerald Lakes. Emerald Lakes allows single-family homes to be built as one or two-story. And then in addition you have over by -- well, it's the Sunshine Village. They have -- I believe Sunshine Village is the three-story -- or the Carlisle Regency is the one that has the three stories. But the surrounding land uses are all in PUDs or in single-family homes. The intent of -- again, the applicant is to keep this -- this as an amendment strictly as a strike-through and underline. Commissioner Schiffer, there was a -- and this for the record as well, there was a packet that was sent out with the PUD. Inadvertently that was striked (sic) through. But then we mailed out the correct version that kept that two-story as what it was intended to be. So staff tried to resolve that issue. You might have received it since. And the corrected strike-through underline should show that the single-family or two-family home are still there, but we're just striking out one-story to add the two-story. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask, we did get another one -- MS. ZONE: Right, it was mailed -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the PUD, but it had the same date so-- , MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So is there data different in it? MS. ZONE: Well, what ended up inadvertently happening was that an older version where we were amending more than what was requested by the application was inadvertently sent to the legal department. And we started to go with that. And we found the mistake, solved it, sent you a new packet. And though the date is the same, there should have been a note stating that this is the corrected version that was part of the packet. The modifications in this amendment are consistent with the Page 114 April 20, 2006 growth management plan. It's in the urban mixed use district. It's an urban residential subdistrict. And a subdistrict allows and permits residential dwelling units at four dwelling units per acre. This PUD permits 2.99 dwelling units an acre, because it's positioned in a traffic congestion area. So they lose one dwelling unit for that. So they just are under the permitted three dwelling units an acre. If you notice that most of the surrounding land uses, a lot of these have higher density than what the Carlisle Regency is and was permitted for. And so we're not -- it's not affecting anything to do with density. In fact, they're at a lower density than most of these surrounding land uses. Are there any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now I'm confused, though. Within the original packet there was a strike-through version of the PUD. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A copy of that was resent again MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- identical to the one that's in the packet. MS. ZONE: It shouldn't have been identical. It should have -- the packet -- and you can clarify, but when the packet was being sent out, I looked at it myself to make sure that it did not have the same information. It's the same PUD except for there was some strike-throughs that were inadvertently put there and have since been corrected. And you should -- that should have been from our -- and I was there supervising it. I mean, it had the corrected -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the question I asked about Page 115 April 20, 2006 two- family dwellings -- MS. ZONE: That was in the original PUD, and we didn't strike it out, because they're just amending the allowable to be two-story without amending it. So without opening the whole PUD document -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why did they say yes when MS. ZONE: I think this being the first time in front of you, they wanted to please you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let me -- I have -- okay, first of all, the strike-through version is the most important because we can see what it was before -- MS. ZONE: Certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- without having to play -- you know, parse the two documents. In reviewing the strike-through, though, you did strike through two in of them, where the strike diversion did cross out the two- family. You're now telling us that you don't want that crossed out and therefore you do want that on table one; is that right? MS. ZONE: Commissioner Schiffer, I'm not sure if all the other planning council received the same document, but the new packet that was sent to you did not have that strike-through. All it struck through was the number one, and in its place put a two there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ZONE: And that's all. So I'm not sure -- I have a copy, if you want to see what was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I think I have everything, but the problem is I think I reviewed the wrong stuff. So the testimony today, they are going to have two -- because Mr. Murray asked the same question and they said no, they weren't going to have two-story structures -- MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- but now they are. Page 116 April 20, 2006 MS. ZONE: No. Talking to the applicant, their intent is to keep it single-family, but to instead of opening the whole PUD document to amend everything, we left it as. Because you can certainly build less than what's permitted, not increase, and that's what they're doing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And let me tell you why it's important, the only reason why it's important is that I have a problem with a two-story, two-family unit. It becomes a very large unit. And I'll discuss it. So should I discuss it, or will that never be the possibility? MS. ZONE: Well, the permitted height is 35 feet, so if it's already permitted, even if it was a two-family, two-story, you still can only go 35 feet, so I can't understand where your issue of it going higher -- they would have to come back and re-amend this PUD to be a taller building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's not my -- my point is that if you do -- right now it's one story -- MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- correct? So if we have a two-family, two-story, the mass of that gets to be pretty big. And so that's what I'd like to discuss. But is that still available? My conversation with the applicant is that he doesn't intend to do that. MS. ZONE: He doesn't intend to do it, but when you say mass, meaning that the top floor would be wider, more living space? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no, I'll tell you. In other words -- MS. ZONE: To clarify -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you're allowed a zero lot line, and it's the zero lot line model that I'm afraid would become 156 feet wide, which would be really wide for your neighborhood. So in other words, if you want to go two-story with a two-family, I'd like to not let that include the zero lot line version of it. You could Page 11 7 April 20, 2006 have the six and six version of it but not the zero lot line. So if that potential is still there -- I'm just trying to find out if that's still there. MS. ZONE: We're not amending all of that. We're just amending the strike-through underlined. And again, the applicant has said they didn't intend to build two-family, but since the permitted PUD document had allowed it, we left it in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me go back to the other thing. Is that -- the one we heard back in December, a couple of years ago had all the drainage going through the Carlisle into the canal on Airport. This is changing it to a swale. Has engineering reviewed that? I mean, I know that's not exactly -- MS. ZONE: Yes, that was per their recommendation. Because the Carlisle did not want them. So they've changed that portion. But it's -- the use is still there. It's still being utilized what the intent was of the original PUD. But now it is called the Carlisle -- or II Regalo swale? No -- the swale itself is called the Yarberry Lane swale, as opposed to what -- the detention system, which was the Carlisle Regency PUD detention system. It's the same thing, but because-- they've separated it, so they had to give it another name. We have names for everything in Collier County. And this swale is now the Yarberry Lane swale because it is no longer connected. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're claiming is that that's the exact identical swale with just the name change. MS. ZONE: There is the connection -- Curtis, do you want to explain -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He was pointing out that before they were taking utilities into the Carlisle system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the record, has staff reviewed the change in the drainage, and does staff feel that it meets all the consistencies with the code, the growth management plan and good drainage design? Page 118 April 20, 2006 MS. ZONE: Absolutely. And that was per the engineering public utilities, was they asked him to do this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you going? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm just -- no, here's where I was going is -- and actually, when you described it, it was exactly where I was going, is that you were showing how the flow was going into the Carlisle. You're no longer going to do that, you're going to put it onto a swale on the western road. That's different. If you're saying it's the same, I'll run away from this. MR. GUNTHER: Commissioner, I misunderstood what you were talking about. That was just a roadway connection that we were referring to, not a drainage or transfer of water or that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. No, if you can tell me that it's the exact same drainage plan as we had before -- MS. ZONE: Just a different name. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- with just a name change, I'm happy with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other -- oh, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are all these units going to be two stories? Are all of them going to be built as two stories? MR. GUNTHER: No, sir. We're kind of projecting about a 50/50. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I talk to the applicant after staff? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, as long as -- I'm going to have to have staff come back up, but that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you can go -- go through staff, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, the difference between a Page 119 April 20, 2006 two-story and a single-story is that you have people on the second floor looking down at people on the first floor -- MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of the neighboring property. I've reviewed this and all the proj ects that butt up to this PUD are generally multi-family or something of that nature, with the exception of the units on the RSF -1, which are south of Kay Lagoon. MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those look like they're estate lots. So their zoning is quite a bit different and less intense than what's being experienced in Carlisle Regency, if I'm not mistaken. MS. ZONE: Well, if you -- I kind of explained that in the staff report, in the zoning analysis about the -- and I listed the -- what the density was for each of those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I've read all that. But there are existing homes now by the aerial you show, apparently they look like they're estate type lot sizes with a single-family home on the lots. They're not used for three units to the acre or anything like that at this point. MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the impact ofa two-story dwelling could have some impact on those people in those single-family residences. MS. ZONE: Certainly in the point that you talk about them being able to look down onto those homes. But to question what someone is going to do in the interior of their home, if they're looking down or up, you know, I can't speculate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question is a concern for the existing people that live there. And based on the aerial, those RSF-l lots take up about half the western side of the PUD, which really encompasses all the lots south of that road system. I think there's one, two, three, maybe three lots affected, or four across the street from Page 120 April 20, 2006 those estate homes. And it might be better for those people if the homes in this tract -- put the aerial on, the overlay. MS. ZONE: This one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the colored aerial. Okay, see the words Kay Lagoon Drive? MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just south of that you've got your first estate lot? MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any lots across from those estates lots, if they were to remain single-story, then that would prevent any imposition on the homes any further across the street in the estate zonIng area. I'm just thinking that that might be a viable way to look at it to make sure those neighbors are properly protected, based on their existing homes today. MS. ZONE: Right, they do -- yeah, some of these could very well be two stories. And looking here, the Kay Lagoon is a 32 multi-family unit, and their gross density is at 5.45 dwelling units an acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then I have another question. MS. ZONE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we don't need to belabor the point on that one. The applicant held up a master plan. It is inconsistent with the master plan in the back of this PUD. The aerial that shows the layout of these lots is inconsistent with the master plan in the PUD. How did we get there? MS. ZONE: Well, I didn't see the layout of their master plan. I believe that you were following the Regency PUD with the lines. Has there something been changed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you take Exhibit B, which I can give you my copy, if you need it. Page 121 April 20, 2006 MS. ZONE: No, I have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Put that on there. I know that they can shift around the lots and things like that. I didn't see on that new master plan, do they still retain the recreation area, the pool and the parking lot? MR. GUNTHER: No. Commissioner, no. No, we actually -- we went into a replat, and this document, I'm sorry, but it's not the same. This is what we -- when we went into replat the property, due to an easement that was -- a utility easement that was missed in the original plat -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think you can fit that -- oh, on the wall. Okay, here's my problem. You've relocated an easement, which mayor may not be an issue, I don't know, and that's maybe the county attorney is going to have to opine on this by the time we're finished. I understand you can move around the retention area and you actually can move around the lots, and all that's fine. But you've deleted the recreation area. And I don't know what bearing that had on the approval of the original project. And that's where my question was. I noticed in your new plan you didn't have it. MR. GUNTHER: Actually the recreation area, Commissioner, is right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that moves that particular use closer to the exterior of the proj ect. MR. GUNTHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marge, is there any consistency problems with any of this? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, the title of the ordinance allows -- it has some general language in it for other modifications besides the height, so I think we're fine with the way the ordinance is drafted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure we Page 122 April 20, 2006 weren't going in uncharted waters here. Thank you. MR. GUNTHER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I had some minor pertaining to consistency. On Page 1, this is a revision, strike-through revision that you sent us? MS. ZONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On the bottom of Page 1, you have there three dwelling units per acre is the maximum density. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And then over on Page 4, the last line on the bottom, you have 2.99. It's not much of a difference. Could we be consistent there? MS. ZONE: No, what -- Commissioner, what you're seeing is for that district, what's permitted for the maximum density is three dwelling units. This PUD is a 2.99 dwelling units. I mean, they might as well say it's three. But it's consistent in the fact that it's not over. But what you're looking at on Page 1 under number six of the statement of compliance is showing you from the growth management plan in the urban mixed use district, the residential subdistrict allows for only three dwelling units an acre. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right. On that same Page 1 down at the bottom, you've struck through Collier County. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The last line. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Why? MS. ZONE: It was recommendations from our legal staff, who I believe received that from recommendation from planning commISSIon. Page 123 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. Well, then, if you would turn to Page 4, the second to last paragraph, Collier County has not been struck through. F or consistency shouldn't that also be struck through? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Are we talking about citations to code? MS. ZONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm talking Page 4, second to the last paragraph. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, let me just say, the original document that we received, there was more strike-through and underline. So we went through it and struck out references per planning commission direction to, you know, the ordinances. Then later it was determined that there were only a small number of minor changes. And so if that survived, that's fine. And yes, therefore for consistency, Collier County should be stricken out. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker. Willie Anthony. MR. ANTHONY: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Willie Anthony. Me and my family live to the south of this development. Our problem is back in 2003 when this issue was discussed, it was our understanding that because there was no cut-through to Orange Blossom that they were going to require them to add a stack of land on Yarborough (sic). The way the situation is more likely to turn out is that once they put this facility in and put their gate in, you probably won't be able to stack but two or three cars there. And this gate's got to operate to let Page 124 April 20, 2006 them get in. That means if there are four cars or more coming to go in there, they've got to be stopped in the street. And not only at the same time, if anybody's coming out they've got to use that same exit to get out. So it seems to me to be a congested movement there at that intersection -- at that exit, I mean, that's going to be problem down the road. I just don't know how a 20- foot road is going to handle that. They said they were going to add two feet to it, which will make the road 24 feet, but that's just the length of their property and it's still not dealing with the stacking of these cars trying to get in and out of that facility. And that's what concerns us. And we thought that last year in 2003 when this was discussed that they said they were going to add another lane to that to try to solve this problem I'm talking about right now, and apparently somehow that got dropped. And I'm trying to find out why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got two points that may help answer your questions. Number one is Marjorie, is the issue this gentleman's talking about something that is open for discussion within this PUD today? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, they only applied for the change in the ownership and the change in height and some other minor things. And that's all that, you know, we should be looking at. However, I'm going to just make a little distinction here. This is a PUD where it's still under the unified ownership of one individual, as opposed to some situations where we've seen like Pelican Bay, you know, where it's been sold off. So I would say that if you see some real issue that is a real problem in a situation like this that's not built out, that we could safely address it. But I think that, you know, has some limitations to it. And I think the transportation staff may need to get up and address this as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was going to ask, that was Page 125 April 20, 2006 my second question. So someone from transportation who's familiar with this particular area -- and Nick, I see you heading this way -- if you could address the issue of the stacking lanes on Yarborough (sic), especially going in and out of this particular development. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Nick Casalanguida. Could you put up the site plan that he's proposing over there so I can take a look at it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, can you put back up on the visualizer. Maybe that will help. MR. CASALANGUIDA: What is the total number of units that this development would propose? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty-five. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thirty-five. That would not warrant a turn lane on Yarberry Lane as long as there was proper storage inside the gate, which typically is 100 feet. The p.m. peak hour traffic coming into that development and coming out would not warrant a turn lane per county standards right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will you be reviewing that gate location when it comes through for approval, to assure that there's the 100 foot of stacking available before they get to the gate? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it's an approved plat, it's probably already been reviewed at 100 feet. If the plat was reviewed, it should have been reviewed at 100 feet at the plat review stage, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this isn't the plat, this is the PUD. Do we know if it's been platted, Melissa? MS. ZONE: Yes, it has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We don't know what the plat looks like. We have to assume it's that -- MS. ZONE: No, if you look -- this is -- this site map shows what's platted, right there. Page 126 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Do you know how deep the lots are at that point? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. MR. GUNTHER: We are-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your name? You have to keep saying your name every time you get up. MR. GUNTHER: Curtis Gunther. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. GUNTHER: The lot size is 135; 135 deep. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What I'm trying to do is get an eyeball as to -- MR. GUNTHER: The gate right now is planned to be 85 from the edge of pavement, 85 feet from edge of pavement. And there's two lanes. So if stacking became an issue -- sorry about that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's okay. If there's two lanes, we would let it go smaller, because you would allow for two cars to come in. So for that size development it's more than adequate for storage in the development. MR. ANTHONY: But if that -- if what they've got planned there, it's not going to -- two cars can't go in there and then a car come out at the same time. It's not wide enough. I'm talking about what I see when I go down the street, what's actually there, it's cut. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If that site plan is correct, there is room for two cars coming into the development, if that site plan is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And one coming out. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, and one coming out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So he's got double stacking lanes 85 feet into the proj ect, which you could fit quite a few cars two lanes Page 127 April 20, 2006 wide stacked up to get in there for 35 units, transportation's saying you'll never generate that kind of traffic. So I don't I think your problem is going to happen. I think you're going to see that it's resolved. MR. ANTHONY: So ifit happens, what do you do, do you come back here or do you go to the County Commission or what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You talk to Nick, I can't even say his last name. You call transportation and say you want to talk to Nick, the guy with the long last name, and I'll tell you what, you'll get him and he'll have to address your issue. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll give you my business card, sir. MR. ANTHONY: Okay . We're just concerned about that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, this is for the applicant. MR. GUNTHER: Curtis Gunther. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're going to keep two-family in now, correct? MR. GUNTHER: We'll keep it in, but again, the -- it will never happen. I mean, we're selling single-family. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, I mean, if it's in the documents -- you could have a car wreck on the way home and sell to somebody else and he'll be back here building two-family units. So we've got to -- if you don't want it in, we'll take it out. If you want to leave it in, leave it in and then let me discuss it. MS. ZONE: Again, Commissioner Schiffer, this is a PUD amendment to allow two stories. And we're doing the strike-through underline. And I understand that this two-family thing is what you reviewed. And I'm very sorry about that. But that was not the intent. Page 128 April 20, 2006 And if we are going to go under that direction, then we can open up the whole PUD document and amend it and that's what we're trying not to do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, and I don't want to do that. Here's what you're asking for: You're asking to allow two-story, two-family units. MS. ZONE: No, we're not. That was already a permitted use you approved, as well as the board of commissioners in 2003. The permitted use is either a one-family or a two-family dwelling unit. All the applicant is asking or requesting is to allow, since the height is there, to go two stories. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that's what -- okay. MS. ZONE: The way the original PUD document was written was probably -- it probably should have been written easier -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a strike-through on two-family on table one. Number one is struck through, meaning it was there before. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And number two is underlined, meaning it's new. MS. ZONE: Correct, for two-story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Instead of one story at 35 feet, they're saying they can put two floors in with the same 35 feet in the same building. MS. ZONE: If you look at the tables above it will show you one single-family as well as a two-family. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the principal building prior to this was allowed to be one story and today they're here to ask for the ability to build a two-story building. MS. ZONE: Correct. Page 129 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got that. I'm not having trouble with that. Here's what I'm having trouble with: That if you're allowed to do that with the two-family, you're also allowed zero lot line with the two- family. So essentially you're going to put this big building together which will have four families in one essentially contiguous building -- MS. ZONE: The way the PUD document -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- which I'm not comfortable with. So what I'd like to do is if they want that extra story, which I believe they're asking for, if they want that extra story, then I would like them to eliminate the zero lot line capability for the two-story building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, before you answer that. Did you say four families? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if you have a two-family building with zero lot line, you put them together, that's a big building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but they're not saying fourplexes, they're saying duplexes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're saying duplexes and I know that there'll be a firewall between them, which would justify them as two buildings, but they're attached. A zero lot line building attaches two buildings together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, by this language can they put in a multi-family fourplex? MS. ZONE: No. Absolutely not. And I understand your concern -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's not what I'm saying, Mark. What I'm saying is that on two side-by-side lots they can put in two families, which are essentially a fourplex. I mean, there's some legitimation on the fire wall and it's really two buildings. Page 130 April 20, 2006 MS. ZONE: I understand your concerns and I would have it too, but this PUD document says if they go to zero lot line on one side, they have to make it up and do 12 on the other. And so what ends up happening, they're not all zero lot lines. They really are six side yards or six and six. But if you're going to pull one, which -- taking the one-sixth from the one side, you have to add it and compensate to the other. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Now here's what and I'm saying, and we're going down the right trail now, is that if they do do a zero lot line, two-family project, that's two lots side by side, they're connecting two of them together, they're going to end up with a building 156 feet wide, which is so much wider than the other buildings on their thing. You're saying they're not? MS. ZONE: Well, no, that's not consistent with our code. And they would still have to -- your concern is that the sideyard setback would have two at zero lot lines; is that your concern? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's what you would have. Let's go through the two lots. You'd have a 12-foot setback-- MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you'd have a 78-foot wide building, because it's a 90-foot lot. MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You would have attached to it a 78- foot wide building, thus the 156, and then you would have a 12- foot setback. MS. ZONE: What you're wanting is not to have a row house look, correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not to have that condition. That's the only one. I have no problem with them putting the six and six in the unit on the center. But that would be a big building. That would be out of character. It's certainly not what he's showing on this site plan. Page 131 April 20, 2006 MS. ZONE: No. And most of those are already sold. I mean, they just haven't been built yet. But I would defer to legal about, you know, one of your concerns. But for the zero lot line and -- the zero lot line on the other side, I mean, it's not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, first of all. And if these were all tom down, they would -- and rebuilt in a redevelopment, you would still have the sideyard setback, which was already a permitted use, which is either you do the six and six on both sides or 12 and zero. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. And I'm only worried about the 12 and zero. MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you're doing that with multi-family, you're building a big building. And I'd like to limit that. So one way to do that is to eliminate the setback or put a note that the two-story is not allowed on a zero lot line proj ect. MS. ZONE: Right. And that's where I question, or that you might want to ask legal, is since this amendment does not address this, how would we stipulate something. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I think perhaps what's happened here is that the change in the two-story has acted like a domino and triggered some other issues that need to be clarified. So again, since this is under -- still under the control of a sole developer and it hasn't been sold off, and since there appears to be, from what I'm hearing, a relation between the change triggering these other issues, that your -- you know, it would be okay to address that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because you're asking us can we do two-story. And when I look at a single-family, yeah, that's fine. Double- family, I don't see any problem, but wait a minute, on the zero lot line model, I have a problem. It would be a big building. That's why I'm allowed to discuss it. MS. ZONE: No, absolutely. And I'm agreeing with you, you Page 132 April 20, 2006 don't want that row house look. And I was concerned about changing the direction of the application. But the applicant has no problem making sure that it's six on both sides to address that. And if Margie has no problem, we certainly can make that a stipulation and have it for the Board of Commissioners. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think it's related to the amendment, and -- as I stated. And maybe the better thing is to put the note that you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's do this: Let's add to that table a footnote four -- MS. ZONE: Footnote four. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that says the two-story unit cannot be used with a zero setback or the zero and 12- foot setback. MS. ZONE: Very good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm a happy guy. And it took us a long time to get me there, but -- MS. ZONE: It's not an issue. I'm sorry. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And the applicant has absolutely no problem with it, so -- MS. ZONE: No, his intention was to do the six on both sides anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you had a 30-foot high, single-story duplex, 12 on one side and zero on the other, you could put another 35-foot high single-story duplex and still end up with the same building he's trying to avoid by the footnote that -- MS. ZONE: Well, I was actually going to make the footnote a little bit more, not so much stringent, but just to say that the sideyard setback will be six feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, that would be a waste of money, nobody -- somebody would build two stories, that makes a lot of sense. Building a 35-foot high cathedral ceiling or Page 133 April 20, 2006 cathedral house in your description. MS. ZONE: No, we'll address that and make sure the board has your recommendation on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think we're done. I'm not even going to look over at Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Schiffer, why don't you make a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make the motion that we approve and -- hold on, {etition PUDA-2005-AR-8745 with staff conditions, with the additional condition that a footnote four be added next to the two-story -- let me say it again. That footnote four be added to table one under two- family at the two-story, and that fourth footnote should state not available with the zero and 12-foot setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Motion was made by Commissioner Schiffer. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Silence. Good. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 134 April 20, 2006 Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. (Commissioner Vigliotti leaves boardroom.) Item #8E PETITION: PUDZA-2004-AR-6283 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item on the agenda is PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6283, Lely Development Corporation, for Lely Barefoot Beach PUD. This was continued from 4/6/06 for some further clarifications as requested by the planning commission. And with that, maybe the applicant can explain to us what they're trying to do today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, before we do that, I have to disclose that I had a conversation with a resident. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, I forgot about disclosures. Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I've had a conversation with Nicole Ryan from the Conservancy. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So did I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we need to swear in anybody that COMMISSIONER CARON: We got e-mails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody wishing to testify on this particular petition, please stand and raise your right hand for the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student? Page 135 April 20, 2006 MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We hurried to get you the revised document for this meeting, and there was an oversight inasmuch as we left out the settlement agreement that was before attached as an exhibit. You had it in your other packet. So we want to put on the record that we will change the ordinance to include appropriate language that -- and this will be appropriately lettered exhibit and added to the PUDA ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's my understanding that with or without this being added to the PUD, it still is effective against the property -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but by adding it, it just makes it real clear, it puts it in front of everybody -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: It serves as a reminder and puts it in front of everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was getting to. Thank you. Now, with that, the applicant can go forward. Thank you. MR. ANDREA: Good afternoon. Robert Andrea, Coastal Engineering, representing Lely Development Corporation. We're here requesting a PUD amendment today to revise Tract J from a utility site to a single-family residential site. To coincide with the amendment, we will also split off a 1.0 I-acre mangrove portion of the site and donate that to the county for preservation. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can't get much simpler than that. Well, we hope. Okay, any questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. Here it comes. The concern -- let me express the concern, then we'll work it backwards, is that you're looking for a 70- foot tall building, four stories tall, 10 feet off of that side road. And your preliminary guess says like a 70- foot width of that building. Page 136 April 20, 2006 So first of all, could we push it 25 feet off of that side road? The other houses aren't built up that close. I know that's a setback further in but-- , MR. ANDREA: Right. What we did is model that after the rest of the PUD so it wouldn't deviate from the rest of the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But I think that, you know, when they established that setback, it wasn't buildings that were up on the main stem road, which I forgot the name of, but -- what's the road in front of it? MR. ANDREA: Barefoot Beach Boulevard? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And as you go down that side road -- as you do get down that side road, they do allow 10 feet. But I think up on this road, would you have a problem with making that a 25- foot setback there? MR. ANDREA: Well, along Lely Barefoot Beach Boulevard we do have a 25- foot setback. It's only along Bayfront that we have a 10- foot. The only problem I have with that, with us improving the drainage system there and agreeing to stay 25 foot off the mangroves, including accessory structures, I don't believe we're going to really have enough room there to go 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you could change the shape of the building. But, I mean, here's the problem I have is you have a 70- foot length is your just proposed, and I know it doesn't have to be that. MR. ANDREA: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're going to be 70 foot tall. I don't know what your grade is because your 70 foot's at FEMA. So could it be three feet? So let's say 65 feet. I mean, that's as big wall that close to the roadway. I mean, you can design around -- I mean, the other problem is do we want to start discussing whether four stories is appropriate? The Page 137 April 20, 2006 other neighbors have all three-story buildings. And when I say four, I mean parking and then three stories above it. The other residential tracts, aren't they two stories above parking? MR. ANDREA: All along there we have everything two and three stories above parking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I know Tract I, which is the one just to the north of it, that's two story above parking. So this is in that row. So could we just put it like a deal, either step it back 10 more feet and we'll let the three stories above parking, or keep it where it is and we'll discuss two stories above parking. So pick your conversation. MR. ANDREA: Let's go to 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty -- oh, no. 25 feet. MR. ANDREA: Twenty-five feet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the house to the north of that isn't that close to the roadway there. MR. ANDREA: Right, but the one -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you get back in, there's a cute little effect there with everybody up close, but -- MR. ANDREA: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or do you want to go the two-story above parking? MR. ANDREA: No, we'll -- I think we'll design around the 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Is there a staff report? MS. ZONE: It seems easier to use this. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. The PUD amendment that's before you today is for Tract J solely. Page 138 April 20, 2006 And the applicant is asking for -- to change the designation of Tract J from a public utilities site to a residential land use, as well as to dedicate 1.01 acres to mangrove preserve. This is your current land use site. And as you see here, this line shows everything from this point here to the west is mangroves. This is the developable area. I want to show you the aerial as well. Thank you, Ray. The applicant is going to go ahead and take Tract J and make it into two tracts, one tract being the mangrove wetlands and make it like a conservation easement. And then this area will be where they propose to build a home. The home follows the exact requirements for these homes all in this adjacent area. And it was from a PUD amendment -- the original PUD document was approved in 1977, and it was by Ordinance 77-48. There were several amendments to this PUD document, and PUD document 85-21 came in and addressed some of the issues, as well as 85-83 that addressed the issues of the heights of the homes in these surrounding areas to be built. On the visualizer now is the conceptual site plan. Again, Conservancy, which I e-mailed to all commissioners the letter that came from Nicole Ryan of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And they've also, as well as our environmental staff, has worked with the applicant and agreed to have this portion dedicated to Collier County as preserves, and then the proposed house located there. Consistency with the growth management plan is the fact that the home is being built like the adjacent homes. The setbacks are a little bit wider on Barefoot Beach Boulevard, and the fact that what they're asking for is to request this as being a residential unit. But they're not increasing the already permitted 750 units. So they're replacing one unit that could be built somewhere else in this PUD and putting that unit on this site. So they're not increasing any density that was already approved. Page 139 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, we might be able to short change some of this. We've heard this all before. MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've gone through this in detail before. If there's anybody here that needs a refresher on this, speak up now, otherwise why don't we just go with any questions from staff and expedite the process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question, but I'm not sure it's staff, probably more the petitioner. Has to do with beach access. I note from the view, sky view, that it appears that there are single lots that seem to have access to the beach. Will this have any access to the beach? When the home is built, will that have access to the beach? MR. ANDREA: Again for the record, Robert Andrea. It will have as much access as anybody else along Lely Barefoot Beach Boulevard. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at the lots here, and it appears that there are locations, there's swimming pools and I would assume that's a common property in there or something. I don't want to make assumptions, I want to understand if they have direct access to the beach. Is this -- MR. ANDREA: They won't have direct access other than walking down Kahlua Lane. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're not prohibited from going down to the beach using that lane; is that right? MR. ANDREA: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's all I wanted to know. That's the only question I had. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? Page 140 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, there is a settlement agreement with the Conservancy that the Conservancy has review and approval rights. Has the Conservancy reviewed and approved this? MR. ANDREA: Yes, sir, they have. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. What do you plan to do with that osprey nest, just out of curiosity? MR. ANDREA: To be honest with you, we haven't made any plans for it yet. We can move it during certain times of the year. We could move it down towards the south end of the property. But to be honest with you, it might be just okay where it's at. We've actually had phone calls from several surrounding properties that asked us to get rid of it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: We received quite a few letters from neighbors that were concerned about the osprey nest. That's why I raised the question. MR. ANDREA: Yes. It seems -- I've also gotten those. And everybody that lives right around the osprey nest has actually called and asked us to remove it if we get this approved. Everybody that looks at it from a distance asks for it to stay. So we will -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm glad you have to make the decision. MR. ANDREA: We figured that will come during the site development phase of the proj ect. But right now we just would like to get the single-family use approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I move that petition Page 141 April 20, 2006 PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6283, Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, be approved as offered by the county and the petitioner, without additional amendments. COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait a minute-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, let's go to second and we'll have discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Schiffer. Now discussion. Ms. Caron, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think you need to add the stipulation that it will be -- the setback on Bayfront Drive will be 25 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're right. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that the stipulations for the Conservancy will be added, the settlement agreement will be attached to the PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's fine. I thought in fact that they had agreed to a settlement agreement. But we can put it in there. COMMISSIONER CARON: As Ms. Student said-- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah, I had put that on the record that that needed to be added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion was made and seconded with the recommendation of county staff. And you have two other stipulations for the motion maker to consider: One is adding the settlement agreement as an exhibit to the PUD and modifying Section 15.4.4.B of the PUD for a 25-foot setback on Bayfront Drive instead of 10. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I acknowledge those as being my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept those? Page 142 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the second said -- looking at their face when they were trying to figure out that setback, I think 20 feet might be okay in this case, not 25. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so now, the-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a hardship, I think. MR. MILLER: Clayton Miller, Coastal Engineering. I'm the civil engineer on it. As tight as that site is, I'm afraid that 20 feet renders the site undevelopable in a compatible manner with the other houses in the area and would respectfully request that we keep the 10 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I honestly don't agree with that opinion. The site is developable. It's a gorgeous site. I think the height is going to make the house, not the closest -- MR. MILLER: We're showing that building on the long side there only 40-foot deep. That would narrow that to 30. And when you take setbacks for the driveway and the like, you're not going to be able to make that turn into that -- into the garage. And I haven't looked at it in detail, but I'm concerned. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't share the concern. Let me find that site plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on the visualizer, if it helps. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, as you can see, the site plan -- the thing can slide over -- first of all, it's not up on the 10- foot setback to begin with. And houses aren't all rectangular. As a matter of fact, if it causes it not to be rectangular, that might be good. I have no concern over the ability to design a house with a 20- foot setback there. I think the virtue of this house is going to be the height. And if it's that tall -- remember, the other buildings up the street are only allowed to be two stories above parking, so we're giving them that extra height for that. I don't think they should be crowding the streets. Page 143 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, I think you've made your point and the applicant has made theirs. So now it's a matter of this commission to decide. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where we're at, Robert, we moved it from 25 to 20, if that's okay with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter to me, it's just up to this COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's directing himself to me. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I think it should also be noted that accessory structures are also part of any dwelling, but not necessarily depicted in this drawing here. That would be affected by the change in setback, which would -- you know, they have to keep the accessory structures out of that 25- foot setback by moving it out another 10 or so feet, you're going to put maybe a crimp on the ability to put an accessory structure on it. Just something for you to consider. COMMISSIONER CARON: Such as? MR. BELLOWS: Pool or screen enclosure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, again, you could do a triangle-shaped house, which would be the logical one on this triangular shaped lot. Would be nice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer has recommended that the motion be modified obviously to include the staff recommendations. They have the settlement agreement as an exhibit to the PUD. And to stipulate that Section 15.4.4.B of the PUD be changed to 20 feet in lieu of the current 10 feet showing. Is that accurate, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I'm going to ask the motion maker ifhe's going to consider that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm thinking about it, and I'm not smart enough to know if that's the right way or not. I don't know. Is it our job to tell him how to build a house here? Page 144 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's -- as a motion maker, you've got to make a decision whether you accept it or not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. I'm revealing my difficulty . I'll split the difference, how about 15 feet? I mean, as long as we're playing auction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now you sound like Lindy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, here's my only concern. The other houses -- this is the main drag through the development. The other houses up that street are 25-foot through, 25 feet off of that setback, and they're only two stories above habitable. In this case, this guy wants to be four stories. So the reason that the setback's an issue, like I said earlier, is the fourth story. He can keep it exactly the way it is if he wants to go to two stories above parking, like the other houses on that street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to be honest with you, Bob, the 20 feet of work, all they've got to do is reverse the garage, come in off of Bayfront and move the building closer to the view front, which is really the mangroves and fit a pool in between the rectangular sections that are there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, I'm going to go with -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And look how far -- look at who you're -- the house next to it, look how far away he is from that comer. I mean, to cram him right up against that street compared to the house to the north. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've already said 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion maker accepts 20 as an amendment. Does the second? MR. ANDREA: Well, may I make a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, let's get to discussion. Does the second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second does, sure. Page 145 April 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, what did you have to say, sir? MR. ANDREA: I just wanted to make a clarification, if I could. This is the main drag coming in here. This is Lely Barefoot. This is where we have the driveway. This is our only option for the driveway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why? MR. ANDREA: We can't come in Bayfront here because this is a private gated road here. And this is where we proposed the 10 feet was along this side road here, which is not a main thoroughfare. We have 25 feet on the main thoroughfare, on the main road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we could design a house, but let's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for your input. There's been a motion made and seconded. Is there a further discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Does the court reporter understand the motion? COURT REPORTER: Yes. I took it down as you said it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I just want to make sure Page 146 April 20, 2006 somebody understood it. Item #9 OLD BUSINESS With that, that closes all the public hearings that we had, and we're into old business. One of the items of old business was an issue that Mr. Schiffer had brought up in a previous meeting, Ray, and that was access to the Land Development Code through the screens that we're looking at in front of us while we're sitting here at the podium. Is anybody still working on that? MR. BELLOWS: I have Sharon Phillips coordinating with the IT. And last time I checked, I thought you had that access. But if you don't, I'll check. My understanding was that you had it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just as a matter of record then, we will be asking the question at each meeting until we get that answered. That way we keep it in the front burner. Item #10 NEW BUSINESS Under new business, there are two issues of new business. Bob had one, Brad had the other. Bob, why don't you start with yours. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, really simple. It's unfortunate the others went home, but would you pass these out? I was solicited by government with regard to a two-day workshop in Sarasota having to do with sustainable communities. And inasmuch as we're a planning commission, some of the information in there appealed to me as being potentially useful to us. And I didn't think Page 147 April 20, 2006 obviously that all of us should go, and I'm not even in a position to go necessarily, but I thought that it would be useful for us to discuss it and see whether or not this is the kind of thing that would be beneficial to this commission and to the county and to the residents ultimately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, isn't the planning commission allowed to participate in events and have reimbursements in regards to the fees for the events? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. A few meetings ago Mr. Schmitt made an announcement that there was an ordinance passed that allows for reimbursement of those activities for the planning commission. We also have paid for your membership in the AP A and we will be willing to work with you on anything. Just let us know and we'll work with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think why Mr. Murray's bringing this up to us is, those people that may consider this as one of the items that they should attend or would like to attend it, it's something that could be potentially reimbursed by the government for -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's precisely what I was hoping, that we would get the opportunity to do something like this. MR. BELLOWS: If you could send the request to me, I'll coordinate with Susan Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a copy for you here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody that is interested in this, please let Ray know within a week or 10 days and then we can get on schedule. MR. BELLOWS: I won't be here for next week, though, so get it In -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As fast as you can. MR. BELLOWS: -- as fast as you can, or after I get back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Murray. Brad? Page 148 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my thing was, in watching the meeting Monday night, which the commissioners said was a hard decision for them, and it really like a hard decision for them. What I was wondering, is there a way we could -- Ray, maybe you know what's available. Obviously all the departments are doing planning, but is there anybody that's putting that all together so that people really can see what the future of this county is or where is the planning going to go for this county? I mean, the concern I had as I watched the citizens frustrated because there wasn't information for them, I watched the commissioners frustrated because it was a hard decision for them to make on what they felt the county needed, what the people felt the county needed. And it just seemed like maybe the people weren't being represented, and maybe the staff was doing a lot of stuff that the people don't know. Is there a way -- and it's not just transportation, but obviously that issue was. But, you know, is there something we should be doing so that commissioners 10 and 15, maybe 20 years from now aren't sitting in that same position? MR. SCOTT: I think exactly what you're touching on is what you'll see. I believe they're scheduling or trying to schedule the end of next month the east of951 study, which touches on every division in -- outside, like schools, things like that. We're looking at the build-out of the county and what facilities are we going to need out there as we go out to the future. Now, obviously one of our problems is that it's one thing to be on the 2030 plan, it's another to be saying something out to 2050. And how do you convey that to somebody that's far out there but, you know, you can't tell them an exact alignment on some of these things. And that's an issue that we're always going through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the question is why can't we. What the citizens are saying is they look at a map, there's a line, it's in yellow or orange or something, it means it's coming up. But Page 149 April 20, 2006 why can't we be focusing with right-of-ways. From this space -- from my take on the hearing is people were getting permits to build homes that were within that ultimate region. People were building golf courses that were ultimately in the way. I mean, shouldn't we be really -- MR. SCOTT: Well, your first step is to definitely adopt a plan. And, you know, you have a 2030, and maybe adopt a 2050 plan too. And then you would have a line on the map and you would see as development came through. Golf courses came through before that line was on the map. Now, stopping somebody from building a house though gets into a different issue if you say yeah, there's going to be a road there but it might be 30 years from now. That gets into another problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I dealt with -- I did a project that had a really large right-of-way that was annoying, but it turns out that that was going to be a road that was going to be 20,30 years away. It was a right-of-way they were reserving and all setbacks was measured from it. We did that. And then I'm old enough now to see the road that actually came through. And thank God we did, because our building is in a really nice position on this new roadway. You know, the fact, it's knowing something that -- MR. SCOTT: Well, obviously having a map is the first step also, because at least someone can make a decision from that. But also you're getting to maps, a reservation, which you can do, and hold those reservations, as you go out over time. There are legality issues, though, I'm saying -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, there are. MR. SCOTT: -- as someone comes in and says, no, you can't build on that land. But we can do, let's say, better than we have in the past as you plan forward, as long as we can get some of these adopted roadways Page 150 April 20, 2006 on a map and say this is what we're going to build in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's not just roadways. For example, that roadway, I mean, there are some people that would argue that a grid system is a great filter for traffic and maybe we should be putting bridges over canals to make the filter work better, like the grid system. But the question is why is everybody coming west? I mean, should we as a planning commission be doing things to minimize the westward exodus -- MR. SCOTT: You're touching exactly what the east of 951 study's getting into. Because-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But who's doing that study? I mean, we're the planning commission. I guess my question is, it's not me, it's the other members how come we're not involved in this? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. That process is coordinated through the comprehensive planning department with inputs from all the departments, as Don Scott's alluded to. Some of the main components primarily deal with transportation, but there are other vital issues involved. All of the departments involved, there are going to be public workshops, there's going to be workshops with the planning commission and board. The east of 951 study is what you're eluding to, and that's what is -- MR. SCOTT: It is, like I say, the first step, the conceptual stage right now. But one of the things that has been addressed is you start laying everything out and you say, boy, if everybody is coming into, say, the Naples area to get to work and for every service, does it work in the future? No, it doesn't. Then you start getting into the land use side of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think this is -- again, due to the Sunshine Law, this is the only chance we really get to talk with each other. I really think it's something we should be a little more proactive on. I mean, our responsibility, at least as defined by the state, is that we could be maybe taking the leadership in that and not Page 151 April 20, 2006 hearing about it if we bring it up like this in a meeting. I think one thing, Don, I would like, and I'm sure the other commissioners, is to send us at least a summary of what that study is going to be so we could see if in fact it is doing what you say it's doing. MR. SCOTT: I can do it. Understand, though, it's conceptual at this point. And I think in some respects it's -- I mean, I'm not even just talking transportation. When you start realizing how many schools have to be built, it's kind of shocking in some respects. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the more shocked we are, the better we think you're doing. COMMISSIONER CARON: And you said there are workshops planned as well with all of us? MR. SCOTT: I know they're to plan with the board. I don't know if -- we'll talk to compo planning about it. This was the first step. But I'm sure we can come to the planning commission in the future, too. We've talked about this even from our aspect of the long-range plan too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Inasmuch as it is conceptual and that's what planners work with, maybe -- certainly we don't want to take it out of your hands on a frequent basis, that wouldn't serve many people. But perhaps quarterly, some kind of -- you must have a time line that you're working with, even if it's conceptual -- that there are points where it might be useful for us to review something so that we could possibly add some dimension to it. And then when it does arrive at our door for review, we'd be so much more effective because of that, I think. MR. SCOTT: I agree. My problem is I'm still working on portions of it. MR. BELLOWS: I'll be glad to discuss this with Joe Schmitt, too, because I know he's looking at the hearing examiner and the Page 152 April 20, 2006 expanded role of the planning commission. Maybe this is something that can be tied into the expanded role of the planning commission in dealing with long-range planning issues and being involved more than just a review after the plan is done but involved early on in the planning and creating of any studies or long-range plans. That's an important role for a lot of planning commissions that I've worked on in the past, be involved early on, not just as a sounding board but as participants in the process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, that is the role of the planning commission. You made it sound like maybe we could expand it. I mean, that's what we should be doing. MR. BELLOWS: You will be getting plans at some point. But at some point they may be more finalized than -- I think what I'm hearing is you want to be more involved as staff is creating some plans, and maybe we can get feedback from you early on as they plans are created so we don't go too far down one road only to find major opposition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think right now what I'd like to know is what is staff planning? I mean, the situation on that hearing is here's staff. I mean, some of the dates found, they said, you know, 2004 they started to focus on it. That's not much time. Two years later they're going through the neighborhood with the road. That shouldn't -- you know, these right-of-ways should have been long, long ago determined. MR. SCOTT: The roadway on a line, on a map, on a long-range plan was on there from 2000, it was adopted in early 2001. As in alignments, that started in 2004. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think we learned that a line on the map isn't good enough. MR. SCOTT: No, it isn't. Because you're looking at an eight-and-a-halfby eleven piece of paper of the whole county, and it's a big county too. Page 153 April 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's only good for the people that in the future may want to use the roads, it's not good for the people who want to plan on what that road is. MR. SCOTT: But see, that's the problem with specifically defining -- even, you know, when you get down to an issue of designing or widening an existing roadway, you don't know the real impact until you do the design of it. So one of the things we've talked about is LDC changes to do minimum setbacks. Because obviously, as we widen the roads out in the Estates, like the Boulevard, Everglades or anything else, further away from the road is better for us. Meanwhile we're competing with the environmental agencies that say get them as close to the road as possible, don't fill in as many wetlands, things like that. And I have those calls all the time too. So there's -- and hopefully as part of what we're dong with east of -- I wish it had been done a long time ago. Obviously you're touching on the issue that that right-of-way should have been set a long time ago. And I agree. Just as we've run into Livingston Extension and a golf course being built there, things like that. That I hope is what we get out of east of 951. But it's going to be a hard row to hoe, because people are going to look at all the lines on the map and go, oh, my God, is this what I really want? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's what the people want to do is discuss it when it's a line on a map and it's not a right-of-way ripping through their neighborhood. MR. SCOTT: Well, the problem is even with the long-range transportation plan, and we've done them since the early, like middle Eighties when it became an MPO, people don't get interested in that until it's an actual project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe they learn, too. I think Monday night is going to tell the citizens that they've got to start Page 154 April 20, 2006 paying attention. MR. SCOTT: You can, but a lot of the residents that speak up, whatever, they moved here within two years. There was issues with that. And it's hard to inform everybody of every issue that's going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the message that we're trying to get across is we want to get in the loop. Do something to make that happen. Mr. Adelstein, you had something that you wanted to talk about? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I just want to remind everything that this Tuesday the county commissioners will be going over the hearing officer situation, for those of us who want to be here and hear that, to show them we're interested in what it's all about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just before I close on that, Ray, you are going to send us a list of what departments are studying long-range planning -- kind of a brief. I mean, even if it's sloppy, it's just what's going on. We're not going to critique it, we just want to get brought up to speed on what it is-- MR. BELLOWS: I'll discuss it with Randy Cohen and David Weeks and see what we can get you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it is our job. I mean, you don't have to get permission to do it, I don't think. MR. BELLOWS: Well, I know they have plans to -- MR. SCOTT: I think everybody has some form of a plan. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. It's just when does it get presented. You're asking for it early as possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, asa result of to day's meeting, when we do our next LDC changes, would you make note that the reference to commercial industrial districts, for that one section of buffers, needs to be changed, if needed. Take a look at the language. That became a problem today. In that same section, we referred to a concrete fence, which was little misleading. We need to get that corrected. If you could make Page 155 April 20, 2006 those two notes, that will clean that up. MR. BELLOWS: I'll let Catherine know today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, while you're doing that, could I ask a question? You know that the issue on the perimeter planting, could we bring that up and look at it again? Are we allowed to do that, Ray? It went through the LDC process, it's been out on the street, designers and people have been working with it for a couple of years. Are we allowed to reevaluate an existing piece of code? And here's my problem with it, when it came through the first time, there was no examples of what it meant. There was, like I said, discussions that it was fiscally, it had no impact, but yet it's had major impact. I mean, I think it would be fair to bring that up and bring it through again. Even without a cross reversion. Just here's what it is, is this what we really want, so we could really look at it. I mean, it came to us, we were tired one night over at the health department. MR. BELLOWS: You're referring to an LDC amendment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, why don't you bring the issue up to Joe, and then through legal or somebody, e-mail Mr. Schiffer and let him know what we can and can't do so we get the issue resolved. MR. BELLOWS: I'll call you after the meeting so I can get a better idea what item you're talking about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's the foundation planning of the landscape -- MR. BELLOWS: Oh, that issue, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, is there -- there's obviously no public comment. I need a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to adjourn. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Page 156 April 20, 2006 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:07 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman Page 157