Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/05/2007 R April 5, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, April 5, 2007 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 P. Strain Tor Kolflat Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti (absent) Russell Tuff ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Marjorie Student-Stirling, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2007, 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 MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR 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 VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 18,2007, REGULAR MEETING; FEBRUARY 1,2007, REGULAR MEETING; FEBRUARY 1,2007, SPECIAL MEETING; FEBRUARY 15,2007, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - FEBRUARY 27, 2007, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: BD-2006-AR-10900, Hall-Mardt LLC and JARDMR Enterprises, LLC, represented by Jeff Rogers, of Turrell and Associates, Inc., requesting a 12-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06.E.l to allow a boat dock facility protruding a total of 32 feet into the waterway and accommodating two vessels. The subject property is located at 267 3rd Street West, Little Hickory Shores, Unit 3 Replat, Block G, Lot 5, Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. CONTINUED FROM 3/15/07 AND RE-ADVERTISED TO 4/19/07 (Coordinator: Ashley Blair) 1 B. Petition: CU-2006-AR-9458, Silver Strand III Partnership, represented by George L. Varnadoe, Esquire, of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP and Fred ReischI, AICP, of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., requesting a conditional use for Rinker Concrete Plant at Silver Strand in the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district. The subject property, consisting of 14.79" acres, is located approximately I ,300 feet south of Stockade Road on the east side of Immokalee Road (CR 846), in Section 15, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, fmmokaIee, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) C. Petition: SV-2006-AR-I035I, Unity of Naples Church, represented by Debra Williams, Sf. Minister of Unity of Naples Church, is requesting a sign variance for code enforcement violations of an off premise sign that is not located on the property. The subject property is located at 7100 Davis Boulevard, in Section 8, Township 50S, Range 26E, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) D. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-9I 50, Kerry Kubacki for Livingston Village, LLC, and Tammy Turner Kipp of Vanderbilt Holdings II, LLC, represented by Robert L. Duane, AJCP, of Hole Montes, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the currently zoned "A" Agriculture with a Conditional Use (CU) overlay to "MPUD" Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. The proposed rezone request is for up to I 00,000 square feet of retail or office space and ten multi-family units; the project is to be known as Bradford Square MPUD. The subject property is 9.18" acres located at 14258 Livingston Road, north east corner of Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road, Section 31, Township 48 South, and Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) CONTINUED FROM 3/15/07 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 4-5-07 eepe Agenda/RB/sp 2 April 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 5th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Even though government can't seem to get our clock working and it says 9:30, it's actually 8:30, So, whatever that says, take an hour off and we'll be on government time, So, if you all could rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison,) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE CLERK CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, A roll call by the clerk, please, COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here, COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr, Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here, COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here, COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms, Caron is here. Mr. Stain, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here, COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein, COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here, COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is absent. And Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Item #3 Page 2 April 5, 2007 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Addenda to the agenda, The first petition BD-2006-AR-10900, the Hall-Mardt LLC and JARDMR Enterprises, It's for a boat dock extension, has been re-advertised to be continued to 4-19-07 pursuant to the agenda, Any other changes or comments from the Planning Commission? Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Okay, Planning Commission absences. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, I'm in the jury pool for the week of the next meeting, Well, they'll spit me out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say. I tried that once, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'm there, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Anybody else on the 19th? Just so the commission knows, on the 19th we actually have two meetings happening. One is the continuation of the GMP Amendment hearing, That will be the first meeting. It will start at 8:30 and it's on one issue and that's Number 13, which is the Assembly of God Church issue, And we'll close that meeting and then start in our regular agenda meeting after that. So, the 19th, I don't know what the rest of the agenda looks like, but we'll be here for awhile, Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 18,2007, REGULAR Page 3 April 5, 2007 MEETING; FEBRUARY 1,2007, REGULAR MEETING; FEBRUARY 1,2007, SPECIAL MEETING; FEBRUARY 15,2007, REGULAR MEETING Approval of the minutes. We had four or five of them in our packet. The first one was January 18th, 2007. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron, Any discussions? All in favor, signify by saying aye, COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye, COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye, COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye, COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? The motion carries, The second one was February 1st, 2007. Is there a motion for approval? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein again, COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron again. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye, Page 4 April 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye, COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye, COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye, COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? And the next is February 1st, 2007. This was the same date but it was a special meeting, Now, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron seconded it. Discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye, COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye, COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye, COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye, COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye, COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? And the last one was a regular meeting on February 15th, Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein again. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron again, All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 5 April 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Motion carries, Thank you all, Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - FEBRUARY 27,2007, REGULAR MEETING Ray, the BCC reports and recaps, MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Board of County Commissioners during their March 27th meeting heard the Treviso Bay MP -- or MPUD, and that was approved by a four to one vote, And then the Kaikasa (phonetic) RPUD was approved on the summary agenda, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, The Kaikasa came to this board but the Treviso Bay one did not come to this board; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MPUDs go directly to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Thank you, Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman's report. I really don't have anything in particular today to bring up, I'm sure there will be more in the future, so we'll move into the advertised public hearings, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, one quick second. Page 6 April 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I watched that MUD -- the hearing and what it really looks like is there's a lot of planning and review like that -- it seems strange. I know we changed the law where they could go there to get the approval, but they're also reviewing design and planning and everything else, It's not just the approval. Do you agree or -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, the subject site is located within the Bay Shore overlay, And the zoning is in place, the overlay is in place, The mixed use aspect of it are the -- mixed use project is a way of obtaining some additional dwelling units that are kind of a -- in a pool that was created through the process when the -- or when the Bay Shore overlay was created, So, it's not additional units out of there, just actual density that was left over when the mixed use or when the overlay was created. So, because of that, it was felt that there was no change in zoning and no increase in density, It's just a conceptual plan to show that they are in fact utilizing a mixed use project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the same argument -- remember, we went over that Bay Shore for so many hours and so many days and we had tried to discuss the possibility of it coming before the Planning Commission but it didn't materialize, And I think the issue is basically the same. It's more of an architectural aspect than a planning aspect. The planning was done during the process of the overlay, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, my opinion though, watching it, it appeared to be a planning -- you know, hearing discussing, you know, the units, the neighborhood, I mean, it's exactly what we do and it's a way, I guess, to get there without coming through these boards. I mean, the intent was to just give me approval to do the mixed use, It seems to have grown into more than that. That's all, Page 7 April 5, 2007 In my opinion -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you wanted to mention it to your commissioners as far as a suggestion, that changes would have to come from the BCC, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know we had also suggested it during the overlay process but it didn't seem to follow, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, Item #8B PETITION: CU-2006-AR-9458 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move into the first advertised public hearing, which is Petition 8B. It's CU-2006-AR-9458, the Silver Strand In Partnership, Rinker Concrete Plant at the south Stockade Road, east of Immokalee Road, All those wishing go to participate in this discussion, please rise, be sworn in by the court reporter. (The Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Other disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? I had discussions with Mr. Reischl and Jane Ikorn (phonetic) with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage and I had a phonecall yesterday from Fred Thomas. Both discussions were about the positive nature of the plant on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Thomas. With that, hearing none other, Fred, it's all yours, MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners, Fred Reischl with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, Also here to help discuss the petition, Dominick Amico, also with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, a Professional Engineer, George Varnadoe with Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson, Gavin Jones, Professional Engineer, Page 8 April 5, 2007 and certified planner with Wilson Miller for transportation issues and Tom Sansbury representing the Silver Strand III Partnership, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, before you go too far, ifIT is listening to this meeting, one of the commissioners consuls is out, and we -- we need the system back on, Actually, there's two of them, mine included, but I wasn't -- didn't think we had anything on the screen, It looks like we do. Okay. Fred, we just -- hopefully there may be -- well, Katie's here, Maybe she can get IT. We've got two monitors out at this point. Thank you, sir. Sorry for the interruption, MR. REISCHL: The location of the project is on the south side of the Immokalee urban area, As you can see, this is South First Street or Immokalee Road or 846 and this is 29, So, it's at the southern end of the Immokalee urban area, And there you can see the outline of the conditional use area in relation to the South First Street and the Stockade, county barn and landfill, And concrete -- the reason for this plant is that concrete is needed for the developing and planned communities in the rural and stewardship area. And this site is also within the heartland rural area of critical economic concern, which was designated by Governor Bush and encourages economic development within that area, And according to our client, Rinker Materials, 26 new jobs at an average salary of $38,000 will be created by the project. This project is consistent with the Immokalee area master -- or Growth Management Plan; specifically, the Immokalee area master plan, Two of the specific consistency issues are Policy 215, which says new agricultural developments are permitted in the area, and that as long as they are not noxious, as long as they don't create noxious conditions and that the transition area between the lower and higher intensity uses and, granted, this is a higher intensity use, shall utilize natural vegetative open space buffers which, as you can see, As you can see to the north, we have the natural vegetative buffer Page 9 April 5, 2007 on the adjacent property and also by physical barriers, and physical barriers we are proposing an eight-foot masonry wall along the east, south and west of the -- of the plant. The adjacent uses, as I said, to the north, it's undeveloped and that parcel is owned by a related entity to Silver Strand In Partnership, To the east, as I said, is the Stockade, the county barn and this is a closed cell of the county landfill, To the south is active citrus grove and there is a Growth Management Plan Amendment that's been submitted and currently under sufficiency review for a commerce park in that area. The site is located south of the Immokalee urban area; therefore, you're not going to get as much traffic going through the more highly populated Immokalee area, Some -- most of the trips are going to be going south at the initial portion of the plant's operation and it's got access south of the populated area of Immokalee, has direct access to Immokalee Road as is required by the Land Development Code and the design of the lot, as you can see, with the drive entrance coming in, puts the actual plant adjacent to vegetated area and to the landfill, In your staff report, there were industry noise buffering standards that were mentioned, These specifically are -- and it took me a little bit to learn these, but rotary vibrators, which are used to empty the aggregate bins. The alternative to this would be the piston bins which are very noisy, white noise backup alarms, which are exactly what they sound like, It's not the beep, beep. It's a white noise which is, they told me, background noise amplified to 105 decibels and it sounds like an air hose, a very loud air hose, I guess, but that bends in the farther away you are, Belt vulcanizing on the belt that goes into the silo, Middle cleats have been eliminated and those metal cleats are what cause a lot of the nOIse, Page 10 April 5, 2007 Sound screening and orientation. Sound walls used to block the sounds of the trucks while they're being loaded, and the orientation of the plant and the sound, it will be directed towards Immokalee Road and not towards the other areas. And we are proposing buffers to the north and south side of the entrance road, the entrance drive, We're proposing 15 feet of landscaping on either side of the entrance road, To the north around the plant itself, a 15-foot landscape buffer, because again there's vegetated area to the north, To the east, south and west, the 15-foot landscape buffer on the outside of an eight-foot masonry wall, We believe these buffers meet or exceed LDC requirements as opposed to the staff suggestion that there be an eight-foot berm, we think that the eight-foot masonry wall will block sound better than the berm and will take up less space, In conclusion, we believe the petition is consistent with Growth Management Plan, compatible with surrounding uses, It will be adequately buffered from the surrounding -- from the surrounding property owners with using the LDC requirements, and it's needed for economic development in the area, in the heartland rural area of critical economic concern, I'll be happy to answer any questions or another member of our team, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney and Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What's going to happen to the president -- the present Rinker facility, which is on 29 between Immokalee and Farm Worker Village? Is that going to be phased out or will that continue to remain open? MR. REISCHL: There's no plan -- to my understanding, there's no plan for either keeping that open or closing that at this time. It's not been decided by Rinker. Page 11 April 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is the present one going to replace that or -- MR, REISCHL: This is replacing a temporary plant that's operating at the Ave Maria facility, COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have another question, When you're finished with the trunks -- trucks, how do you rinse out the cement and where does that rinse material go? MR. REISCHL: I believe that's on site also. There is a specific series of ponds that go from more material, more blockulent (sic) or material in it, and then it goes to a series of, I think, three ponds, And Dominick Amico is better at answering that. MR. AMICO: Hi. For the record, Dominick Amico of Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, These particular types of facilities are governed by special regulations written in the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code, There's a specific generic permit designed for these sites, There are hardened structures, It's called a type one structure that the trucks are washed out in. They're meant to capture everything and not mix with the stormwater management system, There's then a type one pond, which the liquid effluent from these washed down areas would go into, It's a training effect. In the first train, it catches all the solids, the second train catches all the suspended solids, and the third train, which is a normal water management pond, cleans it to the final. So, there -- there are specific regulations and are specifically designed with regards to catching the washout water from the trucks, COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So, it doesn't go -- it doesn't escape into surface water, canals or anything like that? MR. AMICO: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray and then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My concerns are that of noise, Page 12 April 5, 2007 The hours of operation proposed are two hours before sunrise. And, obviously, ambient noise is considerable if you -- if you don't have sound muffling or sound deadening, And it's fascinating that you're going to have a white noise at a hundred decibels, I'd really love to understand that. Now I'm wondering whether or not you really are covering your base. But I noted that the closest home is about 600 feet. MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I would tell you that out there, as flat as it is, and sounds have just got to travel so far and I am very much concerned, I would like somehow to understand more completely how that noise abatement will in fact work when you raise anything to a hundred decibels, I don't presume to -- to be an auditory man there but, my goodness, That's one aspect of it. The other is trucks that carry cement, concrete, how high are they, roughly? Don't they extend up and around the 15-foot range or better? MR. REISCHL: I believe, 11 feet six inches. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Eleven feet. So, if you have an eight-foot wall, you have the top of the vehicle that is extending, so as it's turning and you're slowly going to have noise that emanates from it can escape over that area. That's my presumption, I may be in error. Well, those are my concerns, And if someone could address those concerns and help to allay that because, quite frankly, I -- it's an awful lot of vehicles that's going to be coming in and out of there, That's not excavation or mining in there, That's just bringing material in, dropping it, then there will be a conveyor that will take the aggregate and other material, sand, and so forth, and bring it into a mixing pot; right? MR. REISCHL: A cement -- a cement mixer truck itself, right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, the truck itself. You're not going -- you're not going to have a silo type device that will -- Page 13 April 5, 2007 MR. REISCHL: Silo is what funnels the materials into the truck is my understanding, and then the truck is where the mixing occurs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. That's better. I'm familiar with another format but, okay, that's fine. So, really then, the height of the wall then becomes grav -- that's why staff was concerned with having a berm there as well. Could anybody amplify on that white noise element there and -- MR. REISCHL: Well, let's -- it's an OSHA requirement that backup beeper is on the vehicles, I mean, either the beep sounds or the white noise sound, The white noise sound -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, you're -- I'm sorry, You were referring to white noise as only having to do with the vessel -- with the vehicles backing up? MR. REISCHL: Backup units, right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm sorry, I was in -- I thought you were referring to white noise just being extend, being there so as to cover what other noise is going on, MR. REISCHL: No, This is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What about the noise associated with the turning of the -- the mixing? MR. REISCHL: Well, that -- that was addressed in the sound walls and the trucks are behind a sound wall and, again, a wall is not going to prevent any sounds from escaping, but it's going to reflect the majority of the waves away from the residential area, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, Now, let -- it sounds good, majority, But if the majority is up at the high range, some minority is going to still disturb people some distance away, Just -- just to help allay the concerns, I think if you were living out there, you'd -- you'd be concerned with -- with what that might represent to you. MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Murray, for the record, George Varnadoe. Page 14 April 5, 2007 And I'm not a noise expert, but I have dealt with them over the years. One of the reasons they've tried to go to the white noise is because at some distance it starts to sound like a breeze or wind instead of that beep beep beep. Number two, we're 600 -- approximately 600 feet from the nearest residence of heavily native vegetated cover. We've talked to those people, It's a Seminole village, They have no -- they told us they have no objection to this facility, To the east, we've got a 30 or 40- foot mound of closed cell of landfill, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. VARNADOE: To the south and west, the parent company owns the land and is going -- is proposing to use it for a business commerce park, so we are obviously the one to be most affected by the noise, The walls in which these trucks do their mixing are actually 14 feet in that area and they back into an enclosure, It's that mixing that actually incurs in a 14- foot area, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That helps, MR. VARNADOE: Plus -- and obviously the mufflers and all this from those trucks are below the wall, the eight-foot wall, What's above the eight foot -- II-foot, of course, is the cab and the rotating tank. That's done behind a 14-foot wall, So, I think we have done a reasonable job of trying to contain the noise and make sure that we are compatible with the neighbors. And that's why we kept that 600-foot native vegetation between us and the nearest residential home, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you've hurt me -- helped me a great deal because I was concerned, I really was. But you've made it clear now what the potentials are, And we'll ask staff why they still have a concern with needing a higher wall, MR. VARNADOE: They didn't ask for a higher wall. They Page 15 April 5, 2007 asked for an eight-foot berm and we're proposing an eight-foot vertical structure, And, again, having dealt with this particular subject in residential on major arterials, Frankly, it was the corner of Old U.S, 41 and 41 going north in North Naples. What the uses could be there and how we could attenuate the traffic noise was told by the -- the -- the expert that a vertical barrier does a better job of deflecting noise than a gradual berm barrier because of the way sound waves travel. I always thought they were a straight line, but I guess it's some of the lower -- not decibel, but frequencies that are -- there are some curves, And we were all -- we were told at that time that a vertical wall does a better job of buffering sound than a berm would be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you. You made it much better for me to understand, Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Miss Caron. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I have a few questions. Do you have a copy of the staff report, Fred? MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: In that staff report, they indicated access road to the south, Where -- what is that connecting to and what is the purpose of that? MR. REISCHL: There is an existing access farther to the south, so during construction of the plant, that's a construction access. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That to the north, you don't have a wall on the north, Just the buffer; correct? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, why is that? Why don't you have a wall to the north as well as to the east, south and west? MR. REISCHL: Are you talking about on the driveway or the plant itself? Page 16 April 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The plant itself. MR. REISCHL: The plant itself, there will be a wall, COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: There will be a wall there, MR. REISCHL: Yes, COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It's just the driveway there won't. MR. REISCHL: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On this illustration before us now, can you outline for me the subdistrict area, the Silver Strand subdistrict? MR. REISCHL: Sure. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I want this on the overhead. MR. REISCHL: Oh, sure, This red line indicates the application for the commerce park. This panhandle area is the conditional use area, COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. Can you identify on this the residence that is 600 feet away? MR. REISCHL: This is the closest -- the property owned by Seminole Tribe of Florida comes down in an almost triangle this way, and the closest house would be right here where I'm pointing. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is there any potential for future residence to be constructed in that area? MR. REISCHL: South of that is owned by an entity related to Silver Strand Partnership. At this time there's no petition in for development. They have no plans for development in that area. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But would the zoning allow development to proceed there? MR. REISCHL: It's zoned the same, It's zoned agricultural with a mobile home overlay, So, it could be used as -- for an agriculture purpose. Any other use would come forward for rezoning. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So, there's no way we could protect it where no residents would be closer than 600 feet. Is that Page 17 April 5, 2007 correct? MR. REISCHL: No. There is a way because it would come forward as a petition and then you'd review that petition and advise to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you, That's all the questions I have, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Miss Caron and then Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, A comment that you made was that this plan will replace the one at Ave Maria, MR. REISCHL: There's a temporary -- I don't even know if you call it a plant, but a temporary concrete manufacturing machine at Ave Maria and this will replace that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Has the site at Ave Maria been maxed out or is it just that they want to -- MR. REISCHL: I believe -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- get on with development? MR. REISCHL: It can't produce enough concrete at the rate that they need to build. COMMISSIONER CARON: So, will it actually replace or will the one at Ave Maria still continue to operate since it's producing maybe not enough, but it's still producing, MR. REISCHL: By -- from what Rinker tells us, it's going to replace it because this is going to be able to produce concrete at the rate that they require. And, again, this is not just to serve Ave Maria, It's to serve the area including other development within the RLSA and -- and Immokalee itself. COMMISSIONER CARON: Understood, but we've been in a position in this county in the past where we have closed early concrete manufacturing plants and other rock producing areas only to the county's detriment just to let developing go forward, Page 18 April 5, 2007 And we've shut down these plants in the past early and, so, my question is why are we closing down the Ave Maria one if it's still producing concrete for Ave Maria; albeit, that it's not enough to serve and we need more. That's fine, It's not a reflection on this but -- MR. REISCHL: And then as -- as Ave Maria is developing, I believe the plan is to have residents move in towards the end of this year and then you have a facility that is not state of the art and it's not buffered as this one is going to be, I mean, that's going to be the noisy one; whereas, this one will be the state of the art. COMMISSIONER CARON: So, it is to allow development to go forward there, MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That would be closing that one, MR. REISCHL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have two questions, What is the maximum -- what is the maximum noise standard for Collier County? MR. REISCHL: I don't know. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand also that in the way of this, there is a j ail. How far from that is that away from the actual plant? MR. REISCHL: This is the Immokalee Stockade right here, and this is the county barn, this is the landfill. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is it? How long -- what is the actual distance between them? MR. REISCHL: Well, this is 600 feet, so to the jail, it looks like it's a little bit more than 600 feet as the crow flies, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, sir? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? Mr. Schiffer. Page 19 April 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fred, where's the aggregate coming from this plant? MR. REISCHL: There will be various sources but most of them we think will be from the north, from the central part of the state, So, probably down 29, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there's no place where we have a quarry we can put this that would save us 70 trips -- trucks a day? MR. REISCHL: No, Not -- in the immediate area, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I was just curious about the eight-foot wall on the landfill. MR. REISCHL: That -- that was the question that -- that we asked ourselves, too, We have no problem if you wish to eliminate the eight-foot wall adjacent to the landfill. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Unless that was to keep them out, I assume, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, first of all, I think the location is good that you've chosen. I think the idea of doing a flag lot is a real good move because it takes the balance of the heavier stuff and sets it way back in and the flag driveway protects a lot. I have some questions just for some clarifications of some things that I've heard said and a couple comments on your document. And also I want to talk to you about traffic in regards to our discussion yesterday, The first one is, you had put something on the screen in the beginning of your presentation that indicated this was in line with some GMP policies, I think one was 11.3? There were two of them that you listed there, If you have that, which I think -- 11,15. MR. REISCHL: 2,15. Right. Page 20 April 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first one, first of all, is talking about agricultural uses. I understand this is a conditional use. I just want to make it clear I don't see this as an agricultural use. I know it's a conditional use allowed in an agricultural area, But to think this promotes agriculture, I do not think it does, It doesn't mean I disagree with it being there, I'm just trying to be real clear. I don't notice any value in it from an agricultural viewpoint. But, in that -- in trying to discuss those two policies, you -- one of your arguments was that there was a vegetated buffer to the north between this plant and the Seminole Village? MR. REISCHL: Yeah, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it qualified it under one of those policies? If that's so, what is to protect that buffer to the north in perpetuity? MR. REISCHL: As Commissioner Kolflat, I believe, asked, that if this does come in for a rezoning, then that property, which is owned by a related entity, Silver Strand III, will be required to buffer the houses to the -- to the north on the Seminole land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To be consistent with that policy, were you trying to tell us that you felt the 600 feet was a buffer that would provide consistency with that policy? MR. REISCHL: Yes, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, any future plans that you have coming in then, you will not expect this board to approve anything within 600 feet of the north property line of this plant? MR. REISCHL: It will be reviewed by you and you would deem that consistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wanting to understand it because I don't want to see this plant get put in and then you guys come back five years from now and say you want homes a hundred feet from the plant, that that's an inadequate buffer when at this Page 21 April 5, 2007 hearing under testimony and under oath today you've said 600 feet now is the adequate buffer. And, so, there's no reason then for you to come in with a plan that's less than 600 feet. Is that -- are you telling me that 600 feet is consistent with this policy or less -- less than 600 is consistent with this policy? MR. REISCHL: It could be less than. This -- this policy says natural vegetative buffers. It doesn't say of 600 feet. We're just saying that the closest house is 600 feet away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll see how it comes if you come back in with something, Fred. As far as the traffic goes, down at the Jones Mining Pit, which is further south on Immokalee Road, we had an issue with slow trucks entering the two-lane traffic, and we had a new lane created for those trucks to accelerate in, And since your traffic will be primary going south, 65 percent is headed towards Ave Maria, and I believe that's south. MR. REISCHL: Yes, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's a two-lane road, what configurations of the road system in that area are you suggesting to improve it? MR. REISCHL: After I spoke to you yesterday, I spoke to Gavin Jones, the Transportation Engineer and he's run some figures and I'll let Gavin present that to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, MR. JONES: Good morning. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, my name is Gavin Jones, I'm a Transportation Planner and Engineer with Wilson Miller. What I put on the visualizer is the trip generation table on the first page of the traffic analysis. It was provided with the application, Just as a reminder, there -- there is no land use in the Institute of Transportation Engineers for this type of use, so we -- we had to Page 22 April 5, 2007 assemble the trip generation information from scratch and divided it out depending on the types of vehicles that were coming in and out. The finished product trucks are the most heavily laden and the slowest to accelerate, and the projection is that you would expect to see ten of them coming into the site and ten of them leaving heavily laden in the peak hour of the morning and also in the peak hour of the afternoon. The aggregate trucks are heavily laden coming in, but empty going out. The cement trucks are heavily laden as they come in, but empty as they go out. The employees are sort of on site early in the morning, and they're in -- you know, in vehicles that can accelerate at a normal rate, So, the heavily laden vehicles coming out are ten in the morning, ten in the afternoon, On that stretch of Immokalee Road, there are about 400 vehicles headed southbound in the morning and a lesser number in the afternoon. And I'm basing that on turning movement counts that we collected as part of the business park application, We collected turning movements in the morning and the afternoon at the corner of Immokalee Road and Camp Keais. So, we have an idea of what the approach volume was from the north, either southbound volume, And in 2006 in the a.m, peak hour, it was a little over 400 vehicles in an hour. There's a county count station to the north of this site, The average growth in traffic volumes at that site is about four percent per year. We would expect this year to be, you know, a little more than 400 trucks headed southbound in the a.m. peak hour, That's, roughly, one every eight seconds, Now, as these trucks come out, if a truck came out just after a southbound car had passed, they would come out heavily laden, begin to accelerate. I don't know how fast heavily laden trucks accelerate. What I do know is what the American Association of State Highway Page 23 April 5, 2007 Transportation Officials, ASSHTO, recommends as the length of acceleration needed to get a truck from zero to 50 miles an hour. It's 1410 feet, all right, to get a truck from zero to 50, I can do the math and tell you that the time it takes a truck to get from zero to 50 at that acceleration rate is about 39 seconds, So, as that truck -- as the truck comes out just after a car has passed, eight seconds later on average, here comes a southbound car. And that car is going 55 miles an hour and it's going to catch the truck. Eight seconds after that, there will be another southbound car coming on average. And that car is going fast enough that it's going to catch the truck. Eight seconds after that, on average, will come a car going 55 miles an hour, It's not going to catch the truck because the truck will have reached the travel speed on the road, So, on average, each truck that emerges, heavily laden, going south is going to impact two southbound vehicles that will catch up to its -- to the back of the truck, have to slow down and be forced to pass. And, so, that's 20 vehicles in the a,m. peak hour, And that would be the maximum throughout the course of the day because in the rest of the day the volumes would be lower. The vehicular volumes would be lower, the prediction is that the -- the pace of the -- of the laden concrete trucks coming out would be steady through the course of the day. But the traffic volume would be lower, so that's the maximum number of cars impacted would be 20 in the a.m. peak hour. You mentioned the situation on Immokalee Road at a mining operation. I know that the people that design the turn lane, they turn to ASSHTO for recommendations on how long the deceleration -- or the acceleration length should be, Then there's some taper problems, They were up, they told me, to a total of about 1800 feet. So, you're adding impervious surface, There are drainage requirements that, you know, kick in when you do that. They tell me that they're in some kind of a black hole as far as permitting goes, Page 24 April 5, 2007 Agencies that could, you know, offer permits are looking to each other to do the work. And, so, it's -- it's turned into quite an expensive and bureaucratic nightmare for that particular use, And I would submit to you then in this particular case, the amount of traffic impact doesn't warrant it. It's 20 vehicles per hour and it's just the -- the amount of work needed to be done in order to -- to protect those two vehicles from catching each truck is out of proportion to what's involved in putting an acceleration lane in for those vehicles, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I appreciate all that background. Now, let's get to my question, How long of an acceleration lane do you intend to put in on Immokalee Road to avoid these trucks interacting with the public driving south, MR. JONES: We don't intend to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the -- MR. JONES: -- for the reasons that I just outlined that it's -- that it's -- there's absolutely no connection, And when tax dollars are used to build these things, traffic engineers, it's very apparent and found that there are better uses for tax dollars to protect the safety and welfare of the public and that's why you see so few of them -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I under -- MR. JONES: -- when tax dollars are used to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understood every single thing you said. The only part of it that have any relevance to my question was the answer you just gave me, I appreciate that. Nick, do you have a moment to come up here and help us? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before he does, may I just follow up on your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to do that with Nick, but if you have more -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll just ask this gentleman, Page 25 April 5, 2007 At what capacity will this plant be operational? Is there any more capacity to operate beyond what it is that is posed in this table? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. It was my understanding that -- you know, I had to look to them for the trip generation when the-- when the plan is at full capacity, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, that's -- that's it. That's it maxed out. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's my understanding, yes, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick, Jones Mining Pit, we've suggested an acceleration lane there going south, MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know the length of that lane? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do not, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is it being processed or is it something that ended up being required as far as that mining goes? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe that was part of the application, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any reason why you think a similar lane wouldn't be advantageous for this area? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. I -- in reviewing the application, we discussed deceleration lanes, left turn lane and an acceleration lane, also monitored the pavement status in front of the body because they tend to beat up the pavement when we did the trucks, so we recommended that. The assumptions with the trip generation are pretty consistent with what we've seen and Gavin does a very fine job, but I can't guarantee that there will be 20 trucks and neither can he, It could be more at a certain time or less, So, I think it would make sense to have those acceleration and Page 26 April 5, 2007 deceleration turn lanes in there, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, And what length of acceleration lane on the southbound would you think is adequate? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think what Mr. Jones proposed is consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1410 feet? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Thank you, I appreciate it. Fred, there was a document attached as part of a memorandum to Heidi Williams who was at the time the Principal Planner at the Zoning Department and was labeled Exhibit IVB and it talked about the commerce park at Silver Strand Subdistrict. And it's in our packet and the only reason I'm asking you, I couldn't figure out why it was here, It's talking about a subdistrict that consists of 165 acres approximately, yet the GMP amendment I saw noted in the beginning of the document it was supposed to be for four hundred and some odd acres, Can you explain what's going on with these different amendments, changes, whatever? MR. REISCHL: Well, this is the -- here's the concrete plant here, and this is the -- to the south, proposed commerce park. The only inconsistency I could possibly think of that would be four hundred and something acres would be the entire extent of the property, not the property that is proposed for the commerce park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, You have a GMP amendment in process. Is that -- MR. REISCHL: Yes. It's under -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a fair statement? MR. REISCHL: Yes, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says it's for a 469 acre parcel that has been submitted as a GMP, a planned amendment, with a PUD rezone. Is that -- the commerce park inclusive of that? Is that in addition Page 27 April 5, 2007 to the commerce park? How does that fit into the picture? MR. REISCHL: That sounds like the entire parcel owned by Silver Strand In Partnership, a portion of which is under review for commerce park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Well, the way the staffreport reads is the subject property is a part of 469 acre parcel that has been submitted as Growth Management Plan Amendment and PUD rezoning, business park at Silver Strand, so -- MR. REISCHL: It's all owned by Silver Strand In Partnership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but are you -- are Silver Strand Partnership in the process of getting a GMP amendment for the entire 469 acres? MR. REISCHL: No, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the staff report -- well, I'll deal with staff on that. Okay, The 164 acres of the commerce park at Silver Strand, that's the hatched area you have there that does not include this concrete plant? MR. REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Make sure I have everything, The staff, number ten, is asking for a series of soil tests, organochloride (sic) pesticides, RCRA 8 metals and all this other soil sampling, They don't indicate how many soil samples are required, which becomes a real ambiguous issue, and I'm wondering what rules within the Land Development Code or otherwise provide them that latitude. Do you know of any? MR. REISCHL: No, I don't. I know that's been asked lately in former ag locations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But, I mean, without getting more into the science of what is needed and why, it's pretty arbitrary and a very costly proposition. And the fact that you're next door to a landfill may not prove to Page 28 April 5, 2007 be the best benefit regardless, and since you're using this as a heavy industrial that's going to be covered with a lot of manufacturing product, I'm not -- I don't understand the necessity for it, and I was wondering if you had since it was in the staff report. MR. REISCHL: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it's a -- it's a costly item and I don't know why you would want to pay it. Also in the staff report, Number 7, it says the minimum set back from Immokalee Road shall be 150 feet for operational facilities and 75 feet for supporting administrative offices and associated parking, Now, I find that strange in regards to the map that was provided to us, It isn't to scale. It's on eight and a half by 11, but you look to be 500 or feet so back from Immokalee Road, Do you know why there would be a restriction indicating seven when you couldn't go outside this particular envelope in your conditional use process anyway? MR. REISCHL: That's correct. That's a Land Development Code regulation for concrete plants and it doesn't take into account the shape of the lot. So, the shape of the lot certainly makes that a moot point, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think not the shape as much as the distance of your conditional use application site plan versus Immokalee Road. You're much farther back than that. I just was wondering what the -- what the point of that was, And, of course, the berm reference in the staff record -- or in the staff recommendations, you guys are suggesting a wall, And you wouldn't have any problem with admitting the wall along the landfill. That's another economic waste from what it seems tome. And I think we ought to live by the rules but then if they're silly, there's a -- that's what this board is here to do is take a look -- a closer look at them, Page 29 April 5, 2007 Any other questions of this gentleman? Yes, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fred, when you calculated your water per day, is that based solely on the employees or -- and how are you going to be getting water? I assume a well. MR. REISCHL: It will be well and septic, yes, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're saying you need 450 gallons per day, You'd be mixing concrete with the water so -- MR. REISCHL: Well, there's -- there's going to be -- there's a water use -- consumptive water use permit now for the citrus and that will have to be modified to consumptive use for the ash plant. But this -- the utilities water is potable water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, So, the 450 gallons, which obviously matches the sewer, what is the -- MR, REISCHL: Potable, That's the bathrooms and a sink in the break room, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how will water be provided? What -- what is the requirement for the rest of the plant? MR. REISCHL: I have to find out from -- a well -- a well for the rest of the plant also, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, Do you know what -- I mean, we have an application, You're supposed to calculate the water flow, MR. REISCHL: The number of gallons? Do you know how much? MR. AMICO: Once again, Dominick Amico, The form you have there is estimated domestic water and sewer use, The irrigation water or the mixed water for the concrete is a -- is a separate category, so we did not include it in that. It's going to be in the order on the tens of thousands of gallons a day, and it's going to come from wells, Page 30 April 5, 2007 Now, we've -- we also looked at the differential between the ag, current ag uses, and the water -- the amount of water that we use for the concrete mixing, and it's in the order magnitude of a factor of ten less, So, the existing agricultural water use permits are just going to be converted for the industrial water use, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this -- you're testifying that you'll be using about a tenth of what the agricultural was using, MR. AMICO: That was the estimate that I had seen, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant before we go to staff report? Okay, Thank you, Fred, MR. DERUNTZ: Good morning, My name is Mike DeRuntz. I'm a Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. You have a copy of the staff report that -- in that staff report we are recommending approval of this conditional use permit. We do have several items that we have -- have listed as conditions for your consideration. As you can -- have seen in the application, several of these were conditions that was brought forward in the application from the applicant. Others have been added by -- by staff. I did want to discuss a couple of items that was mentioned at the -- in the staff report -- or from the applicant. First off, the area to the north, This is not -- this is not a part of the application. It is -- it has not been identified as a buffer or a preserve area, so that could be identified as a future buffer or, you know, as a buffer for this use on the subject property, It was mentioned that the walls on the north side of the facility area and, clearly, in the ap -- in the applications conceptual site plan. It is not the wall stops at the intersection of the north boundary line, Page 31 April 5, 2007 The question concerning about what is the sound limits, and we're -- I believe it's 65 decibels at the property line, The -- this area is identified in the -- the Immokalee area master plan, you know, for low residential and, accordingly, there will be a future residential development in that area, Staff does not have an objection to this use. It's a needed use, we believe, and they're doing a pretty good job of trying to protect the -- the existing and future uses out there, Staff is recommending that the eight-foot berm be constructed with vegetation as noted, you know, would be on top of the berm to provide additional screening and the type of vegetation that would be denser because they have potential. Well, the -- it was mentioned about the trucks, The facility has a maximum of 50-foot height, so you're going to have structures that are clearly above what the height of the wall is for your buffer and, you know, they're going to be putting vegetation there, so that that's going to be growing, but by -- by just going that extra step of putting -- having the berm and the vegetation on top of the wall, we are, you know, looking at providing, you know, additional amelioration to help with the site and noise impacts to the surrounding properties. A comment from -- about the soil sampling came from environmental and as was noted by the Planning Commission, these are -- are -- I've seen similar type of recommendations, In the recommendation also, transportation was -- had that -- had a condition about -- at the time of STP, that we'd be providing a right-of-way and -- for our turning lanes, so the staff is looking at the -- the -- the impacts that this use will have on the existing roadway system there, As far as the -- the discrepancy between the -- the areas, I'll take responsibility for that. It is just my understanding that, you know, this was a part of it and I -- I needed to have that clarified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Thank you, Mike. Page 32 April 5, 2007 Is there any questions? Mr. Midney, and then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On Page 8 ofthe staff report, there's a map. It says zoning map, but I don't understand the map. What are the diagonal purple lines for? MR. DERUNTZ: Well, these -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What are the circular green lines for? MR. DERUNTZ: Well, those are well zones and the -- there's a special treatment well zone one and two, three that is existing out there, This -- this map does come from our official zoning map for the county, and except for the placement of -- of their proposed site on-- on there. And the -- the other lines, I don't have this in color, but I believe those are -- are wind zones. As you could see where that is in is a zone 120 at the bottom of that, so that's what -- that's what the gradiant is, COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why do they have a -- why are they interested in wind zones? MR. DERUNTZ: For construction purposes, That's, I think, the building code. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Kicking up dust and stuff when there's a lot of -- MR. DERUNTZ: No. That's just for designing for your -- for any construction in that area, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The entire county is divided into wind zones, So, at anyone time you pull up the zoning map, you'll see these purple lines on it throughout the whole county, and it just tells the building department what their truss strap ratings have to be and nail patterns and things, COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, okay, So, they're saying that Page 33 April 5, 2007 it has to be able to resist 120-mile an hour winds? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And in other areas of the county, it might be more or less? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. As you approach the coast, it gets a lot higher. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, okay, Thank you. That's very -- I never knew that. I have another question, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: In terms of the acceleration lane for the trucks that Mark was talking about -- MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- is the staff recommending that there be a 1400- foot acceleration lane? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, didn't Nick -- first of all, the offer -- the comment was for 1410 feet. And I think Nick said to us a little while ago that that would be a good thing to do, but I don't know if -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's in the staff report, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mike included -- Well, I don't know if Mike had put it in, MR. DERUNTZ: No. What I had was the recommendation number -- I believe it's 11. Yes. That -- that transportation gave in that the project shall provide an annual monitoring for it for traffic and road -- road conditions immediately adjacent to the property, The project shall donate any necessary right-of-way for the construction of turning lanes and the future expansion of the adjacent roadway at the time of the next development order which would be the STP. So, at that time that that length would be determined by transportation staff and -- and the applicant would need to provide that right-of-way and to do those improvements on that roadway, COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So, you're saying that staff is recommending that they donate the right-of-way and put a 1410 foot Page 34 April 5, 2007 and pay for the construction of 1410 foot turn lane? MR. DERUNTZ: Well, whatever-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is that staffs recommendation? MR. DERUNTZ: -- would determine at the time of the STP. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And who would determine it? MR. DERUNTZ: And that staff would determine that when they come in for their site development plan. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the applicant would be bound by whatever staff recommended? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr, Midney, I'm suggesting based on the testimony from Nick that we go a step further, that as a condition of the conditional use we require a 1410 foot acceleration lane as Nick said would be a good thing to do, MR. DERUNTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that would take care of it. And-- so, it doesn't -- it can be done at STP, but it's a lot more binding if it's done through a stipulation as a condition of the conditional use, So, that was what I had discussed with Nick a little while ago or I was thinking of going, MR. DERUNTZ: One -- one further comment on the conceptual site plan, There's -- I forgot which commissioner brought it up about the access, And on there it does not say anything about a construction temporary access on there, My understanding that this would be a future access into the park, if necessary, which is a good idea to keep traffic off of Immokalee Road, but if -- if the applicant is saying this is just for -- as a temporary construction entrance, maybe we ought to consider you know, a -- a future access point for interconnection to that park if in the event it is approved for Growth Management Planned Amendment and a PUD, Let's see, I believe -- Page 35 April 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Mr. -- MR. DERUNTZ: -- that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Kolflat had a question, too. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Recap for me the difference, sir, between the berm height and the -- and the wall height. The wall height is eight feet; is that correct? MR. DERUNTZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And now how high is the berm? MR. DERUNTZ: Eight feet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: They both are eight feet. MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And you maintain that the sloped berm will more reflective or better sound barrier than a vertical wall? MR. DERUNTZ: I am not saying that, sir. It was the testimony of the applicant that that's the -- that is the condition that they, sound scientists, have stated previously. What I was -- what I was contending is that by providing an eight-foot berm of vegetation screening on top ofthe berm, that we would get additional site buffering and this would also potentially add to additional sound buffering with that vegetation being higher than just the eight-foot wall. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the application indicates that the wall will have growth and vegetation -- MR. DERUNTZ: In front of it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- above the wall, MR. DERUNTZ: No, sir. Well, it would -- it would grow above the wall definitely, but-- but by having the vegetation on top of the wall, you're already gaining that height right up front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, do you know who owns the land surrounding this concrete plant? Page 36 April 5, 2007 MR. DERUNTZ: The -- the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you don't have to tell me the name, but I bet it's the applicant. MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. The applicant, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The land that's owned north of the plant MR. DERUNTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is the applicant's subsidiary or another MR. DERUNTZ: That's what was -- the testimony said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, anything the applicant does in regards to buffering this plant is going to either benefit or be detrimental to their future development of the land surrounding them completely 100 percent. Is that a fair statement? MR. DERUNTZ: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If they want to do a berm -- or a wall instead of a berm, they're still going to have to sell off this rest of this property or do what -- or develop it in the manner consistent within it that's compatible based on the decision they make in regards to that. And if they have a feeling that a wall works for them or if down the road a wall doesn't work for them, and they want to make improvements, they could equally do that. MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other -- Mr. Murray, you had a question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, yeah. I don't want to seem argumentative in any way on that, but I -- you're absolutely right on that in terms of ownership. But I -- I thought that the issue that was being approached in my mind was that additional sound muffling, and I thought, well, you know, maybe a small berm with a -- with a wall Page 37 AprilS, 2007 on that would be equal to a large berm with some flora, some kind of landscaping. But I -- I'm not unhappy. I think with what I've been told by-- the testimony has been presented by the petition that -- that they will comply with the very stringent requirements and I have no way of saying otherwise. MR. DERUNTZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll-- MR. DERUNTZ: Could I bring one -- one other point that I had made earlier on. On the north side of the development site, the wall is not there. I could understand along the roadway, but they are saying they were trying to provide the wall around the development site and there was testimony by the applicant that it was there and it is not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sure that if they didn't have to put a wall along the end field, they'd be willing to put one along the north side of the property. Actually, it's half the distance. Miss Caron, you had a comment? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Mr. DeRuntz? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: A question on the hours of operation. MR. DERUNTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why was your recommendation for two hours before sunrise? MR. DERUNTZ: That's what the Land Development Code has in there for this -- for this type of use. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions-- COMMISSIONER CARON: The things that need to be changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of staff? Okay. Mr. -- yes, sir, Mr. Varnadoe. Page 38 AprilS, 2007 MR. VARNADOE: In finish -- makes it -- clarify a couple of things for the record. I think we're talking about an access road for construction and then we started talking about a future connection. I want to make sure the record was clear on that. We may well want to use some of the existing farm roads for construction, but we do have a proposal in the Growth Management Plan for a connection approximately halfway on that flag portion to use that entrance for a secondary entrance to the business park to interrelate the traffic. And I just wanted -- wanted to clarify that. And, Mr. Strain, you're absolutely correct. If we could be relieved of having to put an eight-foot wall next to a 30 to 40-foot landfill sell, we would gladly put an eight-foot wall on the -- on the north side of the property where the plant facility would be, not along the driveway, but just along the plant facility. And, Mr. Midney, just to clarify for you and not trying to be argumentative at all, the staff report for the transportation was for turn lanes and future right-of-way for the widening of Immokalee Road. Mr. Strain is recommending that in addition to that, there would be a condition that we have an acceleration lane, which we have tried to present testimony saying it was unnecessary. But just -- that's just to clarify for the record, not to be argumentative. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions before we close the public hearing? Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to recommend that Page 39 April S, 2007 we forward CU-2006-AR-9458 with -- to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, subject to staff recommendations, and also putting in the 1410 foot acceleration lane as a condition. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Midney, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Now for discussion. Maybe I can just mention a couple of things and short circuit some of the discussion. Paul, in the staff report, there were some other issues involving the berm versus a wall, and then the need for a wall along the -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --landfill versus-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the north side. First of all, let's take the berm versus the wall. Are -- would your motion consider the staff recommendation of a berm or the applicant's request for a wall? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any problems with the wall being eliminated along the landfill and being replaced by one along the north side of the parcel that's subject -- that's not the driveway portion, not the flag arm of it, but just the portion attributed to the manufacturing portion or it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, we've got the wall issue and the berm issue squared away. And the other issue is staff report is asking for some soil samplings, that in the case of an industrial site like this seem to be an economic waste. Do you have any concerns about eliminating that from the staff -- from the recommendations? Page 40 April S, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree. It should be eliminated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And those are the things -- the notes I've made during discussion. Anybody have any others? Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah. Just for purposes of clarity because there was some testimony earlier that this would be a taxpayer dollars, turn lanes are to be paid by county or by the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. They would be paid by the owner. MR. KLATZKOW: And the acceleration lane is to be paid the same way? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any roadway improvements needed as a result of this conditional use would be paid not by the taxpayers of this county, but by the owner of the property wanting the development. MR. KLATZKOW: So, the conditions both for right-of-way conveyance to the county together with all costs of construction -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: -- by the owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that in agreement with you, Mr. Midney -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in your motion? Is all those issues in agreement -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with the second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, is there any further discussion? Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. On the -- the acceleration lane, is that both north and south or just south? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, south was the primary point of Page 41 April S, 2007 discussion but I would leave it up to transportation staff to determine if it's needed as north as well. I mean, I don't know how much of this traffic is going to go north. Most of it is going south for Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other question is if an additional lane was added to Immokalee Road, would this turn lane be needed to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I have in the future is that there's a -- they keep having to build these acceleration lane when they really don't need it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A turn lane would still be needed-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A turn lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but an acceleration lane -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: An acceleration lane, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- may not because you'd have two lanes so that traffic could pass on one. The problem is right now it's only two lanes, one in each direction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But could that be part of the motion just to make sure that they're not held responsible for an acceleration lane if it does widen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any problem with that. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Uh-huh. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have no problem with that? Okay. Mr. Midney, you had something else you wanted to ask? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I really don't like the idea of, you know, adding burdensome regulations to something like this, but I notice that the Naples road is congested already, so even, you know, a small added congestion would be bad. It's a dangerous road Page 42 April S, 2007 already, and so that would be the reason that I would vote in favor of requiring this lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think for consistency for this board, when projects like this have been brought up before on Immokalee Road, and I'm thinking of the Jones Mining Pit, this is just consistent with the standard we've already set, so I think it's a good thing to continue until the road is fully four laned out to Immokalee. So, any other comments or concerns from the board? Hearing none, we'll call for the motion. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Motion carries eight to zero. Thank you all. And it's a quarter often. We'll take a 15-minute break. We'll be back here at 10:00 o'clock. Actually, it's 20 minutes to ten. We'll be back at five minutes to ten. I'm trying to read the clock here at the building, and it's just mixed up. Thank you. (A recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next -- everybody quiet down. We have to resume meeting. Item #8C PETITION: SV-2006-AR-I0351 Page 43 April S, 2007 The next petition is SV-2006-AR-I0351. It's the Unity -- Unity Church of Naples at 7100 Davis Boulevard. It's a sign variance issue. All those wishing to testify in behalf of this application, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Okay. Hearing none, ma'am, it's all yours. MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. I'm Debra Carter Williams. I'm Senior Minister of Unity of Naples Church, and I want to thank you for considering this petition. Unity of Naples Church began in 1968. It is a large, thriving, growing spiritual community in East Naples that actively serves Collier County. It has been located as a -- at its present site since the late 1970s. The congregation has experienced a great many changes, particularly in our local environment. Over the past few years in particularly, we have experienced civilization encroaching upon us and currently you cannot see our physical plant from Davis Boulevard, and our sign is the only indication of our presence there. Our current sign, which you see on the screen, is located on Davis Boulevard, and it is rustic, to say the least, which reflects the time in which it was built. It is my understanding during that time that Davis Boulevard was a dirt road that ran among tomato farms. And Hurricane Wilma almost facilitated our demolition work of our sign as well. Seacrest Country Day School, which is the owner of the property where the sign is located, is one of Collier County's fine private schools. It was founded and established by the wife of our founding minister in our church buildings. And while there is no official Page 44 April S, 2007 relationship between Seacrest Country Day School and Unity of Naples Church, there certainly is a shared history. The success of the school while it was still directed by our former minister's spouse forced the school to move to its present location where it's at great expansion including now a high school was begun. Some of our church members made up the board of the school at that time and were instrumental in those early days. And certainly we are grateful to Seacrest Country Day School that supports our efforts to erect a new sign and has given us permission for an easement on their property for the sign and has approved the design plan. And I'm sure the school and its board would appreciate it if our sign complimented their professional image and their great sense of excellence. So, Unity of Naples is petitioning Collier County for a sign variance that is threefold: First, a variance to the sign code concerning off premise signs since we do not own the property that the sign currently resides upon. The setback to the property line exceeds 1,000 feet. It is in actuality 1283 feet. The size of the sign exceeds the allowable limit of 12 square feet. And I'd like to speak very briefly about each aspect of this variance. The current Unity of Naples sign -- I'm going to skip through these various buttons -- is erected on the property of Seacrest Country Day School at 7100 Davis Boulevard. The property sits 1200 -- our property sits 1283 feet from Davis Boulevard and has no frontage on Davis Boulevard. Our entrance is via Unity Way, which is a private road, running along Seacrest property . We have legal easement for ingress and egress and this easement agreement was recorded and filed with Collier County. We have asked for and received permission from Seacrest Country Day School for an easement for the new sign, and this -- the road is called Unity Way Page 4S April S, 2007 because that has always been the way in to our church. The current sign was erected in the 1970s before much of the area was developed and over the years, the various land exchanges and purchases have resulted in the present configuration of the properties, and those sales and configuration of -- of land exchanges were primarily between Unity of Naples Church, Falling Waters and Seacrest Country Day School. Item two of the variance petition concerns the allowable setback from the property line. Currently, the church property line is 1283 feet from the location of the sign. The allowable limit is 1,000 feet. Again, to remind you, we do have legal easement for ingress and egress along Unity Way along that property. Point three is this. The size of the sign exceeds 12 square feet. The proposed sign faces about 18 square feet. Our current sign with its three-piece design measures 36.70 square feet. The size specified in the sign code will be a significant reduction and caused the sign to be difficult to see given the traffic flow on Davis Boulevard. Unity of Naples Church would be greatly impacted without the approval of this variance petition. Without a sign on Davis Boulevard, there would be significant effects to our growth, our viability and our ability to serve the community. We simply would no longer have a visible presence given the location and the -- of the property and our buildings and given the distance from Davis Boulevard. So, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant? Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I drove by that sign the other day, and in my opinion the sign, as it exists right now, is still not large enough. I think it jeopardized the health and the welfare and safety of people driving down Davis Boulevard, because you drive by, before Page 46 April S, 2007 you can slow down and see that sign, you're already past it. There is a turning lane there, but the speed of the cars going by at 45 miles an hour make that sign small in size as far as I'm concerned. And currently I figure it to be about 36 feet as an existing sign? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And here they're talking about coming down to something like a 12-foot sign as far as the code, or something -- 18- foot sign is what they're asking. I still think that sign is too small. It should be a bigger sign. However, I do have a problem with the sign proposal they put in the -- in the petition. Let me just get my notes here. If you look at this illustration that's on the -- on the overhead on it, what we're talking about is the code requires a 12- foot square foot area sign. And they're asking for an 18- foot. Their past experience is about 36 feet as far as what they've had their sign there now. But if you look at this illustration, and you consider the wall with the mansard roof on the top there, you're talking about 63 feet, so my concern is differentiating between what the sign is and what the structure is. In looking at what should be the size limitation, LDC 5.06.03, development standards for sign says under A; development standards, one, the maximum size limitation shall apply to each structure. Now, if we look at this structure, they're talking about this being a 63-foot sign. And you consider that, the structure has to meet a 12-foot code, there's something quite a disparity as far as I can see on this. I -- I think that the sign size as far as the copy should be larger than it is now. And if you talk just about the copy, the copy on this is much smaller than the sign itself if you consider the sign to be that total structure, because that total structure does represent a sign, not only the copy on it. MS. WILLIAMS: It's my-- Page 47 April S, 2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I have several concerns about the size of the copy as well as what should be considered as far as the structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sure the applicant can address the code cited specifications involved, but if you have any comments about the copy, that would be no problem. MS. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding, and, again, I'm not an expert on the code by any stretch of the imagination, but it's the sign face itself that needs to be the 12 square feet, not the structure that holds or supports the sign. But I'm not sure if I'm correct on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your reading of it is the way I thought it was interpreted as well but -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I looked that up on the LDC 5.06.03 under the development standards for signs, and it says, the maximum size limitation shall apply to each structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can let staff get to that in a minute. The applicant won't have any knowledge of that issue as far as -- as detailed as the staff would have. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But I'd like to hear the applicant's comment about the actual size of the copy because I think the copy, as it is now, is too small. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. WILLIAMS: Well, the -- the measurements that I took for the roughly 37 square feet of our present sign only has to deal with the lettering, any part of the sign that has lettering on it, not the entire structure itself. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I agree with your measurements though because I went out there and measured and I came up with the same 36 square foot that you have now. But I don't understand why you want to make it smaller. MS. WILLIAMS: My understanding that we have to make it smaller to -- to at least somewhat align ourselves with the sign code as Page 48 April S, 2007 it now stands. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, why wouldn't you petition to maintain the same size that you have now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, you -- the variance, you could get a variance for whatever you want. I don't think there's a limitation on what you could ask for in a variance. So, if you would like more space, why don't we give you that latitude to -- MS. WILLIAMS: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- make it bigger than what you're proposing. It's up to you guys. MS. WILLIAMS: Very much appreciate it. I think -- I think just given the structure, right now our sign does blend into the surroundings. It's very difficult to see and I think with the new structure it will -- it will stand out, but we would very much appreciate that latitude if that's a possibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something to the effect, Mr. Kolflat, that my work is at, that any new signage will -- that will be allowed will not exceed the face signage of that currently exists today, but what currently exists today we would deem as a variance, a recommendation for approval, something of that nature. Mr. Schiffer was next after Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the question I have is really, you know, the application shows that you own a site that does front on Davis Road, so I'm a little confused as to -- MS. WILLIAMS: No, we do not own land that fronts on Davis Boulevard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because we're showing that the site -- okay. So, where really is the church, in look at -- and, Ray, you might help. If I look on page -- well, it's one of one, but it's not one. Anyway, the aerial photograph does show. Well, where is the Page 49 April S, 2007 church? MS. WILLIAMS: The church is way back in the woods. There's a lake, a five-acre county maintained lake, and we are back where the lake is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4 has the zoning map that might give you a better indication that double strip that they're showing is I think is where the driveway entrance goes through under an easement. MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then it leads back to a squared off parcel towards the back. MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. We actually-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is -- MS. WILLIAMS: We own three parcels. One is a ten-acre parcel that's our main parcel, a five-acre parcel, and a two and a half acre parcel, so it's 17 and a half acres. But it's all back in -- in that area behind the school. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The side location shows this long, narrow lot with a road down the center. I know the roads to the side, but -- MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is that the lot that the property's on? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. The school, we released the easement for that sometime ago when the school built its present buildings, and we have easement that now runs along the side of that property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're -- which is property is yours; that long, narrow property or the one below it? MS. WILLIAMS: The one that is currently indicated there, the square, the ten-acre square that's by the lake. The long, narrow, property that fronts Davis Boulevard is owned by Seacrest. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So, the one that's pointed out as site location is not the site location? Page SO April S, 2007 MR. BELLOWS: It's the site location where the sign is. It's not where the property -- or the church is. It's an off-site sign. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, are you finished with your question by the way? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I would like to them -- see make a larger sign because I'm more worried about the safety of the public than I am the people going to the church. I mean, I worry about them, too, but -- but they'll know where the church is, but anybody trying to find the church will have a difficult time in slowing down in time to make that turn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The suggestion was that when get to a point of making a motion, the motion may include a sign up to -- up to the size that currently exists there today. And that -- that way that would make -- that would give them the ability to make their sign large again. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Make it like it is today, but I'd like to see them consider making it even larger than it is today because as it is today, I don't think it's satisfactory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Student, then Mr. Murray. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you. My only concern about that is I'm not sure how this was advertised, but usually when we enlarge things, and it's only been advertised up to a certain limit, if it's bigger than that, it has to be re-advertised. If it's smaller than that, it's okay. But I don't know how it was advertised. MS. WILLIAMS: I would also like to-- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Maybe staff could shed some light on that. MS. WILLIAMS: Pardon me. I'd also like to add that Seacrest has approved the present design plan as well, and I think there's some concern about our sign reflecting the image of their school as well, and I think that's something that we also want to keep into Page SI April S, 2007 consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there any thought to in a facility to be able to light that sign? MS. WILLIAMS: I believe that there is. Actually, in show you another slide, I believe that there is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they -- if the answer is -- MS. WILLIAMS: Under the eaves of that sign, I believe there is some -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. WILLIAMS: -- some light. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the answer is, yes, that's good because that will also help the public and those who can identify driving at night, visually, they can appreciate that something there and the recollection can be there. And that will help as well. MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah. Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was my only question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I think one of the problems here probably is the petitioner came in for an off-premise sign restriction request variance, and that is very specific in the size that was allowed. But if you look at in the sign code and go through it, if you define it as a different type of sign like on-premise signs can go up to 64 square foot, conditional use signs can go up to 32 feet, directory signs can go up to 150 feet, and outparcel signs can go up to 60 feet. So, if they had addressed it as a different type of sign, then an off-premise sign, directional sign, they might have had a higher limit to work with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? I have one. Ma'am, I've been here a long time and I can never think of a time Page S2 April S, 2007 I haven't seen that sign. How long has that sign been up? MS. WILLIAMS: Probably since 1977-78. And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's -- MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the timeframe I've been here. Okay. MS. WILLIAMS: And, actually, people thought the church was crazy for moving out there at the time but -- MR. BELLOWS: Way out there. MS. WILLIAMS: It's way out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, it's about almost 30 years. MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why this is an issue at all? You've been there for 30 years. I mean -- MS. WILLIAMS: Well, we actually had a fundraiser because we wanted a new sign and I think Seacrest would really like for us to have a new sign, and -- and -- and we want to be good neighbors, and I think that there's a -- the church wanted to have something new as well, to kind of establish a new identity. We approached the county in, I think it was, the spring of2005, and then the county realized we were way well outside of code, which kind of started us moving a little faster than we wanted to go. But -- but, actually, the congregation is very excited about having a new sign. I think we're tired of looking at that one, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might think twice before you try to do something better into the future. It has a way of shooting yourself in the foot, it sounds like. Okay. Well, I think that's all the questions and we'll-- for right now and we'll turn to staff next. MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you ma'am. MS. ZONE: Good morning. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner Page S3 April S, 2007 with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. Miss Williams did an excellent job in her presentation and the staff report listed the three deviations. The one deviation as listed as variance two, staff did he not support, going more than the -- could not support more than the 12 square feet in area based on LDC requirements. But that does not mean that the Planning Commission can override it and staff would support Planning Commission if you would like to go larger. Commissioner Kolflat, this is an off-premise sign, so unfortunately the applicant could not come in as a conditional use or come in as an on-premise sign unless they actually own the driveway itself, because then it would be connected to their property line, which would then make it an on-premise sign. So, that's why the only way they could come in was through an off-premise sign variance. If you have any other questions with staff, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Melissa, it's really a little education on how to measure a sign. MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For example, Wal-Mart's here. We're measuring the extent of their lettering. Why in this case are we measuring the extent of the background? MS. ZONE: Well, it's the sign that you measure. And I know speaking with the sign department, our sign review department, they actually like the letters to be about 18 inches in height or to be visible on the road. But we're -- we measure the sign, and not so much the lettering. If the sign meets code, again, they'd like to keep it at 18 inches, but there isn't anything that is that restrictive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my point is -- in other words, so what you're measuring is the six -- six by three foot Page S4 April S, 2007 background -- MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- when in other locations, again a wall sign, for example, we're actually measuring just the lettering. MS. ZONE: Okay. I can't address why another staff member did just the lettering. It may be was the lettering was in excess of what the sign code, but I followed what our LDC requirements, and that is what we worked with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how does it state that? It says that -- I mean, why is the background of the sign? For example, if they didn't have that recessed thing and it was one flat wall, what would you be measuring then? MS. ZONE: Well, we -- I would be measuring the sign itself. In fact, that structure is quite large, but it's still under the structures when sign -- our sign review staff reviews signs, they want the structure itself that's holding the sign to be eight feet or less, and this is seven feet in height. So, it -- that structure itself meets those parameters. It's the sign that is in question and we follow -- I review per the LDC code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But my question was, is if it didn't have that recessed background and you're measuring the recessed background to be the sign area, if it was just on a flat wall, wouldn't we just be measuring, you know, the -- the extent of the lettering -- MS. ZONE: Ray, can you switch the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- or wouldn't this sign not be -- MS. ZONE: -- the visualizer, please? I don't have -- I'm trying to get it up on the visualizer. Or not the visualizer, the CD. MR. BELLOWS: The podium computer? MS. ZONE: Pardon me? Okay. If you look at the upper right-hand corner where it's Unity Church of Naples, the sign itself is measures -- is -- and exceeds the Page SS Apri1S,2007 12 square feet requirement of the LDC. We measured that, the sign itself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm trying to read that slide. I think we have it in -- so, what you did you is you took from the top of the word Unity to the bottom of the word, let's say, church, and then from the C in church to the S in Naples, that's what your measuring to come up with -- MS. ZONE: Well, that's a hanging sign and it's the sign that we measured, not the structure. The structure itself is below a height, so it's the sign, that hanging sign, the all four corners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa-- MS. ZONE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the sign that you've got here was provided to you by the applicant? MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was the sign you got here the one that was advertised? MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifwe -- and, Brad, I don't know where -- and, Mr. Kolflat, I don't know where all your questionings have been -- questions have been going, but I'm not sure that we can come up with a variance request different than what's been applied for without having to go back and force the applicant into a redesign and start the process over again unless Miss Student can enlighten me on that issue. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We've taken the position as previously stated, that if it's less than what they're asking for and within what was advertised, it would be okay if it's greater than it's not. As to the design issue, that's another issue if it were to be substantially changed. And I think the applicant stated they wanted to leave it as it was because their neighbors had seen that and approved Page S6 April S, 2007 it so-- , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, that's why-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is I don't think there's a variance necessary because three times six is 18. That's how big you think it is, so you think it's as big as the background, not as big as the lettering. That's my point, but we can-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're wanting to address the lettering. And, again, staff is review -- with the sign variance, we review the sign. The lettering from -- when speaking with the sign review staff, said they like their lettering to be at 18 inches. If you're saying that maybe they could keep that same size, but increase the lettering, that would be something when they come through permitting. That's not handled during the sign variance unless you made that part of your stipulation and I know Miss Williams said that having that latitude may be down the road, they might take advantage of that, but, again, we -- staff reviews the sign size, not the lettering. That comes through during pern1itting. That's not here. We're doing the variance for this sign. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. I'm not going anywhere, but I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah. Melissa, I still don't know, because when you mention the sign is what you're considering, not the lettering, as far as analyzing this, as I read to you, the development standard for signs under development standards has a specific statement that says, the maximum size limitation shall apply to each structure, not to each sign, nor to each copy. It says, to each structure. Why don't -- why wasn't that followed? MS. ZONE: Where -- which code are you looking at? Page S7 April S, 2007 Are you looking at off-premise signs? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No. I'm looking -- MS. ZONE: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- at 5.06.03, which was more of a generalization. MS. ZONE: Right. You have to go to off-premise signs and look at it because each one has specific requirements for -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah. MS. ZONE: -- so we follow off-premise signs -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah. That's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for this particular-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's the size number. That's the 12 feet size number. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Right. And that's -- and it's 12 feet III area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, what we have to decide today is, is this sign with this structure and as applied for by the applicant and as advertised something that we're going to consider as a recommendation of approval or denial. I understand where you're going. I'm not saying you're wrong. But I don't know how to get there with this in front of us as -- because this is what was advertised. I don't know what else to do at this point. Does staff have any -- are we -- I think we're tied to what has been applied for. MS. ZONE: Well, Chairman, I can address that issue, is that we advertised this for three sign variances. We did not give the measurement of the sign we were asking for, because they were addressing code violations. Now, if the board here has recommendations that Miss Williams want to -- wants to follow or not, that would be discussion between the board and the applicant. But it was not advertised that this is the specific sign that it will Page S8 April S, 2007 follow. It was advertised there were three code violations. The applicant came in to get the sign variance so that they can have the off-premise sign, which would be 1283 feet. And they're asking since -- specifically for off-premise signs, they have to have the sign itself is in 12 feet in area. And they're asking for the sign, which is 36 feet in area. As I stated before, with the sign review team, they look at structures that hold the sign. They look at it separate, but as long as the height does not exceed eight feet. And those are requirements that are handled during the sign permitting review. Now, if we have something specific that we would like to have put into the ordinance when Miss Williams comes in to permit this sign, and if it gives her more latitude than code, she can then give it to the -- to the sign review staff and they will follow that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Student. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I'm -- I'm sort of -- and I don't have a background on this one, because I've taking -- pinch hitting for Mr. Klatzkow. But typically when we advertise the variance, we will put numbers for what it's from and to. And, so, there will be a maximum number that the variance is approved to. My only concern is that whatever the Planning Commission approves today, if there was a new -- a numeric or a value placed on the var -- variance, if you go under that, that's okay. That was, you know, advertised. If you go over it, that can be problem. Now, I'm not sure, from what Miss Zone said, whether a numeric maximum for the area the sign was advertised, because typically it would be. I mean, I -- that way it's just kind of open ended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, I bet you're really not going to pinch in for anybody again. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: No. That's okay. I mean, that's Page 59 April S, 2007 fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, this is getting more complicated than it needs to be. Melissa -- MS. ZONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the three variances that they're asking for, if they were recommended for approval today, would they be able to build the sign that they're showing here today? MS. ZONE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would they be able to build something less than, but nothing more than that? MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, that's what this board really needs to understand is that we're looking at three variances that give them this sign. This is what they want. This is what they're asking for. They could have the latitude to make this a little bit different, but it would have to be less intense, not intense. MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe want to go more intense, the whole process has got to be started over. MS. ZONE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, let's dwell on that issue so we can get past this today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Will they be able to build a sign in Exhibit B, which is not that sign? Denmark is -- you're completely covered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what Exhibit B is, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exhibit B is the one that has the logo. MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. We just put our new logo. We have a new logo. Page 60 April S, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's the sign you really want to build -- MS. WILLIAMS : Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, Melissa, the question from Mr. Schiffer, is that an affirmative answer? MS. ZONE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yes, Brad. We're covered in all directions then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And this is good sign. That other one that has that Flintstone thing going, this would be a lot nIcer. MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need an architect? There you go. Okay. Are there any other questions of staff? Hearing none, Ray, how many public speakers are here to discuss this sign? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. We're off and running. With that, ifthere's no other questions, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll make a Motion to Approve Petition SY-2006-AR-10351, Unity of Naples Church, and for the approval of all three variances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Adelstein. The motion was made by Commissioner Caron. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those -- Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: With those -- what they wouldn't include, the staffs two recommendations. Page 61 April S, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They include all three-- COMMISSIONER CARON: All variances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- variances. As far as staff recommendations, that's a good-- COMMISSIONER TUFF: Cut that off in the two points in their recommendations. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I'm -- I'm approving the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's -- she's saying-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the variances requested, not the staff report. The variances requested. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: This is one of those -- this is what variances are meant for. MS. WILLIAMS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The motion is made, discussions ended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Motion carries eight to zero. Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- could I ask staff to address Page 62 April S, 2007 this 5.06.03, standards in the LDC for the maximum size limitation and report back to us whether that we should sure apply that in the future? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. MS. ZONE: I'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Ray, for -- whenever it's ready, just put it on the old business section of the agenda and we'll get that addressed. Mr. Adelstein? Oh, okay. Item #8D PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR-9150 Next hearing, public hearing we have is for Petition PUDZ-2006-AR-9150. It's Kerry Kubacki for Livingston Village, LLC, the Bradford Square MPUD. For all those wishing to testify in regards to this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there comments on any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? I had a discussion with Mr. Y ovanovich while he was on vacation, and I understand he is still on vacation, which we normally expect him to be when he comes before us, and he said he's growing a beard to fit in better with the Planning Commission. So, with that, that's the only disclosure, and Mr. Y ovanovich and I just talked about the issues that I'll be discussing here today. No other disclosures. Mr. Y ovanovich, are you making the presentation? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. Good morning for the record. Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the Page 63 April S, 2007 petItIoner. With me today are Stuart Wood and Kerry Kubacki, who are the contract purchasers, representing the contract purchaser, Amy Turner and Tammy Kipp who are the -- represent the actual property owners at this time, Bob Duane, Terry Cole and Rob Price. And they'll be available to answer any questions you may have regarding the proj ect. The property is a 9.1 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. If-- up on the -- there's some depictions of the property in its current state and the master plan is next to it. And you can see the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road. The property was designated Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict in June of2005. We did that Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It involved two parcels. This is Parcel Number 1, and slightly to the east would be Parcel Number 2. The uses allowed under the Comprehensive Plan are the uses within the C-l to C-3 commercial zoning districts, plus C-l and C-3 type uses that are found in other zoning districts. And in addition, the -- the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow residential density of up to 16 units per acre. The request is for a mixed use PUD, which will include office, retail and ten residential dwelling units. We're requesting a hundred thousand square feet of office and retail uses. We worked very closely with our neighbors during the both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process and the PUD rezone process to come up with acceptable development standards and uses within both the Comprehensive Plan and PUD document. We believe that the PUD rezone petition before you addresses all of our neighbors' concerns, and if you will recall, as we were going through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, one of the issues was how do we describe what type of fast food establishments would be allowed on this property. And the original Comprehensive Plan language named by name Page 64 April S, 2007 the types of fast food restaurants that would not be permitted on the site, much like Lee County does in their definition of fast food. They actually reference types of establishments. County staff was uncomfortable with naming names in the Comprehensive Plan and also in the PUD, so if you look at the Comprehensive Plan language, you'll see kind of a nebulous term called certain types of fast food restaurants are prohibited. And that -- that's an example of how we worked with the community to come up with the appropriate types of uses on the property through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as well as the PUD rezone process. We have attempted to describe in the PUD the types of restaurants we were allowed to have on the property, limit ourselves to just one drive through for a restaurant to get at that concept of certain types of fast food restaurants in the PUD document to make sure we properly define that. And the types of fast food restaurants that were not objectionable to the -- to the neighbors at the time we were going through the Comp Plan Amendment was, you know, the stand alone Starbucks that has, you know, a drive through or even an in line Starbucks that has a drive through, you know, a Baskin Robbins slash Dunkin Donuts, those types of uses were not objectionable. It was the -- the traditional fast food hamburger restaurants that were objectionable. So, I hope we've -- we've gotten that concept correct in the PUD document. I think staffs comfortable with it. We think the neighbors are comfortable with it. Access to the property; briefly, through the master plan, we will have -- on Livingston Road, we will right in, right out. And on Vanderbilt Beach Road, we will have right in, right out, and a directional left in off of Vanderbilt Beach Road. The version of the staff report I saw had, I think it flipped them on -- in the staff report. I think they showed a left in off of Livingston and just right in, and right in on Vanderbilt. But I just wanted to -- to Page 6S April S, 2007 correct that. Your staff report indicates that all -- all staff has signed off, environmental staff, transportation staff and planning staff. We spent a lot of time with all three of those departments in arriving at a PUD document and master plan that was well thought out and acceptable to everybody from the staff level. And staff is recommending approval of the -- of the mixed use PUD. And with that, that's -- that's an overview of the project, and if you have any specific questions of -- of me or anybody else on our team, we'll be happy to answer those questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, how did you come up with ten family units or ten -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ten multifamily. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- residential units? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, when we looked at the project as far as how we would work together as far as the number of units we thought would make sense, height of -- height was an issue for -- for the residents around us, including the Tiburon golf course to our immediate north. That -- that wasn't -- that was an economically viable mix of what we could fit with the development parameters we had for the site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But you have three stories available, right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Up to 35 feet, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, because the sad thing is we put a lot of hope that the mixed use was going to provide housing, and ten units isn't really enough in my mind. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I know. And I don't know that this parcel is big enough to really get to a larger number of units. By the time you address, you know, what, a management on site, parking on Page 66 April S, 2007 site, height, it's just not a big enough site, unlike -- unlike the Buckley PUD we did on the comer of -- not on corner, but just -- just north of the intersection of Orange Blossom and Airport. It was a little bit bigger site. And in that instance, we were able to get more residential units in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I kind of disagree, because it's usually a matter of how you use the volume you're working with. The other questions then, and probably Bob would have to answer this is, what is the ground coverage that the buildings are occupying on the site plan you presented? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're just talking about the footprints of the buildings themselves? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The footprints of the building as shown there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, they're -- they're doing the calculation over there -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not on the drawing, so that's -- they're not going to find it on there. MR. DUANE: Robert Duane for the record. Our developed area is about 58 percent of the site. We're required to have 30 percent over. We have -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's including parking and everything, is it, or is that just the -- MR. DUANE: Square foot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the footprint of the buildings? MR. DUANE: The square footage of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you've got to stay to the microphone when you're speaking. MR. DUANE: Okay. That footprint is 64, 74, about 80,000 square feet of office and retail in addition to the ten condos. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So, you're saying that Page 67 April S, 2007 the footprint shown is 80,000 feet. MR. DUANE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Such -- and you're only allowed to build a hundred thousand feet. MR. DUANE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's good. And the other question is on your Table 13-4 of the PUD. I just would recommend -- you don't have to -- that you make -- Number 6, instead of 15 feet, make it greater than 20 feet to safe yourself a building fire code problem. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Greater than 20 or greater than 15? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Greater than 20. It's not -- the way you're designing the site, you're essentially building a big strip with some two outparcels, so that's not going to affect you. You're going to be well over 20 feet, but just in case. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The only reason I asked that, I remember in a context before you've advised us on residential greater than -- I think it was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was any -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- 15 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- structure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. It was -- that's why I asked the 15. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It applies to any structure. The -- and, again, the disappointment I have is this is just going to end up being -- if you're essentially saying it's a one-story building, there's only 20 percent of the area left to do two story, this is -- even though we're doing a PUD, which is looking-- MR. DUANE: It's got office -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- for creative. MR. DUANE: It's got office on the second story also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys will have to use the microphone if you're going to speak. Page 68 April S, 2007 MR. DUANE: Ten thousand square feet is on the second floor also. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So, you have 80 on the lower floor, ten and then -- MR. DUANE: No. Ten all together of office, 64,000 retail and 14,000 -- and 14,400 of office. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's including the outbuildings? MR. DUANE: Yes. That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So, you're -- MR. DUANE: But the site was intended to provide neighborhood and retail shopping needs. There really isn't anything that meets this need within the vicinity of this project. Could have added more residential units, but that would have detracted from the utility of the retail center. There isn't really anything around there for those neighborhoods, so that was really the theme behind the Comprehensive Plan Amendment even though residential uses were permitted. They just became not a significant component of the project for the reasons I just noted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's kind of the sadness I have, because we did -- the county put a lot of hope that the mixed use would help us with the housing problem we have. And this is essentially strip plan, a strip shopping center, but it's done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein, then Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The units that you're trying to built for homes, the minimum of 1,000 square feet, what's the maximum of them? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that we've determined at this -- at this point what the actual size of the units are going to be within Page 69 April S, 2007 the project. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How many square feet do you still have available? In the -- you've got buildings with -- these are inside those building; correct? On top of them? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct, but that's -- that's in addition to the retail. It doesn't -- it doesn't subtract from the hundred thousand square feet of retail. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, the thing that's bothering me is what kind of home do you build with a thousand square feet even to start with? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think part of the intent of what this is, is to make housing available to people who might work there. We're -- we're talking about providing -- you know, we're not talking about stand alone bigger homes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I think a thousand -- I know the first apartment I lived in Collier County, I would have -- I would have loved to have a thousand square feet. I had a two-bedroom apartment and it couldn't have been 600 square feet if it was that much. You know, it was -- and it was fine, I mean, for -- for just two people. I mean, we had -- I mean, it's not -- you don't need a whole -- a thousand square feet, I think, is not a small -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You were a smaller man then because 600 square feet ain't going to get you anywhere. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, if -- again, Mr. Adelstein, I'm showing you, it's -- I think -- I will tell you that probably that's a -- I think, a thousand square feet is not that small of an apartment type unit for people to live in for two or three people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. On your PUD, Page 2-1 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- on 2.3, project description -- Page 70 April S, 2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- the last sentence says, the maximum floor area for any single user -- user shall not exceed 20,000 square feet. Now, would you turn to Page 3.5? MR. DUANE: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And down on the bottom ofthat under mixed use standards, it says -- no, excuse me -- up on the size limitation on use, it says, the maximum of 20,000 square feet of floor area for any single commercial use. One page it says "user", the other it says "use". Those are two distinct differences. MR. YOV ANOVICH: They were not intended to be, so if you would like us to change that to any commercial user -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is the 20,000 going to be limited to a single user or is the 20,000 going to be limited-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: User. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- to single use? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was user and it was intended to be different. So, if you want to change that to 20,000 square feet for any single -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So, if I wanted-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- commercial user -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: If I wanted-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- on that page -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: If I wanted 40,000 square feet of retail surface of a certain type of product use, I could get two owners and one to go for 20,000 and other go to 20,000, we could have 40,000 square feet of clothing store. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Mr. Kolflat, when he tries to answer, you've got to wait until he finishes before you can start, because she has to take this accurately, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Could there theoretically be 40,000 Page 71 April S, 2007 square feet of clothing stores in any combination? Yes. And that was -- the -- the issue -- the -- where the 20,000 square foot came from in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process was the concern for a big box. There was a concern we would somehow come through with another Sports Authority, if you will, or another-- you know, a Best Buy or something. And that was what that language was -- was addressing was the big box language. It was not. And also they didn't want a Publix or something like that. They -- so, that's where the 20,000 square feet came from and from the historical content. We didn't -- there wasn't a concern about if this turned out to be -- if the neighborhood needed those, you know, more than 20,000 square feet of clothing stores in your example, it wasn't intended to say you couldn't have multiple clothing store companies in the -- in the center. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So, the intent then is just to limit the user, not the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The user, right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The whole hundred thousand could be one use. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Theoretically, I don't think that that will really happen. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I don't say it would necessarily, but I'm just saying what the -- what it state in -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that -- that was the context of how that 20,000 square feet came into play, and I think that actually came into play at the -- at the Board of County Commissioner level and -- and not at the Planning Commission level. And I can't remember if that happened at transmittal or if that Page 72 April S, 2007 happened at adoption. But I remember how that came up in the context of -- of where that 20,000 square foot limitation came from. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, for the residential units, if each of those were 2,000 square feet and there was going to be ten of them, that comes up to 20,000 square feet. Is that -- is that a limited also or is the 20,000 limited only to the commercial? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was commercial, only commercial. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Residential would have no limit then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. There's -- there was no -- there was no square foot limitation put us -- on us as to the minimum size unit or the maximum size residential units. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Richard, for the record, would you be good enough to point out the location of the condominium parcel there where the -- where the ten units will be? Are they separated between three and 400, that area? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. They're -- they would be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Those are outparcels, right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- within -- they would be within the structures. There would not be a separate building for the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, okay. That's good. That's all my -- I don't need to go any further. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Just to follow up a little bit on that use versus user business. Because we were trying to avoid big boxes, it should be use; correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, no. I think you would say user. Page 73 April S, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Because a use would allow you to then only have 20,000 square feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, no. Here's the -- here's the -- here's the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: When you-- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to . interrupt. COMMISSIONER CARON: When he was talking about users, what he was saying is then you could get people, different users, all of the same product which essentially would create like a big boxed area. So, shouldn't it -- I mean, shouldn't it be use rather than user? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: Only 20,000 square feet here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't -- I don't -- I don't think so. And let me --let me -- and I'm just going to go with an example. I don't think this would ever happen, but if you were to -- if you were to have a, for what -- for whatever -- let's just say that there's a tremendous need for restaurants in this area and we ended up putting in enough restaurants to where we went past 20,000 square feet of resident -- restaurant space, not anyone of the restaurants exceeding that. I don't think there was an intent to say you -- you have to stop restaurants at 20,000 square feet. So, that's why I think you would say user versus use. The restaurant use itself could exceed 20,000 square feet. They've got to be multiple restaurants not any -- no -- no -- no individual restaurant could exceed 20,000 square feet. Just like a clothing store, you couldn't have -- and I don't -- I don't want to use names because I don't -- but, you know, and anyone clothing store can't go past 20,000 square feet. You weren't saying that the use of a clothing store couldn't go beyond 20,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Page 74 April S, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And maybe if we use the word "tenant" instead, that plays well into the building code for separation. So, if you -- essentially what you're saying is we don't want any tenants greater than 20,000 square feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Could we say tenant or owner in case -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- we decide to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, in the building code, tenant refers to the control of something. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: An owner would fall under that. But I think owner might be a problem because the guy that owns the restaurant may also own the clothing store, so that's not -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: But then if they -- but then if they own it, there's no tenant, then I got -- then I -- now you're telling me I've got to lease the space. So, I was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. But-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, if the word tenant legally means only lease, then tenant or owner is fine. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: How about occupant, commercial occupant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Student, did you have something you wanted to say and bring uses -- use the microphone, please. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: How about commercial occupant? Would that work? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I honestly don't see the big issue? I think if we say "user", now I think that -- I think that works. That was the -- the Comp Plan said "user", however, the form of the ownership is shouldn't really matter as long as we don't have one user exceeding that 20,000 square feet. Page 75 April S, 2007 Then I don't -- then I don't have to worry about either one, tenant or owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't ask for a sign variance, that's all. I'm warning you. Any other questions of Richard? I have a few. Richard, if you started on the PUD document, Page 3-4, it's your table for principal structures, maximum building heights, 35 feet within three stories, is that zoned or architectural? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that -- that is zoned. Do you want us to -- to note that, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but I certainly would like to know what your maximum actual height will be then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that. We finally designed the buildings to know what the -- the actual height is. Do we know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you don't say anything, that means you go a hundred feet high. So, let's get reasonable and give me a number that we can put in the book so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll have my client come up so I don't have to do hand signals or negotiate through the microphone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. YOV ANOVICH: How about 35 zoned, the actual not to exceed 45 feet? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, does that work okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. I mean, I'm not sure of the problem because the zone tide is measuring to a roof system. If it's a flat roof, it's 35 feet. It may be a parapet. If it's a slopped roof, it's to the middle of the roof, so you -- the structure that could abuse it the most is an A frame and you -- you know. And you're not going to do that, so -- but if -- I mean, if they put an elevator -- if they have three stories and they have an elevator, they Page 76 April S, 2007 might have trouble within ten feet to put the elevator and then put a roof on that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. I -- I -- I hesitate to put up, but this is -- this is the architecture we're -- we're thinking about doing. I don't -- so, I -- you know, I think it clearly is going to be a nice looking project. And I don't think we're going to hit, as hard as we tried, I don't think we can hit a hundred feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but I think you could have trouble with 45. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You think we could? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think you could have trouble with the 35 zoned in that sketch, too. Because think, you've got three stories. You want that lower story greater than ten feet, so -- You know, when we -- I guess what would -- forever in these PUDs, Ray, when we say a height by default, that means the zoned height. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, one of the Board of County Commissioners, I think Commissioner Halas, suggested we use actual height because of the problems he was encountering in his district, and I -- and that did implemented into the Land Development Code. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, they should be because-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And because it is, I would like this. I think that it would be diligent of this board to at least get a number from the applicant so we know we're not going to get something extreme and that would follow what the Board of County Commissioners had suggested by their inclusion of that requirement in the LDC. So, that's the only reason I asked. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. The Board of County Commissioners had several projects where the zoned height seemed reasonable, but in actuality, the -- some residents or constituents of Page 77 April S, 2007 theirs expressed that the actual height resulting from the -- and the perceived height from the ground level was taller than the zoned height. So, we initiated an amendment to the LDC to include actual building height, too, and we should be having both on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. One thing that's important is it's measured from a different spot. I mean, it's measured from the center line of the lowest elevation in the road. So, I'm not sure, you know -- in other words, if your site rose up a couple of feet or at least your FEMA put you a couple of feet above the center line of the road, that's going to eat away at the actual height, not the zoned height. MR. BELLOWS: That's why they need to show both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, you had said 45 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I had-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or you're sticking to your 45? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'd like to. I've been asked if we can give ourselves a little bit more flexibility by going to 50 feet and then we know. I think we're -- we're safe in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'll-- I mean, I'll put 50 feet down. We've still got to go through public comment and rest of it so we'll see where it goes. On that same Table Number 9, you referenced a 5.6H, does not give you what I think you're trying for. That references a storl11water management system and you're looking for a preserved setback? So, I think you want a different numeric on that or a different reference? If you don't, I don't think it does you any good. MR. YOV ANOVICH: W e'lllook at that in the mean -- page what? G is what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. G is the one I think you're trying to get to but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. You're right. Thank you. Page 78 April S, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The accessory structures on Page 3-5, you have a rear setback of seven of 15 feet, yet your principals have a rear setback of 70 feet. What is it you're thinking of for an accessory structure that would be 15 feet to the property line? MR. DUANE: I think -- Robert Duane for the record -- you're correct. Most of our northern property line is preserve area. We do have some parking spaces. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, it's referencing accessory structures. MR. DUANE: Right. There are no set -- that's restructures that need a setback of 15 feet shown on the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And was there a reason why your accessory structure setbacks couldn't mirror your principal structure since that's all you're building out there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, we -- we had talked about the possibility of covered parking for the -- for the people who have residential units there, so that's a possibility along that northern property line for some covered parking that would be within 15 feet, or that could not be closer than 15 feet. That's -- that's what we had in mind when we came up with that standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gives me an understanding of it. Then, what is the height limitation on your accessory structures, because you list everything but height. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Everything but height? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: 15 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You like that number. Everything is 15 feet; front, side, rear, height. Be cubes, won't they? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You can get a Hummer in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 5-2, Item G. And, Mr. Bellows, we've been going round and round on redundant language for Page 79 April 5, 2007 four years now? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And every time I ask you the same question and every time I get the same answer. This one has the same redundant language, but this one had a twist. Why you would put this in a document that's going to be turned into an ordinance is puzzling. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with the Collier County Ordinance 01-13 as amended of the LDC as it may be amended, per Bob Duane. This is not redundant with 5.1.C. I'm just wondering what all that relates to and what does 5.1 C have anything to do with that issue because 5.1 C is a gate requirement. What is Bob Duane's theory on this have to do in a document that's going to be made into a ordinance for? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Student. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: All I can figure, I give the applicant a marked up document and I probably wrote redundant. I don't think I wrote redundant with the thing about the turnaround though, and it come back that way. I'll speak to my assistant, because I was assured that this document was ready to sign. And I did based on -- so I'll speak to her about that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So-- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: -- because it should not be in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is G -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And I had made -- when I reviewed, I suggested that come out because of your concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I certainly would suggest it would come out, too, unless -- well, I don't see why -- any reason it shouldn't, so, hopefully, staffs making these notes. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Mr. Chairman. Page 80 April S, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Miss Student. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I also caught another thing in here that should have been fixed, and that is under the accessory uses. On Page 3-2, they've written, any other use which comparable in nature with the foregoing uses consistent with the permitted uses of this input. That should be accessories. I don't think we want -- I don't know why it says "permitted" there when we're talking about accessories unless the applicant should shed some light on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm -- I'm only wondering -- when I read it, I was thinking what they're trying to say as the accessory use had to be consistent with the permitted use. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, that's what I don't quite understand, so if you could shed some light on it, I'd appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich or whoever is going to interpret that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I -- I -- I -- obviously accessory uses have got to be consistent with the permitted uses and that was the context in what -- in the context of which we put that language, was that in -- that the accessory use still has to be consistent with the permitted uses. It has to tie back. Because you can -- an accessory use is not a standalone use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I had read, and I don't understand the concem. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Okay, because usually you see this language under permitted uses, and it says consistent with the permitted uses. So you have accessory uses and you have some named up in one. So number two is a catchall for the rest of the accessory uses. So that's the only -- I think it could go either way, but I was uncertain about what it really meant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's go on to Page 5-3. Item 5.2. Page 81 April S, 2007 Ray, is any ofthe items A, B or C currently not required in the code or a deviation from the code, or any of them needed in this document? MR. BELLOWS: This is under transportation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, 5.2, utility requirements. MR. BELLOWS: Page-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Five-three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5-3, Article 5.2. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If! can jump in. I understand your questions of staff. This is a PUD that started under the old system. And as we were getting closer to hearing, there was a request to convert to the new system. We thought we were going to be in front of the planning commission last month, and when these issues were raised, there wasn't enough time really to convert to the new format of the PUD and still keep that hearing schedule that we thought we were going to be under. So I asked staff, please don't change the format, because I don't want anything to slip through the process, because we were trying to meet a different schedule. So that would -- the comments that you're making to staff about redundancy is because -- partly we're to blame for that because of the scheduling and not wanting to have -- we didn't have enough time to really confirm what was being taken out was or was not in fact redundant with the LDC. Now, I know some ofthese are, obviously. However, staff did accommodate us on the scheduling and the format that we requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is back to the same problem we've been expressing, and I will just have to try to hope we get it corrected. But Ray, there's some here that concern me that they might be leading to deviations, but they aren't requested as deviations, so I'll try Page 82 April S, 2007 to focus just on those instead of all the redundancies. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, and just for an update, we have several petitions that will be coming before you within the next few months that are in the new format without a PUD document. So we're almost there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. On Page 5-4, No. 5.5, there's a lot of redundancy in it. But look at number E. Talks about lakes setbacks from the perimeter of the MPUD may be reduced to a minimum of 20 feet. Is that a deviation from a Land Development Code, or is that consistent with the Land Development Code? Because if it's consistent, then it's just redundant, but if it's not consistent and it's asking for something that's a deviation, needs to spelled out as a deviation and opined by staff on whether or not it's legitimate. So someone needs to answer that question. I'm assuming someone from staff. MS. ZONE: Just before -- Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. Each department that manages these documents review it and then sign off with the principal planner. I did not catch this as a deviation. It is going to be a deviation, unless the applicant is willing to strike this as well from there. A lot of this redundant language we've been fighting for several months to get most of it out. This is about as clean as we were able to get it. So this is the deviation they're asking for. We would have to go back and have staff review it for that purpose, or we strike it out of the PUD document with most all of the redundant language that's in it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich, are you looking for a continuance or are you going to drop that -- MR. DUANE: For the record, we'll strike the revision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to identify yourself for the record? We have a new court reporter. Page 83 April S, 2007 MR. DUANE: Robert Duane, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Melissa, same question. Number F, the paragraph following that one. MS. ZONE: Exactly. Because the 3.1 slope is not what staff supports, because of hazards to those who would be cutting the grass and maintaining these slopes. So this too would have to be a deviation that would go through stormwater for their approval or not. You know, there's a lot of redundant (sic) in this water management requirement. You have your B, the C. There's several here, but we would have to take it back for staff to review it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Melissa, the ones that are redundant, some of them simply say you've got to go by the LDC. MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not concerned about those because they don't trigger deviations. MS. ZONE: Okay, at this-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The ones I'm trying to focus on, E and F would trigger deviations -- MS. ZONE: Yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which means they have to be separately addressed. MS. ZONE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the next question of the applicant is going to be, are you withdrawing Paragraph F as well? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, my understanding is we can have a three-to-one slope under the LDC under certain circumstances. What I would request is -- no, I would prefer not to have a continuance. I do know that stormwater and other staff have reviewed the PUD document. I think if there was something in this document that staff determined to be unsafe, they would have objected to it in the form of a PUD document and it would be in the staff report objecting to a development standard we're requesting. I would like to Page 84 April S, 2007 move forward and have staff, if they have an issue, raise that issue before the Board of County Commissioners. This is just coming up today and, honestly, I don't know whether it's a deviation or not a deviation. I do know that there is a staff review for the purposes of these issues, and if there was a safety issue, I would have thought stormwater staff would have raised that issue through the review. It didn't get raised. I'd hate to see us have to continue and come back again on that particular issue when we can resolve it between now and the Board of County Commissioners. Unless it's something, you know, that the planning commissioners, obviously have a tremendous concem over and that can't be resolved by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, my concern is that first of all, I don't believe it would be a safety issue. That's not what I was looking at. Because I'm assuming that safety issues would stand out even more. We have instituted a process in which deviations are separately addressed before this board. Staff then analyzes them and opines on them for the PUD for this board to either agree with or not agree with. I wouldn't want to see something coming through on a PUD document that is in essence a deviation that has not been forthright with us and with the paperwork that goes through the public process. That's why I'm pointing that out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, I need to understand from a legal perspective, if some of this redundant language or this language that appears redundant triggers a deviation that is not addressed under the deviation format that we've implemented most recently, does it still happen as a deviation, or what happens? Where did does it go? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I'll explain to you my understanding. Anything that's not consistent with the code, other than the performance standards for the subdistrict which are like Page 85 April S, 2007 setback height, and that's what the PUD is to do, just set those different standards. But anything else besides those that's different from the code, it's supposed to be treated as a deviation by staff as long as, again, it's not consistent with what's in the land code and reviewed in that manner. And that's my general understanding. Staff can correct me ifI'm wrong. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager. The water management staff has reviewed the language and has signed off on it. The problem is, in the presentation to the planning commission it was not spelled out as a deviation, as it should have been. But the essence of the standard has been approved by our water management staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that something that you can resolve between now and the Board of County Commissioners? MR. BELLOWS: That is. We can resolve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Either if it's a deviation and it needs to come back to us, then the applicant's going to have to make a decision. If it's not a deviation and it can be cleaned up or address that way to the BCC, I think that's workable. But it needs to be done before it gets to the BCC anyhow. MR. BELLOWS: We'll take care of it. We'll talk to water management review staff and determine what the extent of the current language is, and if this represents a deviation or not. And if it is, we'll address it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, most -- there's a lot of other redundant language in the document. I won't waste the time and dwell on it right now. The traffic impact statement that was provided, Richard, who's -- there's a gentleman from Metro or Transportation Consultants? Didn't it used to be Metro? MR. PRICE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, I just thought you were. Page 86 April S, 2007 MR. PRICE: For the record, Robert Price, TR Transportation Consultants. I'm a Licensed Engineer in the State of Florida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question, sir, is in the TIS you use a standard code of 820. MR. PRICE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick has opined in previous planning commission meetings that he would be looking for you to use the most intense ITE category. Is the shopping center use of 820 the most intense that's going to be allowed on this property? MR. PRICE: 820 is intended for combined shopping center uses. It correlates several different uses, and it is basically share parking on a large -- you know, shopping centers with several different users. Ifwe were analyzing this as a standalone restaurant or a standalone bank or a standalone pharmacy or a standalone retail use, several different standalone uses could potentially generate more traffic. But this is an integrated shopping center and this is the correct land use to be using for this type of shopping center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll have to get Nick to comment on it before we're done here. You're basing your 25 percent reduction and capture rate on that particular use as well? MR. PRICE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, they all, one adds on top of the other. In your future traffic conditions, you had a statement that says, peak traffic conditions as defined in the most recent Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report, the AUIR. Which year did you consider the most recent? MR. PRICE: This one was done in January, so it was the most recent. It was the 2007 update -- or '06 update, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only questions I have of you. I have one of Nick before we're finished. Thank you. And Richard, I have one last question on the document. This used to be a site for a church. And they apparently paid $165,000 to Page 87 April S, 2007 have the site mitigated. Are you aware of that? Did you know anything about that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know it used to be -- it used to have a conditional use for a church. And there was off-site mitigation related to that use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you acquired the property, you assumed that -- I guess it's a benefit, I would assume then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm fairly certain that when the property was acquired there was probably compensation paid related to that benefit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four and a half acres mitigated. Ijust wanted to make note of that. I thought it was unusual that they would put that kind of money into it and walk from it. Okay, thank you, sir. Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I have one follow-up question of the TIS with Nick and then we'll get to the staff report. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Hi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the same issue we've discussed in the past and it was the way in which the TIS was done in regards to multiple types of uses on a project. At one point time a long time ago, and I thought you had indicated to us that you guys look for the most intense use to judge the traffic, the worst case scenario. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you believe in the instance of this TIS that that's been done? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's consist with the original application. What we've done is stuck with the 25 percent reduction that we've limited to. Rob asked to go a little higher than 38. Ifhe had submitted a traffic statement that might have broke Page 88 April S, 2007 down additional uses, he would have had to provide internal capture with those uses in the higher passby. By limiting it down to 25 percent and using 820, we think it's consistent with what could be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The capture rate wasn't what concerned me the most at this point. It was the use of the 820. The 820 is a blended use that basically affects a lower transportation count than if you use standalones like pharmacies or like grocery stores or like fast foods. Considerably. There's a considerable difference in them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It can be, depending on the size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But your worst case scenario then wasn't utilized. You used a blended scenario. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I did. And some of the times -- when this application first came in, again, this is one of those older applications before we had the TIS guidelines. And to update it, when I looked at the application and the capacities on both adjacent roadways, there was an abundance of capacity. So I wasn't concemed at the TIS zoning stage that I would be losing something at this point in time. All the operational movements weren't failing; both adjacent roadways showed sufficient capacity. So for a zoning application, I didn't want to go back at a late stage and do a higher use. When it does come in for, say, an SDP type application, we will look at it and compare it to what would be consistent with 820 and what would be consistent with the highest uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would agree with you, that even if you went with a more intense use, the capacity would still be there. But my concem then is what you do with that in the future. In various other applications we've been told that you lock in a certain impact for concurrency based on the zoning that's been approved. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. Page 89 April S, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what locks in concurrency? MR. CASALANGUIDA: At SDP and plot and plan. So the only thing I would look at concurrency -- zoning would be if I went to a higher use. If I say -- even if I looked at this and that and said 10, 20 percent more trips, does anything fail, and nothing would. So I wasn't concerned at this point in time for a zoning application. When he comes in with a specific use, we'll scrutinize it even one step farther. When this application came forward it was under the new TIS guidelines -- the old TIS guidelines. So when this application comes in as an SDP, it will have to fall the new TIS guidelines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, as an example, 951 and 41 -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's a functioning intersection. It actually functions pretty well in reality, but right now it's failed because your calculations on concurrency based on zoning, not SDP, on zoning, show it failed. MR. CASALANGUJDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In order to use those calculations at zoning, did you use the worst case scenarios or ones like this that the TIS is on a better case scenario? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Um-hum what? MR. CASALANGUIDA: When I look at an intersection, for instance such as this, if it's not close to failing -- and when this was again applied for, it was in a prior mode or prior review status of the TIS guidelines. So he was consistent with the review. If I had a concem that it was close to failing, I think I would have scrutinized it even further. So if you're comparing 41 and 951, when you look at 41 and 951, even though it functions well today, when I look at vested trips, it does not. So I would consider that in a zoning application as it does not l11eet consistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's going to be a waste of my Page 90 April S, 2007 time to try to get this across to everybody here today. I'll get together with you. I appreciate it, Nick, thank you. With that, we'll go into staff report. Melissa? MS. ZONE: Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. The applicant was correct, this is in a mixed use subdistrict that the GMP mandates that this area be developed as commercial retail, as well as residential. The applicant has complied with concerns with the residents, as well as staff on a lot of the uses, in particular the fast food restaurant issues, which was spelled out in the PUD document so that the intensity of the particular fast food restaurants would not be permitted. Some of the issues that we're having with the PUD document, redundancy, all of that, will be handled and, as I usually do, verify with the planning commission of not only your motion but the changes, so I will follow up with you. One of the things, though, that Commissioner Kolflat had addressed and I'd like to address on this -- or expound on it a little more is the GMP -- let me find my notes -- specifically states for use or user. And I'm talking about in the PUD document. And we would talk Page 2-1, Section 2.3, as well as Page 3-5 under B, accessory structures. The size limitation uses. So it would be both of them. The GMP states specifically that development intensity for this subdistrict shall be limited to a maximum of 20,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. What I will do, and I'm sure the applicants will be agreeable, that we could put on Page 2-1 in Section 2.3 that it says that will not exceed the maximum of 20,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area, as well as on Page 3-5, and that should resolve all the issues, because that is what is the mandate of our GMP. Are there any questions that I might be able to answer or address? Page 91 April S, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Melissa, there is an activity center at Vanderbilt Road and Airport Road intersection, isn't there? MS. ZONE: You're probably correct. I don't have our land use map in front of us. But I know that there is an activity center close by. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Has any analysis been made on the impact on that activity center with this project that-- MS. ZONE: No. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- will create another activity center? MS. ZONE: No. This is -- it's a completely separate subdistrict. And at the time ofGMP, they would have evaluated that. This corridor -- and the corridor is specifically spelled out in the GMP. It says they would like the retail commercial of a lower intensity to be put there but with residential uses, so that if the people who are living around there, they could have uses, keep them off of many roads, use the retail commercial uses, and then maybe staff who work at these store fronts and/or maybe close by could then utilize the residential that would be above. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you for the clarification on user and use. MS. ZONE: Yes. And I'll make sure during the -- when they go through with the PUD document and modify that, we'll just make that the standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? MS. ZONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The stipulated settlement, why and what was it about? Have you read it? MS. ZONE: No, they didn't provide me with the stipulated settlement, but they did provide the case number. And so we put it in Page 92 April S, 2007 there for that reason, for you to be aware of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any time there's a reference ofa document like that that has to come to this commission, I for at least what is one planning commissioner would like a copy of that document. MS. ZONE: I will make sure from this point on. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. But I was thinking it might have relevance. Maybe not. Without even you having read it, no one knows. MS. ZONE: I will pull it up and forward it to everyone. If there is something of a major issue, we'll make sure we will handle that prior to BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be helpful, thank you. MS. ZONE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Ray, is there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff or the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, did you want a few moments. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I just wanted to understand. I got lost in the user/use discussion. Are we going with 20,000 square feet of gross leasable area for any user? Because that's what the compo plan says. MS. ZONE: No, gross leasable floor area. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, you guys speak one at a time and you've got to use the microphone, so -- Margie, wouldn't we have to stay with what the compo plan says in regards -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah, it should be consistent. I Page 93 April S, 2007 mean, you could have different -- I guess different wording if it meant the same thing, but I think it's easiest just to let it be the same as the compo plan. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, and I'm just -- for the compo plan, the last sentence under parcel one it says, the maximum floor area for any single commercial user shall be 20,000 square feet. Now, if you want to make it consistent with the 100,000 square foot of gross leasable area, I understand saying 20,000 square feet of gross leasable area, but it should be for user, not use. And that's all I'm looking for the clarification on, on that. And I just wanted to make sure that I was on the same page. And whatever the motion is, I understand it from the context of that. Because there's going to be obviously revisions. Staffs going to make some revisions as to redundancy and clarifications to whatever the motion is. So I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page so we don't have to come back for a clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, from your reading of the compo plan, if the language was the maximum floor area for any single commercial users shall be 20,000 square feet for gross leasable area, does that work? MS. ZONE: Right. There was a conflicting. But if you go with gross leasable, I think that that addresses the concerns of the applicant and will make it consistent. Because the compo plan has a little bit of variance in language. I think gross leasable makes it one specific use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Richard, is there anything else you wanted to comment on? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I don't. But I do want to let the planning commission know that obviously the reference to the stipulated judgment was a reference to negotiations between the transportation staff. And the property owner and transportation staff did obviously review the PUD document for their concerns. So what we believed were the appropriate staff did have the Page 94 April S, 2007 opportunity to review the stipulated judgment that yes, we'll make sure that it's included in documents the planning commission gets. But I didn't want anybody to think that that document was not reviewed in coming up with the transportation stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My point is, though, Richard, any time this board is having to judge something based on a reference in the package, we should have that reference. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm not disagreeing with that. I just wanted to clarify that yes, staff did review it. Melissa may not have, but I can assure you that Nick did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way Nick reviews something for transportation may not be the same as Melissa reviews something for planning. Or you would review something legally. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from anybody at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move that Petition PUDZ-2006-AR-9150, known as Bradford Square MPUD be recommended for approval to the Board of County Commissioners, based on the stipulations of staff and the agreed to yet to be determined qualifications of certain issues that have been raised in this hearing. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I made some notes and I can kind of go through them. We had made some corrections to the table. Page 9S April S, 2007 Commissioner Schiffer suggested greater than 20 feet. That seemed to be acceptable. We had added a height for actual height of 50 feet. That seemed to be acceptable. We corrected a typo in the last box from H to G. We also discussed at length the language involving the tenant or owner discussion, which Mr. Schiffer had. I believe that was a correction that was agreed. And that the single commercial user will be for gross leasable area. And that was what we just discussed. Also, there was a removal of item -- I didn't write the item down -- of item 5.5 E was agreed to be removed, so it's not a deviation. And item 5.5 F will be researched by staff between now and the BCC hearing and a recommendation made in regards to that. Does that comport with what everybody understands? Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Once again, your stipulations are recorded and appreciated very much. And I heard every one of them, I understand every one of them and I agree that they should be in the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second agree? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second agrees. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you all for Page 96 April S, 2007 attending today. With that, we'll move on to old business, of which none is listed. Does anyone have any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next time, or as close as possible, there will be an addition to business from Mr. Kolflat's issue. Any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No public comment. Is there a motion to adjoum? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Meeting is adjourned. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Happy Easter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as Mr. Schiffer says, happy Easter. And Kady and Cherie', thank you very much for your time today. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:24 a.m. Page 97 April 5, 2007 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY ROSE MARIE WITT AND CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 98