Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/07/2006 R September 7, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida September 7, 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 (Absent) Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolf1at Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 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 ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A 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. APPROV AL OF MINUTES - JULY 6,2006, REGULAR MEETING; JULY 20,2006, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JULY 25, 2006, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-7834, Black Bear Properties of FL, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock, Planning Director of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates, Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zone W-l zoning district (E-ST/WSI) to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for C-3 Intermediate Commercial land uses, which can provide a variety of services with a common architectural theme, as regulated in the Neighborhood Commercial Center of the Golden Gate Are Master Plan (GGAMP). The subject property, consisting of 4.86 acres, is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard, in Section 9, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) 1 September 7,2006 VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: The meeting will come to order. All rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Commissioner Caron, would you read the roll, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolf1at? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Strain is absent today. Mr. Adelstein? VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Vigliotti is out as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. B, would you have the people fix this? It's not working again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mine neither, Ray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm going to need it. I don't have my equipment with me. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: We're all set? Addenda for the agenda. After the completion of AR-7834, we will try to complete the second hearing of the LDC Amendments after Page 2 September 7, 2006 that PUD is finished. Planning Commission absences. (No response.) VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Are there none? Good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. Item #5 MINUTES OF THE JULY 6, 2006 AND JULY 20, 2006 CCPC REGULAR MEETING VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Approval of the minutes of July 6th, 2006 Regular Meeting. Are there any changes? (N 0 response.) VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Ifnot, could I have a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moved. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Approved. Approve the minutes of July 20th, 2006 Regular Meeting. Are there any changes? (No response.) VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Ifnot, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moved. Page 3 September 7,2006 VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Second? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. Item #6 BCC-REPORTS-RECAPS JULY 25~ 2006 REGULAR MEETING VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Thank you. BCC Report. Recap, July 26th. Are there any -- are they ready for us, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: There are no recaps since their last meeting. The board is on vacation, so there was no hearing. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: It said it was a Regular Meeting. That's fine. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the July 25th one should be in your packet, the recaps. You didn't get them? COMMISSIONER CARON: I did not get it. MR. BELLOWS: I'll have those forwarded to you. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Thank you. Page 4 September 7, 2006 There will be no chairman's report. Item #8A PETITION PUDZ-2005-AR-7834 Petition PUDZ-2005-AR-7834. All those participating, please stand to be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Black Bear Properties of Florida, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock. Mr. Hancock, you've got the floor. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering, here today as agent for the applicant. The applicant, Mr. Mike Shiller (phonetic) with Black Bear Properties is here seated to my left. To his right and your left is Mr. Mike Volpe, attorney for the applicant. Also here today, Carrie Ann Haviland (phonetic) with Ram Development, which is the Walgreen's developer for this particular site. Probably fighting traffic on her way south. To give you an overview of the property, the subject property located at the southwest corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard is 4.19 acres in size. It is currently zoned Estates with an ST or special treatment overlay, and also a WS-1 designation, which refers to level one in the Wellfield Protection Ordinance. Northeast of the project is an existing convenience store, and I'm kind of rolling over that with a curser on your screen. And immediately across Wilson Boulevard to the east is a zoned commercial development called the Wilson Boulevard Center. The property is designated on the Growth Management Plan, and more specifically in the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Page 5 September 7, 2006 Element or Future Land Use Map, as the neighborhood center subdistrict, and is located pretty much in the center of the map as I'm indicating here for you. The criteria required for projects in the neighborhood center subdistrict, as contained in the Golden Gate master plan, in part are as follows: And I'm going to list these for the specific purpose of expressing how this project complies with those conditions. Number one: They must provide basic goods, services and amenities to Estate residents. The Snowy Egret CPUD contains uses that mirror this requirement. The property is under contract for the specific purpose of developing a Walgreen's drugstore. And that makes things a lot easier on the applicant when we start talking about specific conditions as they relate to the zoning. Obviously this use meets the particular needs and the intent of the district. As you'll see later in the site plan, there is a small parcel of land to the rear of the Walgreen's. Development of that site is undecided. However, the uses contained in the PUD are C-l through C- 3 uses, which are the listed uses in the neighborhood center subdistrict. No single use proj ect within the district may utilize more than 50 percent of the total allowable commercial acreage. The size of this project equates to approximately 16 percent of the total neighborhood center subdistrict. Access within the subdistrict is restricted to one per 180 linear feet along each street frontage. As you can see from the PUD Master Plan, we are proposing only one access point on Golden Gate Boulevard, and one access point along Wilson Boulevard. The access on Golden Gate is to the bottom left of your screen; the access on Wilson is actually to the top -- I'm sorry, I stand corrected. The top right is the access to Golden Gate Boulevard and the bottom middle is the access to Wilson. The access to Golden Gate Boulevard has been moved as far to the west as practical, recognizing their buffer requirements within the Page 6 September 7, 2006 subdistrict. And the access on Wilson Boulevard has been designed to line up with the proposed access with the commercial center across the street. There is a 25- foot buffer requirement along the external rights-of-way, which would be along Wilson Boulevard to the bottom of the plan, and along Golden Gate Boulevard, which is to the right of the plan is you look at it. There are planting requirements within these 25 feet. And as you've probably noticed going through the staff report, if one issue, and I believe only one issue crops up on that staff report, it is a potential conflict between a transportation need for future right-of-way along Wilson Boulevard and this buffer. We believe we've resolved that conflict, and if you'll bear with me I'll complete the presentation and we'll address that issue as the last item. All buildings within the neighborhood center subdistrict must meet architectural requirements that are actually in excess or in addition to, if you will, the county's commercial architectural guidelines. What you see here, and we're entering for the record, this is the proposed elevation, and I'm compelled to say conceptual elevation at this point. As you know, until the building permit is approved nothing can be nailed down. This project will have to go through the site development plan approval process, as well as the building permit. However, we're fairly confident that what is shown here, with the exception of some additional landscaping will meet not just the intent but the letter of that code, is intended to mimic an old Florida style with a metal roof over a covered walkway, muted colors and earth tones. And again, these are elements contained in the neighborhood center subdistrict. One question that has -- that Mr. Teaters with the Civic Association has raised is what you see in the kind of center of this elevation is a tower element, which is a requirement of the code. Page 7 September 7, 2006 That element in some degrees is exempt from the 35-foot height limitation. What I've asked Mr. Teaters, and we have agreed to come back to them with the elevation, if they feel that that tower is out of proportion with the balance of the building, we've agreed to kind of work with them on that. I think architecturally it works here, but I don't want to speak for the association, they have not really reviewed this and had time to take action on it. But we're comfortable that we've accomplished that objective here. If that tower needs to be changed a couple of feet one way or the other, that's just not really an issue for us. The building height, the lighting for the site and pedestrian connections as well as any fencing is items that will be addressed in more specificity as we go through with the site development plan approval process. But the neighborhood center subdistrict does require those items be addressed, and compliance with that will be through the SDP. While this store will have a drive-through lane for the pharmacy, it is not deemed a drive-through establishment, which is a prohibited Use within the district. And I think when you think of drive-through establishments I think of things such as Checker's, for example, that makes its living on the drive-through business. So the drive-through lanes you'll see later on the site plan is actually behind the building. You won't see it from Wilson Boulevard at all. And we find that that's kind of necessary element when putting a pharmacy in a well traveled and high trafficked area such as this. A 75-foot buffer has been provided along the adjacent properties to the west and to the south. That is again a requirement of the center subdistrict. Important to note, and it is noted in your staff report, that the property immediately to the west has applied for a Growth Page 8 September 7, 2006 Management Plan amendment to be included in the center. At this point, however, we're compelled to treat it as it is today. There's no guarantee that that will or won't be approved. So we're under today's rules and complying with those rules as moving forward. The applicant does agree with the staff conclusions and findings contained in their staff report, including the consistency of the proposed CPUD with the Golden Gate master plan, with the following minor clarifications. And they are in my opinion strictly clarifications: Under finding number six on Page 13 of the staff report, under the con. section, the section we as consultants need to have to read, staff states that the building massing will be out of character with nearby residential uses. While they correctly state -- and Mr. DeRuntz has done a good job in the staff report -- that in the findings, that the neighborhood center criteria does address this issue through buffering, primarily. I'd like to point out specifically in the Walgreen's plan, and I mentioned this earlier, the building as you can see sits here a little forward of center of the site. This is the entrance coming off of Wilson Boulevard. And to the left of that is a small parcel that remains developable within this plan. Whether that's to be a bank, which is the hoped use, or another C-l through C-3 use, it's going to be a building that's smaller in nature, smaller in character. We believe that when combined with the required buffering to the rear and a smaller building to the south, what you're going to see is a very clear transitioning element. The larger building of Walgreen's, which is still only 14,000 square feet, to a smaller building, to then a 75-foot buffer and residential. So we feel that that transitioning element has been achieved within the plan at the development of the site that will be ferreted out. Also on Page 13 of the staff report, staff indicated that the project may have a slight negative impact to the existing roadway. And I think we all know, any time you build anything, there's the Page 9 September 7,2006 chance for a slight negative impact to the roadway it sits on. But it does give me the opportunity to tap one of the strengths of this CPUD, which is that contained within the trip generation report, the number of trips generated by the proj ect, which is a little over 2,000, 68 percent are estimated to be drive-by trips. This is the whole purpose for the neighborhood center subdistrict was to locate uses that are necessary uses for folks who live in the Estates. And this certainly fits that bill. And I think that's why you see such a high drive-by rate. And I think we can look at a Walgreen's very differently, or a drugstore very differently than you would a strip center where you may decide because of the convenience of a restaurant to go out to eat, but you probably aren't going to decide because of the convenience of a pharmacy to go get your prescription filled. It's something you're going to do, the question is how far you are going to drive to get it done. So the fact that this is a pharmacy that is leading the development -- or carrying the development banner for this proj ect we feel speaks very well for the benefits for the overall transportation system. On Page 14 of 20 of the staff report, staff indicates this petition could adversely affect property values. When this property or this area was specifically designated for commercial use in 2003 through the Growth Management Plan amendment process, in essence the die was cast for commercial use. We all know that the designation of the Growth Management Plan by itself does not guarantee zoning. By the same token, the extensive public process that was involved in creating these subdistricts, I think the assessment of whether or not this type of development, whether or not included these buffers it would have an adverse impact on adj acent properties was factored in to a high degree in that process. So to date we have received no negative comments. We had a Page 10 September 7, 2006 neighborhood information meeting with 45 people in attendance. And I'd like to clone that neighborhood information meeting and have it for every one of my proj ects. Because what we found was a high degree of support in the neighborhood, in the Estates in general. The only, I guess if you could say negative comment is, you know, have you talked to Publix? And we have. Unfortunately this site is not appropriate for a Publix supermarket. And clearly everybody in the Estates seems to want a grocery store, and I sympathize with that. But that aside, we got very, very positive feedback on the use, on the site plans itself. We did have an elevation at that time but, you know, I wanted again to make sure an elevation was included as a part of our presentation, so the character of the development was on display today for everyone to see, because I think it speaks well for the project. With those three minor clarifications, I'd like to address the issue of the right-of-way needs and the buffer requirements that are mentioned many times in your staff report, and quite honestly are the only points of contention contained in the staff report from the point of consistency with the Growth Management Plan. Initially when the project came in, the county requested a reservation, and ultimately a donation of right-of-way along both Golden Gate Boulevard, again to the right of your plan, and along Wilson, which is to the bottom of the plan in front of you. That request was ultimately made for up to 25 feet. And the reason it's up to is the intersection design for Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson is not yet to the 30 percent design stage. Because of that, quite honestly, staffs not really sure what they're going to need. They know it's not going to be more than 25 feet, but really don't have a lot of details about that. Recognizing that, and I'll be candid with you, 25 feet along Golden Gate Boulevard really just kind of moved the building back a little bit. We have tried to factor that in. We may run into a little bit of Page 11 September 7, 2006 conflict, if it is 25 feet, with the entrance off Wilson, but we think we can make that work. So we have no problem with the reservation of 25 feet along Golden Gate. And in fact, Black Bear Properties has agreed to donate that right-of-way at no cost to the county. As we move to Wilson, we get to the critical component of making this site plan work. And as you view the site plan, I'd like you to understand that Walgreen's as a national company has minimum standards. This building is the narrowest building that they build. So we've already taken that and plugged it into the plan and tried to gain as much ground as we can. Along Wilson Boulevard what we have been able to do is to reserve 15 feet and still protect the 25- foot buffer requirement to the south. Initially transportation suggested language that should more than that be necessary, that it would not count against us in the buffering requirement. Normally when we're dealing with the Land Development Code required buffer, that type of deviation is acceptable in a PUD. Unfortunately for this project that buffer requirement is contained in the Growth Management Plan. There is no deviation process for the Growth Management Plan. If there were, I think you'd probably have a lot more petitions in front of you. So unless there's an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, we have to provide that 25-foot buffer. So therein lies the conflict. Transportation staff may need up to 25 feet, we have to maintain the 25 feet, and quite honestly, there's not any room left in the plan based on the buffer requirements to accommodate that. We have discussed this with transportation, and what we have agreed to is to -- and we're asking you to forward this with a recommendation of approval today specifically stating that a reservation of right-of-way -- a donation of right-of-way, if you will, of 25 feet along Golden Gate Parkway, and 15 feet along Wilson. If necessary, if they need an additional easement for water Page 12 September 7, 2006 management that doesn't affect our buffer, we're happy to work with them on that. And we'll continue to work with the transportation department to assist them in any way we can. But we want to limit that donation of right-of-way to 15 feet along Wilson Boulevard as we stand here today for the simple sake of making sure this site plan still works. With that, and if transportation concurs with that position at this time, I think that resolves the one key issue that appeared in your staff report on repeated occasions dealing with consistency with the Growth Management Plan. The balance of the site, because of the constraints in the Growth Management Plan in the subdistrict actually exceeds the vast majority of your Land Development Code requirements. So we've got a large buffer area there for consistency. With that, I would like to conclude my presentation and ask the Chair for the opportunity to address any issues that are raised by staff or members of this commission, or any member of the public prior to the closing of the public hearing. I'd be happy to address any questions you have at this time. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Hancock, I'm looking at your current picture there, and in the back, as you call it the back, there is the drive-through window. And I see three arrows and I see what appears to be the possibility of two service areas for pharmacy and one bypass; is that true? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How much would you save in space if you were to reduce the drive-through window to one and a bypass? Twelve feet? MR. HANCOCK: Actually, the aisle width for a drive-through is 10 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you'd save 10 feet plus the Page 13 September 7, 2006 physical structure that occupies the surrounding area. So maybe about 12 feet? MR. HANCOCK: Potentially, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would be a consideration that we might want to relate to, because that would enable the building to drop back some distance and provide you some additional space that might otherwise not be there. And so I just bring that to your attention as a thought. Would you also go to the first ones that you had there? Let's see. Well, that's pretty much a standard, that one, from what I've seen around. And it's an attractive building, obviously. And we'll hear more about that. Perhaps you could go to the second one. That might be where my question was. Well, it might be more appropriate for transportation to answer this, but I'm going ask the question anyway. You made the point that the opening on Wilson would be equal to the opening -- and I saw that in the latest one that you had -- the vehicular opening, the space, the entrance/exit, would be across the way from the other. And I was just curious, is that something that you're compelled to do? Because it strikes me as odd that you'd want people trying to get across the way to maybe zip across traffic. Is that something that you're required to do? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, that is actually a requirement in the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Okay. Then I shall ask the question of Mr. Casalanguida to find out why that sanity works. I was fascinated by -- the staff report does clearly indicate a strong, strong desire to see the buffering in. And I think for good reason. With that smaller building that you intend, how -- what would be the maximum size structure that you could put on that other little piece? Page 14 September 7, 2006 MR. HANCOCK: Depending on the use, which as you understand drives the parking, it's going to be maybe as much as five or 7,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. The reason I asked that question is when I reviewed all of the SIC code opportunities there, I said to myself, wow, this is -- I mean, are you really interested in holding every one of those open for a chance to put a gas station or whatever? MR. HANCOCK: At this point, if there's a particular use in the PUD that you feel is objectionable to the site, we're open to discussing that. What we were trying to do for simplicity sake is mirror the C-l to C- 3. And in all candor, when this rezone began, Walgreen's was not at the forefront. And as the rezone proceeded that was solidified in assuming successful -- the success of this rezone, the property then will close to Walgreen's, and it will be their decision. So we're certainly amenable to discuss that with you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, more so, if I may, I wonder, and we'll find out when the public speakers get the opportunity, whether or not they fully understand the impact of allowing -- or agreeing to the SICs that you have brought forth there, because it gives you opportunities that may very well be welcome in the community. But I would be interested in knowing what the community has to say about that, because there seems to be very few that you're not going to do, if given a chance. So the only limitation then would be the size of the structure possible. So those are my only two points there. And I'd like you to evaluate the question I raised with you with regard to that driveway there, because you could save about 10 or 12 feet, and that would go a long way to helping you accomplish both ends, I think. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Thank you. Page 15 September 7, 2006 VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have a copy of the site plan you showed? Not the Exhibit A but the other one. MR. HANCOCK: The Walgreen's plan? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, do you have a hard copy, 2436? MR. HANCOCK: I do not. I have an eight-and-a-halfby 11 that I could put on the visualizer to zoom in, if that helps. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have one I could look at in my hand? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The visualizer doesn't work. MR. HANCOCK: Today's technology we've all but eliminated foam core from our presentations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Such a pretty piece of paper. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's it. We can go on with it. Let me just look at this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you have your magnifying glass, too? MR. HANCOCK: I will take note that I'll bring at least 11 by 17's in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you waiting for me? Oh, no, don't wait for me. I just wanted to look at it. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Anyone else that wants to speak on this? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll wait until everybody's had a chance to weigh in. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Seems like it's your chance. Goon. COMMISSIONER CARON: I said I'll wait until the public weighs in. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: I then think we ought to talk Page 16 September 7, 2006 to staff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I did have one other question. MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. The -- as was mentioned, that this petition did hold a neighborhood information meeting and it was well attended. It was on April 11 th, as mentioned in the staff report, and there was quite a few questions that was asked. And as was stated, it was well received, the zoning proposal, and the desire for this type of a service in this particular area. Comprehensive Planning has reviewed this rezoning request and reviewed the document and found it to be consistent. Transportation has reviewed it and they've also found it consistent with the transportation impact study -- or generation report that was prepared. Environmental reviewed it as well. Utilities is requesting that a well site be proposed, and they have identified that on the plan. And the -- let's see, I don't think it shows on this slide here, but -- yeah, this area right here, shaded area here is the proposed well site. There's an existing well site that adjoins it here, but county utilities is desiring an additional well site. I did want to, for the record, say that there is a typographical error on Page 20, on number six. It should read Snowy Egret Plaza CPUD instead of Naples Daily News. A typo error. The staff is -- has recognized that this proposed language in the transportation section is contrary to the Growth Management Plan neighborhood center, commercial center requirements in the Golden Gate master plan, and it is recommending that the planning commission stand by those requirements and have the 25-foot requirement for landscaping along both the frontages there. I do want to also bring it to the Planning Commission's attention Page 1 7 September 7, 2006 that there may be a conflict also with the drive-through in the requirements in the Growth Management Plan. It talks about drive-through establishments shall be limited to banks with no more than three lanes. They do state on -- in the PUD document, 5.8E, that -- banks and pharmacies. We may want to put that as a condition that it be limited to the banks, but I think that we need to get more clarification from Comprehensive Planning on that issue, specifically, and we could report that back to the Planning Commission. Weare looking right now at the PUD document and not the Walgreen's site. Although the Walgreen's site is something that's real important, and that's what the people are really looking for, and the property owner is -- has made extensive contact with the Walgreen's and they're wanting to purchase this property and go in there. And there's definitely a need in the Estates, that's why we have these neighborhood centers in the Growth Management Plan. But just for the record, I think that we need to incorporate that as one of the conditions for clarification. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning. MR. DeRUNTZ: Morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There was several issues, and one of them was massing. And when you spoke of that, of course you're talking about the entire building occupation, the footprint. But what is it that should be envisioned for that area? How much of a reduction; 20, 30, 40 percent? If you had your druthers and you could have a building on there, what is the delta of the problem, if you will? MR. DeRUNTZ: It is the area, the lines of the building, the height and the length. We were looking at, I think -- the intent of this commercial center area, as identified in the comprehensive plan, was that it would more or less blend into the area, which is predominantly residential. And this is more of a larger box instead of broken up in Page 18 September 7,2006 scale on roof lines. It could possibly, you know, soften that up or lessen that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. What I understand you to say then, the Growth Management Plan intends that there be mom and pop type of environment or a local limited general store. But a well-known chain has established its logo, has established its format. So the Growth Management Plan you're saying in this case doesn't consider, so it would be an exception or a deviation to put in a standard product. Or you are saying to us that you are advocating that we suggest that they modify it tremendously to reflect more of what the area intends? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. It's not exempting a chain or anything like that, a national company coming in there. It's just fitting into the character of the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I think I understand you now. I wanted to talk about the wellfield also. The wellfield is adjacent on the property. Now, you attended a meeting with all of that team of those individuals, so Mr. DeLony's representative was there. Did they express a need specifically for that wellfield that they want to put in there, that parcel of property they want dedicated? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why did they do that? What did they say is their basis? MR. DeRUNTZ: The need for additional water and the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's one directly adjacent, right? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. And it would increase create the capacity and the demand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'll accept your answer, even though I question that. Page 19 September 7, 2006 The single lane and bypass, and you're saying that the GMP doesn't allow for it, except for banks. MR. DeRUNTZ: That's what it says. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Also, I think, we want to facilitate for our community's ease of our operation. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we would have no problem, if my fellows here agree. But would you think that, when I raised the question before about the single lane and the bypass as opposed to the double lane and bypass would get that space that you need to allow for both the road and the buffering? MR. DeRUNTZ: I think that's a good suggestion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a point that's well taken, is it? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right, those are my questions, thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Thank you. I'd like to talk to the transportation department, Mr. Scott. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. Nick Casalanguida. I was the one who reviewed this application, so I may be able to answer some of your questions. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: I don't really have a question but one. And that is, do you feel this road is satisfactory for the job that's being done on it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, it is. The capacity left on Golden Gate Boulevard west of Wilson has remaining capacity on it. And east of Wilson we are currently under the design phase and going into construction probably end of '08, early '09. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Would there be enough space for transportation area if the other party decided to do exactly Page 20 September 7, 2006 the same thing in the same area? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Another party, meaning what, sir? VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: There's another party that's going to try to do exactly the same thing almost in mirror what this one has done. MR. CASALANGUIDA: In one of the other corners? VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Yes, sir. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If they work with us, there will be space, sIr. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Okay. That's all I really wanted to know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I have one question. I looked at that and I wondered -- I'm familiar with that corner. And making a left from Golden Gate onto Wilson, and where that east store is there, that's always a challenge. And I'm just wondering, opening up that space to allow people to zip across under those traffic conditions throws me. And you're saying -- the gentleman said that's in our code that requires that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: What we've done -- if you talking about the Wilson access or the Golden Gate Boulevard? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wilson. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll go through both of them with you, because we reviewed both of them with the applicant. The approach coming eastbound on Golden Gate Boulevard has been restricted to a right in only, so that wouldn't be set up for a weave to come out across. The access point on Wilson Boulevard has been set up to line up in the current condition with a project that's across the street. And I've cautioned the applicant that this is only a PUD and we're showing an access point. We may request that they push farther south. In the future condition, that turn lane's heading northbound on Wilson, maybe restrict that median opening to then having only a right Page 21 September 7, 2006 in, right out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But he said -- and I thank you, but he said that was per code. And I think -- could you just go to that one, maybe you know how to use that thing there, and go to that one page where he showed -- I think it's probably the third one down. I'm not sure which one it is. Might be the third one down, I'm not sure. Is that it? Yeah, that's it. Thank you. If you look there at the bottom, it appears that somebody could move from the south -- I'm sorry, from the east to the west, zip right across. You're saying that you would not allow that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: In the future condition, that's going to be a closed median. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I wanted to know. That struck me as awful odd that we would want to encourage that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That right now is in a two-lane condition and there isn't a lot of volume coming up and down. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I realize that. But once you widen and once you do what you're going to do, that would be -- okay, then you made me feel better. MR. SCOTT: Can I add one thing to the comment about capacity? Obviously this is a PUD rezone. Right now it's consistent. If at site plan development there isn't capacity for some reason, if the proj ect doesn't move forward to the east, then we will say no at that time but-- , COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Well, that's an expectation for concurrency. MR. SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm sure that the developer understands that. I'm sure you've made that quite clear. That's it. Thank you very much. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Do any of the commissioners have any questions? Page 22 September 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, the right-of-way that they're talking about, the future right-of-way, if you did claim that, what would that be used for? Wouldn't it be mostly for drainage? Would it be lanes, or what would it be? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mostly for turn lanes and the sidewalks that would be constructed as part of the improvement project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The site plan, can you put on -- okay, it is up there. Is that showing the configuration before or after the dedication you were looking for? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It shows that right-of-way line is for the dedication that we've required. But that configuration of the language that's shown on Wilson is not -- is in the before condition. But the right-of-way line, that dark line -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That line right there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- is the future right-of-way line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENT VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Are there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have two registered speakers. The first one is Pat Humphries, followed by Mark Teaters. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. HUMPHRIES: I'm Pat Humphries from the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. Six years ago we came to this board to Page 23 September 7, 2006 approve a shopping center on the opposite side of the one in question on the basis that it would be a Walgreen's. Well, it did not turn out to be a Walgreen's. And here we go again. I only met with these people once and it was on the site. It was with my other board members. And at that time they said yes, there will be a Walgreen's and a bank. Now it seems it can be many, many other things. They have not been to any of our meetings. We have very little information on this shopping center, and we have to have a lot more information and we have to have a lot more reassurances that this is going to be what they said it's going to be. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Teaters. MR. TEATERS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Mark Teaters, and I'm the president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. And I wear two hats today . Not only am I the president of the civic association, but I also live right across the street, basically, kind of catty-corner, if you can look at the map. Just south on Wilson -- or just to the south of where this property is, there's one across the street, there's one house, and mine is the second house in. So we're going to be looking at this across the street. We really don't have a problem with the project as it's been presented. Now, the people have been great. We went out and we put a table out on the side of the road at 8:00 one morning and they came out there and we all had coffee and stood around and looked at what was going to happen, and they gave us their rendering and a couple of other things. And we kind of had an agreement at that point in time. There was going to be a Walgreen's, then there was going to be a bank. Of course some things have changed a little bit. I spoke with Mark Strain yesterday, and some of the things that we're concerned about is the height limit on the tower. There is no Page 24 September 7, 2006 --according to I guess the Land Development Code, there is no heights limit for a tower, so we want to have a maximum height limit on that. And also the old Florida style. We also want to remove the language that says that the building sty Ie and the facade would have the approval -- would meet the approval of the GGEACA. What we want to do is we want to let the land development -- the Golden Gate master plan component take care of that. Because it states it. It's fine. It doesn't need to be decided upon by our group. Let me see, what else. Oh, the property to the west. We also have issues with the permitted uses. This is the first time that I've seen this. Mr. Murray, you were correct. And I would like an opportunity to go through each one of these before we're done today. The folks from the group have said that they would do that with us, and we want to be able to go through -- we do this with every one of these PUDs, and we've eliminated a lot of these uses before. They're all pretty similar. Like for example, you've got the gas stations and some of the other ones that I think are going to be eliminated because of the wellfield anyway. But I think there are some other ones in here: Group care facilities, food stores, eating places with alcoholic beverages. Those kind of things that are not consistent with being next -- right directly next to a residential neighborhood, we want to take care of those today. So will we get an opportunity to do that here before we finish? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Go ahead, you're the chair. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: No, I don't think we have an opportunity to do it that direction. I think you have to deal with them directly. Because we can't go through it, I don't think. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, there's no reason that we can't continue this, absolutely. If there are issues to be worked out between the association, and it's already here in their own PUD that Page 25 September 7,2006 they want to work with the association, there's no reason why it couldn't be continued. MR. TEATERS: Well, can we -- is there a way that we could just take care of this today so that they can move forward? Because I do know that they want to move forward with this. We need this badly in the Estates. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Would that be satisfactory to you? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, I'd be happy to go through the list here today and resolve that today. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Go ahead. MR. TEATERS: Terrific. Okay, very good. Okay, does everybody have a copy of the list in front of them? You guys all have a copy of the list of the PUD -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We do, but it's rather extensive and I think it would probably not serve us as well to go through that. MR. TEA TERS: Could we take a break for 10 minutes and us go through it and then we could deal the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move that we continue this portion of the meeting for a period equal to the time needed to review and qualify -- VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: We'll continue this meeting for 15 minutes and give you a chance to get it done. MR. TEATERS: Terrific. Thank you. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If I might, I just wanted to state on the record -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your microphone. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: We can't hear you. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm sorry. Under architectural, it's not -- it doesn't say that the association has to give approval before site plan, because there would be a legal issue about a private entity being involved in governmental approvals. Page 26 September 7, 2006 It just says the developer shall meet with the Golden Gate Civic Association to discuss architectural components. That's a policy decision for you all to make. MR. TEATERS: Very good. And we've already done that. We've already had the meeting with them on that, so we're comfortable with that. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I just wanted to take care of that MR. TEATERS: Terrific. Very good. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: We're going to take a 15-minute break. (A recess was taken.) VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: The meeting will come to order. MR. TEATERS: Thank you very much. We appreciate that. I think that we have a consensus. We got together out in the hallway, Mr. Hancock and the group, and we went through the list of permitted uses, and I think we've eliminated some things that are pretty common sense. And I'm going to let him go through those with you. But I just want to say in closing that we really appreciate these folks coming and bringing us a service that we do need in that part of the Estates. That intersection is actually the geographical center of Collier County. So the nice thing about it is, we're not -- people aren't going to be making trips going towards the east anymore. We're going to hopefully have more people doing things -- I mean towards the west. We're going to have more people doing things towards the east, which is going to help us with our traffic problem and our road issues. So thank you very much. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just had one question. Did you also figure out the height of the tower issue? Did you resolve that? Page 27 September 7, 2006 MR. TEATERS: No, we did not. Mark Strain had suggested that we go with -- what is the height, the maximum height of the building, 35 feet? MR. HANCOCK: That's correct, it's -- for the record, Tim Hancock. It's -- 35 feet is the maximum height of the building. If I were to scale that tower, and I can get back to you with a more exact number, it looks to be about 42 feet, maybe about a seven-foot elevation difference. MR. TEATERS: Mark said 45 feet would be just fine. MR. HANCOCK: We like Mark. MR. TEATERS: We like Mark, yeah. MR. HANCOCK: I think we're well inside of that. And that would not be problematic from an architectural standpoint. MR. TEA TERS: Terrific. Whatever makes it easier. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Thank you, gentlemen. There is another speaker. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Let's let Mr. Hancock identify those. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I wouldn't mind going over what you guys did. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. MR. HANCOCK: I'm comfortable with any batting order, Mr. Chairman. The uses that we have agreed to eliminate and! or modify as specified here are as follows: Under Section 3.3 of the PUD document, eliminate Item A-4, automotive services. Eliminate Item A-I 0 -- I'm sorry, modify Item A-I 0, food stores, to read food stores, groups 5411-5499, excluding convenience stores with or without gas. Eliminate Item A-II, gasoline service stations. And eliminate Items A-13 and A-17, which deal with group care Page 28 September 7, 2006 facilities and individual and family social services. And that's the extent of the modifications. Oh, I'm sorry, thank you. I left out the dreaded lawnmower repair. Item A-22 will remain as is with the removal oflawnmower repair as a permitted use. The lawnmower repair business is sad throughout the world at this moment. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Do any of the commissioners have any other questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to hear the other public speaker. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: I'd like to have the last public speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Linda Woody-McKee. MS. WOODY-McKEE: Good morning, everyone. My name is Linda Woody-McKee, and I'm here on behalf of my mother. She has the parcels of property next to the construction going up. I saw where, you know, where you have it all dug up and all. And I understand you're going to put another piece, another commercial next to her two properties, which is east. And it's unit 13 east, one half of tract 18, which is right next to this parcel. And then 13 west, 180 foot of the tract 19, which she -- my mother would like to have that zoned commercial. I know you have to go through all that, you know, to have that done. But I just wanted to -- you know, we do want this Walgreen's to go in, if that's what's going to go in. And this property also is going to be going for sale, so hopefully somebody will purchase this. I'm going to be putting the sign up today. But -- all right, that's all I wanted to say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. MS. WOODY-McKEE: That's it. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question? Excuse me. What Page 29 September 7, 2006 did you mean by for sale? What's going for sale? MS. WOODY-McKEE: Well, these two parcels of property next to the Walgreen's. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Next to -- not including this property? MS. WOODY-McKEE: Pardon? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not this property. The property that we're hearing now, that's not the one -- MS. WOODY-McKEE: Well, if you see right here, this one-- if you want to put it on the screen, I'll show you. Here's the project right here, the Walgreen's. I'm not a very good speaker. It doesn't have anything to do with this? MR. HANCOCK: No. MS. WOODY-McKEE: That's on the opposite side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: "X" marks this site. MS. WOODY-McKEE: What is the development going on in the comer? MR. DeRUNTZ: That's Wilson Boulevard Center. That's already been approved in the PUD. MS. WOODY-McKEE: Oh, well, this is the letter my mother received in the mail. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: If you're going to speak, please talk so the court reporter can hear you. MS. WOODY-McKEE: I'm sorry. I thought it was this property here. But this is the two parcels here, number five and number nine. That would end in nine. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Excuse me, I can't hear you at all so-- , MS. WOODY-McKEE: Okay, the two parcels I'm talking about is on Golden Gate Boulevard in Golden Gate Estates. This is Wilson here. And there's a project going in right here. I don't know what is planned on going in here. But we are -- we would like to have Page 30 September 7, 2006 this zoned commercial next to the two proj ects that will be going in on Golden Gate Boulevard. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Thank you very much. MS. WOODY-McKEE: Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: There being no more public speakers -- MR. BELLOWS: No more have registered. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: -- we will close the meeting. Do I have any -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. COMMISSIONER CARON: Are you going to have discussion, the rest of us ask questions? VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just asked -- you've had some time, I think, to speak with your clients with regard to the issue of the single rather than double pharmacy out, whatever that's called, the outside service. Is there any problem? MR. HANCOCK: Actually, Mr. Murray, there is. And the problem we experience is that, as was spoken earlier, a lot has occurred to get Walgreen's to the point they are today. If this property is rezoned in October, it will be sold to Walgreen's in November. So that's the time frame we're on. Part of their approval process includes the drive-throughs as shown on the sheet here today. What I think we have done, and I think we have accomplished with the transportation staff, is that we are going to maintain the 25- foot buffer requirement as we're required to in the compo plan. That will not be reduced. We will remove the language from the PUD that refers to any reduction or any compensation for that. And we are reserving for donation the 15 feet along Wilson. At this stage, transportation is comfortable with that, and we Page 3 1 September 7, 2006 will continue to work with them on any other needs that arise in the future. So I think we're able to preserve the drive-through lanes, if that is in fact what gets built, and still maintain the 25-foot buffer. So at this point I'm reluctant to give that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And that's fine. So the key here then is that the preserves will be maintained and you'll still be able to work with transportation. That's what the record will reflect; is that correct? MR. HANCOCK: That is precisely correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm not certainly going to push the issue if there's no reason to push it. But keep that in mind that should there be a problem. The area of the wellfield, how many square feet is that? MR. HANCOCK: Actually, the wellfield protection-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The one that the county would like to have you give up. MR. HANCOCK: I believe it's 20 by 40. I gave my readable site plan to Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I have it in mind if it's 20 by 40. Would that in any way -- if that space were returned to you, would that in any way impact negatively or would it impact most positively? MR. HANCOCK: Because it's located within the 75-foot buffer requirement, it would have no-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No meaning one way or the other? MR. HANCOCK: That's why it was so easy to give it up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. That would be it, thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Nick, would you come Page 32 September 7, 2006 forward, please. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Do you agree with the statements he has made? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. I think what we're going to do between now and the board meeting is look at doing a sloping construction easement in that buffer, and we're going to talk with compo planning and the county attorney's office. And I think that would be consistent with the compo plan. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Thank you very much. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me, Nick, before you go, you're planning on doing it within the 25- foot buffer? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That buffer is meant as a space requirement. Ifwe can do a sloping grading easement in that buffer, I think that would accomplish both purposes and that might be consistent. In other words, where the road would end typically we need a certain amount to grade down and meet, and if we can use that for the buffer, I think it's consistent to have both uses in that buffer, and I think it might be okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me follow up on that, Nick. So that would mean that you would not need the dedication on Wilson? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, we would still need the 15 feet. But that additional 10 feet that would be required for the roadway widening might be accomplished as a sloping construction easement in that buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have one more. If it turns out that that does not work out, would you -- would transportation like a stipulation similar to what Mr. Murray has Page 33 September 7, 2006 offered, which would be to take a lane away from the drive-through, and that would give you 10 feet? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Certainly that would help us. I think we'll have that answer between now and the board. We're far enough ahead in our design that we will have that cleared up by the time we go to the board meeting. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Well, we can stipulate it and if it's not necessary then it's not necessary. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fair. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Thank you, Commissioner Caron. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Adelstein, the final item I went to mention that was raised during Mr. DeRuntz's presentation is there's some question about the interpretation of drive-throughs, whether they apply strictly to banks or can be applied to a pharmacy. The civic association obviously does not have an issue with the drive-throughs as they relate to this project. However, that may be an interpretation that the board will have to take up on this petition. So I don't want to leave that unmentioned. The second part to that is that there's an application for the adjacent property. But if it were to be approved out to the future, and their representative is here today, it would have the effect of reducing the 75- foot buffer that we have, and would make all these other issues about right-of-way completely disappear. So the application before you today is under the current rules. Should that occur, it could have an impact where we could amend our master plan to accommodate those things. I want to raise that not because there's anything we can do about it today, but it's a potential eventuality that may help solve some of these issues. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. In the Exhibit A, you have a meandering berm. If your design doesn't have a Page 34 September 7, 2006 meandering berm, should we remove that from Exhibit A? Or maybe Mike could answer, would you be held to meandering? MR. HANCOCK: I want to point out that the master plan is the governing document that we're looking at here today. We get caught in this issue of trying to provide as much detail as we can and then being bitten by that detail. The Walgreen's site plan and the Walgreen's elevation are shown for informational purposes. We have committed to basically we have to meander the berm to avoid or minimize the impact to any vegetation within that buffer. So we have to have the flexibility to move in a circuitous way through the preserve as a preservation exerCIse. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I was trying to help you. I didn't want somebody saying the site plan you presented certainly doesn't have a meandering berm, therefore, it would not meet Exhibit A, therefore, you have a problem. MR. HANCOCK: I can honestly say, it wasn't our idea to put it in there, but that would not hurt us at all. We're committed to having to avoid vegetation impacts in that area to the degree that we can, and that's the purpose for it being there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one point, and that concerns the other property that is coming forward for GMP amendment. This board cannot consider that at all because we don't know whether that's going to happen or not. So that can't reflect on any decision we make here today. Secondly, is the master plan, now that we're talking about it, the one that you gave to Mr. Schiffer or the one that we all got in our packet? MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Schiffer requested the Walgreen's site plan to review. But in your packet is the CPUD Master Plan. That's Page 35 September 7, 2006 the document that will be attached to the Zoning Ordinances. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then I believe Mr. Murray's suggestion is a good one -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- when we get to stipulations. MR. HANCOCK: I would like to point out that dealing with issues such as number of drive-through lanes, typically a zoning level issue, we have to have a 25- foot buffer no matter what. And if staff says at some point we're taking 10 additional feet of your land, we'll have to deal with that issue at that time. And the repercussions fall to the property owner, just as it would if the county were doing any road proj ect. What I hear from staff and we've heard today is that they're willing to work with us with a 15-foot reservation, and that any future needs we will continue to work on. And so if they come and take that additional 10 feet, we're going to have to address that. So rather than tying that to a drive-through lane today and limiting our options, I would simply ask that there be some faith placed in your transportation staff that they will make sure the county gets what it needs and will work with us in doing so as we move forward to the board. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may, Mr. Hancock-- COMMISSIONER CARON: At this point, Mr. Hancock, you're not even sure that drive-throughs are allowed, period, because of the Growth Management Plan. So-- MR. HANCOCK: All the more reason to leave it as it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And quite frankly, I'm prepared to make a stipulation that may satisfy all of our needs. So we'll see what happens. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I see you jump up excitedly, we'll know I did the wrong thing. Page 36 September 7, 2006 MR. HANCOCK: I'll try to control myself, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: I'm going to close the meeting and ask for a motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion to recommend approval of PUDZ-2005-AR-7834, known as the Snowy Egret Plaza CPUD with at least one stipulation, and that is that a drive-through facility of either one or two use lanes and one bypass lane be included to permit use by the neighbors benefiting from that -- let me just stop at that point. That would be the one stipulation I see as being needed at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. But I'd like to add some stipulations. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: You may request them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In that last one, are you -- it almost sounds like you're requiring them to have a drive-through lane. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I -- you're asking me a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, well, let me go to the other one. First one is that the actual height be 45 feet. In our Land Development Code, actual height means to the top of everything, so therefore that protects the tower. That the architectural standards be as per the Growth Management Plan. That the uses that they mentioned be moved to prohibited uses, I guess. And I think it would be good if we support the pharmacy drive-through. I know that it's a GMP issue. We can't touch it or -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I just needed to state that if it turns out that it's inconsistent with the compo plan, then that requirement would not be legal. But I believe it's up in the air at this point whether it is or is not consistent. And the applicant is waiting for some word from the Comprehensive Planning Staff. Page 37 September 7, 2006 So you might want to make your stipulations subject to that recommendation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. I was going to -- I want to amend that to facilitate that. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: You will accept the amendment? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm about to modify it and make the amendment myself. I was the one that made the motion. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: I understand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, my -- subject to Growth Management Plan approval, my stipulation was: Subject to Growth Management Plan approval that may be determined at a later point. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. As concerns the maximum height, the maximum height of this building, the actual height, is listed as 35 feet. That should remain. The only thing that goes to 45 feet is the addition of the tower. That gives them the extra 10 feet to put that tower only on there. It's not that the whole building can suddenly go to 45 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we have a zoned height, which I assume is what's in the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Is in their PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What page is that? COMMISSIONER CARON: Is the actual height-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then they should change the wording on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Hancock? VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Mr. Hancock, what is the actual height you're building to? MR. HANCOCK: Actual height of the building is at 35 feet. If I understand the motion correctly, it's to cap the actual height of the tower at 45 feet. Page 38 September 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what you probably want to say is zoned height that's 35 feet, and the actual height is 45 feet. Zoned height would be the height of the building as per, you know, depending on the roof line. But where's your development standards? They were here. COMMISSIONER CARON: They're on Page 3-5 of the PUD. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Schiffer, what I'm -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, then I think we should change 3. 6F to be actual height -- I'm sorry, to be zoned height. And then add an actual height of 45 feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: For the tower only. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: For the tower only. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, that's what was agreed upon by everyone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what that means is that the actual height allows any roof structures that are allowed by any code so-- , MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Schiffer, if I may, quoting from the Growth Management Plan, and to ensure consistency, it states on Page 35 of the Golden Gate master plan that building heights shall be limited to one story with a maximum height of 35 feet. This provision applies only east of Collier Boulevard, which is what we're subject to. What Mr. Teaters has raised is that the tower, under our architectural standards, is not subject to building height. So the concern was how high the tower itself can be. So the Growth Management Plan limits our building height to 35 feet. And I think what we're trying to accomplish, and I'm not trying to speak for you, sir, is that that tower not be more than 45 feet, as measured the same as the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're trying to do the same thing. I'm just trying to use the words in the Land Development Code. Page 39 September 7, 2006 MR. HANCOCK: Understood. And because there's a Growth Management Plan limitation to the building height of 35 feet, the document has to state that consistently. And maybe the easiest way to do it is to add a caveat for the tower height. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Thank you. I would like to hear the motion now where it is, so we're all agreed to what we're doing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, let me -- I will restate, if you will, the stipulation: That a drive-through facility by the one or two use lanes and one bypass lane be included subject to interpretation of the Growth Management Plan for the Golden Gate area. And that building height be no greater than 35 feet, as stipulated in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And that a tower which would reside within the structure shall not exceed 10 feet in height and be proportional to the structure of the building. Does that satisfy everybody? VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way you worded it it sounds like we're going to have it -- I think you said 10 feet above that height. You don't really want a 10- foot tower. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Above 45 feet. Either way you want to word it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Within the structure no greater than 10 feet above the height of 35, would be 45. And proportional to the structure. So it actually might be less. That was my reason for putting that on there, qualifier. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Is the motion satisfactory to you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's fine. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: And you second it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Page 40 September 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: You need to add the rest of your stipulations into his motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, you're going to have to -- I mean, the one about the architectural standards as per the GMP. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did I not include that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, you didn't. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will include that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then that the uses we discussed would be moved to prohibitive uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't hear what you said, you turned away from the microphone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The uses we discussed, when they came back -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yes, thank you. The SIC Code, the restrictions that were placed upon it during this meeting will become part of the record. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Anyone else? (No response.) VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Aye. Opposed? (N 0 response.) VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Carried unanimously. We will take a 10-minute break. (A recess was taken.) Page 41 September 7, 2006 Item #9 OLD BUSINESS VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Any old business? (No response.) Item #10 NEW BUSINESS VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Any new business? (No response.) VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: I move the meeting be adjourned. COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN ADELSTEIN: Okay. We'll now be changing our hats. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :00 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION LINDY ADELSTEIN, Vice-Chairman Page 42