Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/03/2007 R May 3,2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida May 3, 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 Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron ( absent) Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Kay Deselem, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Page 1 AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2007, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 T AMIAMI 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 A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE, ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED, I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3, ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 15,2007, REGULAR MEETING; MARCH 22, 2007, GMP MEETING; MARCH 29, 2007, GMP MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - APRIL 10,2007, REGULAR MEETING 7, CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PE-2006-AR-I0551, DeVoe Family Limited Partnership II, represented by Sandra Bottcher ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., is requesting a parking exemption for the DeVoe Suzuki dealership. The exemption seeks approval of an off-site employee parking area on a residentially-zoned lot to serve the DeVoe Suzuki dealership in the adjacent commercially-zoned district. The subject property, consisting of 0.23 acres, is located at 1397 Trail Terrace Drive, on the northwest corner of 14th Street North and Trail Terrace Drive, approximately 500 feet south of Solana Road, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) B. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-10698, A. Grover Matheney, Trustee, represented by R. Bruce Anderson esquire, of Roetzel & Andress, LPA and Margaret Perry, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc., is requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for a project to be known as the Gaspar Station PUD. The subject property, consisting of 17.7 acres, is located on the south side of Immokalee Road (CR 846), approximately one quarter mile west of the 1-75/lmmokalee Road, interchange, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) 1 C. Petition: PUDA-2006-AR-10916, Grand Inn of Naples, Inc., represented by Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development Inc., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) for the Pine Ridge Mixed Use Center PUD to add 24,000 square feet of conunercial use, add General Office as a permitted use, eliminate Restaurant as a permitted use, and to change the development standards. The subject property, consisting of 4.02" acres is located at 1100 Pine Ridge Road, in Section 15, Township 49, Range 25, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) CONTINUED FROM 4119/07 D. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8379, Home Dynamics of Naples, LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for project to be known as Boxwood RPUD. The subject property consisting of 29.69 acres, with a maximum of 238 residential dwelling units of which 30 percent of the total number of units will be for Affordable-Workforce Housing, is located at 14290 -14300 Collier Boulevard, Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) CONTINUED FROM 4/ I 9/07 E. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8284, Tree Farm Land Trust, represented by Robert Mulhere, AICP of RWA, Inc., and George Varnadoe, Esquire, ofChefty, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP, is requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for project to be known as Tree Farm MPUD consisting of a maximum of 200,000 square feet of conunercial uses; and a maximum of 425 residential units. The subject property, consisting of 58.84 acres, is located at 8799 Immokalee Road, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) CONTINUED TO 5117/07 F. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-7588, Richard Evans, represented by Tim Hancock, of Davidson Engineering Inc., requesting a rezone from Rural Agriculture "A" zoning district to ConunerciaI Planned Unit Development "CPUD", to be known as Evans CPUD, by creating a PUD Document and Master Plan, proposing medical and professional offices and non-conunercial indoor storage by occupants of the building(s), with a maximum of 52,000 square feet. The subject property, consisting of 6.0 acres, is located west of Livingston Road and south of Pine Ridge Road at 12745 Livingston Road in Section 13, Township 49, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) 9. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion to clarify how staff determines when maximum size limits for each type of sign has been met, as required by Section 5.06.03 of the LDC. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) B. Update from Joe Schmitt regarding requirement for second NIM meeting (Coordinator: Joseph K. Schmitt) 10. NEW BUSINESS II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 5/3/0J/CCPC AgendalRB/sp 2 May 3, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. It's 8:30. This is the Thursday, May 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission come to order. If you could all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Good morning. Roll call by the clerk, who is not here today. We'll show all the Planning Commissioners present with the exception of Ms. Caron. How's that? That's short and sweet. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That was good. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda. We have a few issues that I've been told about by various members of the staff. The first one is Petition A -- the DeVoe Family Limited Partnership, II, involving a parking exemption for the De V oe Suzuki dealership. I understand it's going to be -- it was requested to be continued. Can someone confirm that? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the planner side of this petition indicated that the petitioner would like to continue to June 21 st. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. June 21st, okay. Anybody attending for the De V oe particular issue? Yes, ma'am. That item will be continued to June 21st. However, if you can't make that meeting date and since you are here today, we could certainly afford you the time to speak once we get into the agenda. However, if you can come back on the 21 st, speaking when the issue is actually heard is more effective than a month in advance or a Page 2 May 3, 2007 month and a half in advance. So if you wait around just a minute to make sure that the agenda gets voted on, more than likely when a continuance is requested, we usually grant it. So they would be granted to the 21 st if all goes well, so. The other continuance today is Number E. It's the Tree Farm Land Trust. It was for a Tree Farm MPUD. That particular issue was continued to the 17th of May; is that correct, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the third item that we need to talk about on the agenda is there's a request due to the attendance of citizens involving item number four, which is the Home Dynamics of Naples, LLC. It's the Boxwood RPUD. Request is that we don't hear it before 10:00. Based on the agenda, I don't see that as being a problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I certainly would like acknowledgement from this board that after 10:00 is okay for Item D as well. So with those three items on the agenda, the two continuances and the one time certain after 10:00, can I hear a motion to approve those changes. Mr. Vigliotti. Been seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 3 May 3, 2007 Motion carries. For the two ladies in the audience that are here for the DeVoe one, before we get into that, are you going to come back on the 21 st or do you wish to be heard today? MS. HINDMAN: I'll be out of town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then when we get into the agenda, I will bring up that one just for your discussion. MS. HINDMAN: If! leave my name, can I write a letter? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, could you come up and use the microphone, just so the court reporter gets your statement. MS. HINDMAN: I'm just wondering, if it would be possible, since I'm not going to be here starting next week, if I could write a letter to effect of the DeVoe situation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. HINDMAN: If! leave my name, so you know I was here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am, and the staff will distribute the letter to each one of us prior to that coming up before the meeting. MS. HINDMAN: Who should I leave my name with? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bellows right over there. Can you tell us your name on the speaker? And you'll have to spell it if it's complicated. MS. HINDMAN: It's not. Leslie Davis Hindman, H-I-N-D-M-A-N. And I live in Bent Pine Villas, which is basically surrounded by DeVoe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And ma'am, are you able to come back? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm going to come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, with that, we'll move on to -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The gentleman right in the back -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- there's someone else. Page 4 May 3, 2007 MR. PEAKLER: I was going to talk about it also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you come up to the speaker for a minute so I can just ask you a question for the record. There's been a request, the request has been granted to continue that particular item until June 21st. Will you be able to come back on June 21 st? MR. PEAKLER: I'm not quite sure right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you state your name for the record. MR. PEAKLER: Bob Peakler (phonetic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob Peakler, okay. If you can't come back on the 21 st, you have the option of speaking today, although the effectiveness of your discussion may not be as adequately remembered by June 21 st. So when we get to that agenda item, if you're still here and you'd like to speak, you have every right to speak at that point. MR. PEAKLER: Thank you. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We have a couple more housekeeping items to clear up. Planning Commission absences for the 17th of May. Anybody -- okay. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 15,2007 REGULAR MEETING; MARCH 22, 2007 GMP MEETING; MARCH 29, 2007 GMP MEETING Page 5 May 3, 2007 We have three sections of minutes for approval. The first is March 15th, 2007 regular meeting. Mr. Murray, make motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? Mr. Vigliotti seconded. All in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. The minutes of March 22nd, 2007. Motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Mr. Commissioner Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 6 May 3, 2007 Motion carries. March 29th, 2007 GMP meeting. Motion to approve by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. All in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) Item #6 BCC REPORT AND RECAPS FOR APRIL 10,2007 REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC reports and recaps, Ray, April 10th. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on the last board agenda, they heard the Grey Oaks PUD Amendment and DRI Amendment. That was approved on the summary agenda. The Bradford Square MPUD was also approved five to zero. And the Buttonwood RPUD was also approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. All of those were approved with the stipulations the Planning Commission had sent forward? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Page 7 May 3, 2007 Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman's report. I don't really have anything today so we'll move on to the advertised public hearings. Item #8A PETITION: PE-2006-AR-I0551 The first public hearings that we've continued is for Petition PE-2006-AR-10551, the DeVoe Family Limited Partnership for a parking exemption for the DeVoe Suzuki dealership. And while we're not going to have any presentation from the applicant today, there are members of the public who may wish to speak on this. We'll afford them that opportunity. But please remember the meeting on this one will actually be June 21st. Sir, if you'd like to address us on this issue, you're more than welcome to. You have to come to the speaker. State your name for the record, please. MR. PEAKLER: Bob Peakler. Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you want to tell us your concerns about this particular item now? MR. PEAKLER: Yeah, I'm just against it. We're doing a petition, you know, against the proposed parking exemption. And it's tough for people that work in this area to get here. I have about 30 people on the petition so far, all of them against it. A lot of them would have came this morning but they have to work again. Okay. It's been a very negative effect on our neighborhood. You know, Page 8 May 3,2007 they have a couple off-site parking already and nothing but problems. We have code enforcement violations documented. And hopefully I'll be able to come back, but I usually go away for a month in July, and that's when it's going to be coming against the Board of County Commissioners, when everybody's out of town, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, it is coming back to us -- MR. PEAKLER: First -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on June 21 st. So if you could make it in June, you could certainly have your time here to discuss it with us. The applicant asked for the continuance, it was my understanding, so that they could get together with the neighborhood and see if they can resolve the issues. I certainly would hope that occurs. I know they're making the effort to do that, which would be good for you if you all sat down and could come to a meeting of the minds. Or if you didn't, so be it. But at least the opportunity is there now to give this person time to make that happen. MR. PEAKLER: Thank you. We'll do our best to remember your comments and look forward to seeing you on the 21 st. Ma'am, did you have anything you wanted to add to the record at this time. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, I'll come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #8B PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR-I0698 Okay, with that, we'll move on to petition PUDZ-2006-AR-I0698, A. Grover Matheney, represented by Bruce Anderson. And it's for the Gaspar Station PUD. Would all those wishing to testify on behalf of this item please Page 9 May 3,2007 rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? I met with Mr. Anderson, I can't remember if we discussed this or not. You can see how much of an impression that discussion left in my mind. But just to be safe on the record, I want to make sure I said at least I met with him. But I honestly don't remember. It was before I left for vacation, so I forgot everything. Okay, with that, presentation by the applicant. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress law firm, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I'd like to introduce the other members of the team: Margaret Perry, the project planner; Tom Trettis, the ecologist; Jeff Perry, the transportation planner; Dana Fendrick with site design; and Shawn Weeks, the project engineer. This -- I want to make one thing really clear, that this project comes before you not because the property owner is seeking a rezone. It's because the county is requiring him to seek a rezone from PUD to PUD. The reason the county is requiring this is that the county believes under the PUD sunset rules that this current PUD has sun-setted because of the passage of time and no construction. A sun-setted PUD is one that is in limbo. The existing zoning remains in place; however, the property owner can't get any development orders approved until the property is rezoned. This property is located in an interstate activity center, and has been zoned as the Styles PUD for more than 20 years. As part of this rezoning from PUD to PUD, it is being renamed Gaspar Station. The feeling was that's a little sexier name than the Styles PUD. Page 10 May 3, 2007 There are no changes proposed to the uses that are already allowed on this property, and the only changes to this PUD are to new, stricter development standards that are required by the county and were requested by county staff. Also for the record, you should know that because of past contributions of right-of-way and construction costs for the widening of Immokalee Road, it is our position that this PUD is fully vested. Even transportation staff at least concedes that the property is vested for concurrency. All of this PUD's transportation commitments, which have all been fulfilled, are in Section 5.2, paragraphs E, F, G and H of the PUD. That recounts the history of the commitments that have been fulfilled. And although the Planning Commission is not the forum where vested rights cases are decided, it is still a relevant consideration for you. My client has gone forward with this petition to be cooperative with the various demands of county staff, except where it is not legally possible. Let me emphasize that again. They have cooperated fully and given in to every request of county staff except where it is not legally possible. I'll have more on that in a moment. The only point of disagreement with staff is transportation on their request for this PUD to bear the brunt of a fourth interconnection with outside properties and/or putting a new road in front of the property. This PUD has already shrunk by one acre over the years from 18.7 to 17.7, which was used for the widening of!mmokalee Road. Now, some of that land was donated and some was purchased. The PUD paid for the construction of the four-lane intersection median opening at the northeast corner of the property, and the PUD also paid to construct drainage facilities to accommodate the current six-laning of Immokalee Road. This is the basis for the vesting claim. Page 11 May 3,2007 This PUD has more than fulfilled any interconnection requirement. This PUD provides three interconnections with all the other three owners in this activity center. Now, in addition to all those contributions to the county for transportation and with the county's knowledge and cooperation, this PUD property owner and all of the other property owners in this activity center quadrant got together to coordinate and build on their properties a privately-owned and privately-maintained road interconnecting all of their properties to Immokalee Road. Now, in support of their position for an interconnection, staff has cited the wrong section of the Land Development Code concerning an interconnection in an activity center. They cite a general reference in the LDC. But activity centers have their very own specific and very different criteria in the LDC. In the last cycle of LDC amendments adopted in December, new criteria was established for interconnections and shared access in activity centers. I'll display it on the overhead if Ray will help me here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, before we go too far, I notice that the planner for this is Kay Deselem. Where is Kay? MR. BELLOWS: Kay is on vacation, but we have a replacement. Melissa Zone is filling in for Kay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this particular petition has a lot of issues on a transportation corridor that's a pretty well-used corridor. Where is transportation, do we know? No, not from the applicant. Oh, you're taking -- that's right, I don't recognize you now, you've moved over to this side, didn't you. Okay. Thank you. I was used to seeing Nick in the back. I didn't recognize you sitting there. Appreciate it. I just want to make sure that the right staff is here to respond to questions as we get into this. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: And if you want, I have extra copies of what Page 12 May 3, 2007 I'm trying to display on the overhead projector. The highlighted language is what I would particularly direct your attention to. This criteria recognizes a practical and necessary exception to the county's interconnection request in an activity center. The criteria provides that interconnection is not required, quote, if not legally -- if not physically or legally possible to provide the shared access or interconnection. And it is not legally possible for this PUD to provide shared access or an interconnection to the west of this PUD, as requested by staff. All of the PUDs in this activity center quadrant are bound by a common set of deed restrictions governing the use and maintenance of their property owner association-owned road. These deed restrictions limit the use of the road to only those property owner association PUDs that are in the activity center, and it prohibits any other interconnections. Even if this property owner wanted to connect with the property to the west, the deed restrictions make it unlawful to do so. Those deed restrictions, by the way, are in your agenda packet. They are immediately behind the application for public hearing and they're contained on Page 4 of those deed restrictions. This single property owner cannot change the deed restrictions on his own. It is, in the words of the Land Development Code, not legally possible. The new interconnection request should not be included in your recommendation. If there are questions for the appropriate members of the team, they can answer them now, or after the staff has finished its presentation. We respectfully request your recommendation of re-approval of this PUD, as the EAC did unanimously. And I'll sit down now, unless you want to ask questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I think you ought to stand up for a Page 13 May 3,2007 little while, Bruce. Are there questions of the Planning Commission? Mr. Murray, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just really have a question that you provoked here in this last moment. This is property -- the dispute regarding interconnectivity is the property adjacent is vacant, is it not? MR. ANDERSON: Indeed it is. It is zoned agriculture. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, it is. And it's owned, is it not, by the same parties? MR. ANDERSON: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so -- okay, that ends -- I thought I got strong inference, I thought, that it was owned by the same parties. MR. ANDERSON: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That ends that question for that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Good morning. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You had said this sun-setted. About how long ago did it sunset and for what reason, intentionally? MR. ANDERSON: It sun-setted in the last year. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Any particular reason? Just an oversight or -- MR. ANDERSON: No. I mean, there's no choice in the matter. If construction hasn't met the criteria in the Land Development Code, the sun-setting is automatic. Property owner doesn't even necessarily get notice. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You could have been here a year ago, though. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, although they were going through the Page 14 May 3,2007 site development plan process at the time, and didn't get through the bureaucracy in a sufficient time. So they found out they were sun- setted and that staff required them to jump through these hoops that we are now. I would also note that the Land Development Code allows a property owner to apply for a PUD extension or PUD rezone even after it has sun-setted. And again, part of the reason is the property owner doesn't get any notice when the staff has made a determination that it has sun- setted. But the Land Development Code does allow them to apply after it has sun-setted. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But when they first formed the PUD, there was a sunset date set at that point. MR. ANDERSON: No. The PUD sun-setting was not on the books when this PUD was first approved 20 years ago. That's a relatively new requirement. And I say relatively, because as long as I've been doing this, I sometimes lose track of time and how long ago things occurred. But it was not in effect when the PUD was originally approved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So your client had no idea when it was going to sunset? MR. ANDERSON: Oh, they probably had record constructive knowledge, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm a little confused with this thing. This Style situation, if it's still alive, why don't you just -- why didn't you go forward with this one, with Styles? MR. ANDERSON: Because under the LDC rules, the county staff is not allowed to approve any development orders. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Therefore, it can't be approved at all, can it? I mean, they won't allow it so therefore it can't Page 15 May 3,2007 go forward. MR. ANDERSON: Right. They can't get an SDP approval or a building permit or anything like that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So in fact it doesn't really exist in this situation at all? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What does it do? MR. ANDERSON: It's in limbo. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, it's not in limbo, it can't do anything. And if it can't do anything, obviously it isn't in any situation in order to do it. MR. ANDERSON: The existing zoning remains in place. It's just you can't do anything under it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So let's put it this way. It can't be done so you have to go forward with the second issue, don't you? And then you have to get Gaspar or you can't go forward. MR. ANDERSON: Except for the fact that we believe we are vested. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You believe it. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Unfortunately, I don't. And I'm serious about that. That's not the point. If you can't do anything in that area, then you aren't do anything, and therefore, you can't. And therefore you have to go forward with Gaspar because you can't go forward with the other one. MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, thank you. MR. ANDERSON: But for the vesting plan. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, the policy that transportation was citing as being inconsistent for your proposal is GMP policy Element 9.3. Page 16 May 3, 2007 I heard you address the LDC issue. Do you want to address the GMP policy issue? MR. ANDERSON: Well, when the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on a Land Development Code amendment, part of your findings are that the Land Development Code amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. So this Land Development Code amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Plan section that they cited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll let staff then explain their reasoning behind the 9.3. I didn't know if you had a response to it. You have brought up issues of vesting. And I notice that from one of the comments I saw here, staff says the trips generated by the Gaspar Station CPUD previously known as the Styles PUD are considered vested based on the project's prior contributions of right-of-way. I understand the reasoning for that and I understand your arguments about vesting. Have you submitted a vesting rights determination for the county's consideration? MR. ANDERSON: Not yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know that that went into effect in '05 with a deadline of November of'06. Nothing was submitted during that one-year time frame from the implementation of the LDC ordinance that required VRDs to be -- MR. ANDERSON: I don't know that the courts would recognize the validity of that. The vested rights claim is based on equitable estoppel and it's -- there's a separate -- you can either file under the Land Development Code or you can claim it under case law, in my VIew. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you've not initiated any actions under case law. MR. ANDERSON: Not yet, no. Again, let me stress. My client was trying to be cooperative with Page 17 May 3, 2007 the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to understand how many T's you crossed and I's you dotted in regards to some of the statements that were said. So that was my question on that. I have questions within the PUD, if that's okay. MR. ANDERSON: Please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 3-1 of the PUD, section three. I notice that in the discussions of the neighborhood informational meeting, there were some objections to certain uses. And I understand that that's an activity center. But one ofthe uses that seemed reasonable, I thought they objected to was the addition of a gas station on that property. And I notice that's one of the principal uses you have listed. Would you have an objection to removing that as a principal use? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, we would object to that. Again, that's a use that's been authorized on that property for 20 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 3-4 under the hotel and motel development standards, you have a maximum height of 60 feet or six stories, whichever is greater. That's inconsistent with what I believe staff is saying you said at the NIM. There you said that the -- there would be a 60- foot height limitation on hotel uses. One has contradicted the other. You told -- basically on the NIM it says that Mr. Bruce Anderson said there would be no changes to the permitted uses in the PUD, and development standards will be brought up to current county codes. It was also stated that no retail building would be more than 35 feet in height and there is a 60-feet height limitation on hotel uses. Based on that representation at the NIM, whichever is greater in reference to height of six stories would be contradictory. Do you have any problem limiting it to a maximum of 60 feet? MR. ANDERSON: No. I mean, that's -- I don't recall that -- Page 18 May 3, 2007 whether I did or did not say the six stories. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to be consistent. If you said something -- MR. ANDERSON: I don't recall. I mean, those notes are never verbatim. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your PUD, you have a setback from preserves of 25 feet for principal structures and 10 feet for accessories. And it goes on in the paragraph. Ray, is that a deviation? You know where I'm going with this. If you say no, then I'm going to wonder why it's in the PUD. MR. BELLOWS: It doesn't appear to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then is there a reason why we need to have it here? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the following page, 3.4, buffers. The following identifies the buffer according to land use type. I read this and I didn't see where it's identifying a buffer. It's identifying the width of a buffer. Is that what you're trying to do here? Because I don't see any vegetation standards or anything else listed. So isn't this the width of buffers that you're referring to, not buffers themselves? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I mean, we'd be bound by the Land Development Code as to the vegetation and types. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray, do those buffer widths have any deviation from Land Development Code standards? And if they're not, then why are they here. And if they are, then why are we listing them as deviations? MR. BELLOWS: Unfortunately the planner's not here who did the actual research, and this isn't -- I don't think I can answer that at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, I don't know how it could be Page 19 May 3,2007 approved not knowing the answer. Mr. Anderson, as far as striking all the buffer language in 3.4 and reverting back to what is in the LDC, do you have a problem with that? MR. ANDERSON: I'm not sure. All we did was simply carry forward everything that was in the existing PUD unless staff requested a change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not disagreeing with what you did, I'm just trying to make sure that what you did is either consistent with the code or it's pointed out as a deviation to today's code so that everyone can understand fairly what you're asking for or not asking for. And I don't think that's unreasonable. And Mr. Bellows, do you have a solution? MR. BELLOWS: Well, given the fact that this is an amendment to an existing PUD, I'm not sure that that would be classified as a deviation, since it's already an approved standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that an amendment to the PUD or is it a repeal of the PUD? It's PUD to PUD, so it looks like you're -- so it's not an amendment, we're a new PUD. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on it being a new PUD, and our understanding is that all deviations are supposed to be separately listed in order to qualify as a deviation, and staff has testified now they don't know if these are deviations or not, we seem to be in a kind of a limbo in this situation, just like they're in. MR. BELLOWS: It is a PUD to PUD rezoning, but it is still replacing an existing zoning district with those standards. So there are those standards in effect on this property as it currently exists. So I don't believe that that would qualify as a deviation in that respect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all the standards they had in the old Page 20 May 3, 2007 PUD are applicable, even though it sun-setted. If that's the case, then why are we even here today? MR. BELLOWS: The sun-setting provisions are intended to address consistency with the comprehensive plan and with the LDC. When you have an approved zoning district that's sun-setted, the zoning district doesn't disappear, it doesn't refer back to, say, base zoning. It is still a zoning district. The zoning maps still show that Styles PUD zoning in place. So it is a valid zoning district. The sun-setting provisions are just in place to help bring it up to code where possible and make sure it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Given the fact that this project was consistent at the time or was found consistent at the time with those standards in place, I don't believe it is a deviation in that regard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, Ray, why are we here? MR. BELLOWS: They still are sun-setted and they have to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we haven't got any latitude in what we have the ability to oversee and change, why do we even have a new PUD document -- MR. BELLOWS: The Planning Commission does have the ability -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, please. Why do we even have a new PUD document if the old document is the one that they can hang their hat on? I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm trying to get to a logical realistic conclusion to this. If they didn't have to make any changes to this PUD, based on your statement, why don't they just submit the old one, demand that we approve it, and we move on? MR. BELLOWS: I didn't intend to say it that way, if that's the way it sounded. Weare going to require them to revise all references to current standards. That is the reason for the new document. But in regards to what is a deviation or not, that's what I was Page 21 May 3, 2007 trying to refer to. I don't believe this is a deviation in that regard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then if they're required to reference all new standards, what is the reference to the standard in the LDC for 3.4 buffers that they have articulated there? Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: If! might, Ms. Perry, the project planner, has advised me that 3.4 deals with internal buffers, and that the external buffers themselves and the type are shown on the PUD master plan. So these are just buffers between uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that will work. Thank you. Your project intensity, you talk about interchange commercial retail service uses that are permitted at the rate of7500 feet per gross acre. Now that goes to 132,750 square feet. The next one is office uses at 15,000 per acre. And that totals 265,500 square feet. Or at the hotel-motel rate of 26 units per gross acre, which is 460 units. And I read in the word or. I'm just wondering, when I read this, I wasn't clear, although I'm assuming you can't do -- I'm assuming that you can't do all of these, you can only do or; is that correct? A mixture of them? MR. ANDERSON: Well, not a or, it's an and. But yes, a mixture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but you could then -- you're telling me by the word and, you could put in 132,000 of commercial plus 265,000 of offices and 460 hotel rooms, if you could fit the parking there. MR. ANDERSON: Right. I mean that's the big if, if you could fit the parking and all the other requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So re-approval of this would designate -- well, 397,000 square feet of some type of structure plus 460 hotel rooms, potentially, right? MS. PERRY: Good morning, Commissioners. Margaret Perry, WilsonMiller. Page 22 May 3, 2007 The intent of this is to have a mixture like, say, seven acres was devoted to an office building that could be built at 15,000 square feet per acre. And then the remainder would go to retail. That would be -- it's not the sum of all of them, it is so many acres were devoted to office, so many acres to retail, the sum of those two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so -- MS. PERRY: So it wouldn't be and, and, and. It would be however the property is divided. If you do a hotel, that would be 26 units per acre. You subtract that acreage and the remaining acreage could be developed office and commercial at that mix. Does that make sense? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it does now. I'm just wondering if there's a better way to clarify it on the document. But I understand what you're saying and you're here on record for saying it. So I appreciate it, thank you. The covenants and restrictions, easements that you spoke of that was executed on the tenth of January, 2003, if I'm not mistaken, the owner that you currently have bought this particular property in 2001, and the PUD was put together in '97, was renewed in '97 and put together originally in '86. Staff had indicated on Page 10 of their staff report -- maybe it wasn't -- I forgot. Maybe it wasn't Page 10, but I remember reading it, that they believe the PUD required interconnection. Do you have a reference in where in the PUD that the required interconnection to the west would have been found, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: That must be a typo or figment of their imagination. It's never been in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I thought I found where required interconnections were to the east. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I didn't find any required to the west. Page 23 May 3, 2007 MR. ANDERSON: Nor have 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I wanted that clarification as well. Yeah, it's on -- the old PUD, the entry will be designed so it can be interconnected to and used by the lands that are located to the east of the project and west of!-75. The interconnection and the use of the entryway by the adjoining landowner will be pursuant to a mutually agreeable cross use, a cross-easement agreement. So the easement agreement was required by the PUD, and the interconnections were only east of the property, not west. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I understand your vesting argument, but you are on a corridor that is operating at a very difficult level, Immokalee Road. I drove down there yesterday morning and from I-75 all the way back to the high school practically -- maybe just past, just a little bit before that, traffic was backed up. And I sat in a line waiting to get through I-75 interchange. The interchange is scheduled to be repaired. And part of that repair process was the Target approval that happened on Immokalee Road and I-75. The Target, through various levels of contributions, provided the cloverleaf land needed for that interchange. Do you have any problem with your project waiting until that interchange is approved and installed prior to COs on your project? MR. ANDERSON: I must respectfully say yes, we do object. Inasmuch as it's vested for concurrency that Immokalee Road wouldn't even be six-laned in this location but for this property owner and his contributions and his taking of the drainage from the six-lane condition. He ought to be able to use the road when the market is ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bruce, I can have -- I imagine you know the market was better 18 months to two years ago than it is Page 24 May 3, 2007 today. The market's been ready for a long time. Everybody that's in line to use the concurrency or to use the road capacities that are there do so on a first come, first serve basis. Target is there because they came up with a plan and at the time, even though not everybody agreed, they went forward with their facility. They used up capacity. Not all of it, maybe, but they used up some. Your particular piece of property has languished for years, more so while you're coming forward here today. I'm not sure that I can agree that you have a right to just step to the plate any time you feel like and execute the densities you want to execute and add the capacity to a road system that has gotten worse since the time your originating -- your request for a rezone and from the time you could have built your rezone. This property could have been built any time in the last, since 1986. And it hasn't been. And I'm not necessarily saying that some day it shouldn't be, but there might be better times than worse times for that to happen. That's why my request for you to consider any kind of CO's on that property until the cloverleaf design on I-75 is completed was why I put that forth. And I understand your position on that is you cannot do that. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And I would direct your attention, please, to the top of Page 4 of the staff report, the very first phrase at the top ofthat page, and it says trips for this project are already accounted for in the concurrency system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And that's a standard process with staff. There isn't a project that comes forward here that they basically say hasn't been accounted for someway in this system. And if we like that position that they have, then we would not be here judging projects on congested roads. That road is not in good shape right now in regards to backed-up traffic. And whether they believe it's vested to have more on that or not is maybe in error. Go ahead. Page 25 May 3, 2007 MR. ANDERSON: I was going to say, I mean, this is different than if the property to the west, which is agriculturally zoned, were coming in for a rezone. Their capacity isn't figured in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is in some manner. MR. ANDERSON: Not like this, no. This is -- in establishing what's available for anybody else, this is already factored and it's taken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you're saying. I also understand you didn't do a VRD either, vested rights determination, and then you're challenging the need do even do that, possibly. But for some reason staff has given you the vesting process due to the estoppel issue on Immokalee Road. Is that correct? MR. ANDERSON: I'll let staff characterize their -- but that's the way I read it, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Bruce. I don't think I have any more questions of you. Is there any more questions -- Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, you talk about Page 4 of the staff report, and it says that the project is considered already vested by the transportation planning staff. But then it says the CPUD remains subject to operational analysis at the time of subsequent development order application. How do you interpret that? MR. ANDERSON: That's like turn lanes and things like that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, okay, doesn't mean that you can -- that it's not in any way vested. MR. ANDERSON: Well, this would -- the operational analysis is applied at the time of site development plan, and could be applied to a vested project. And I've even got another client who has their fully paid certificates of adequate public facility who have still been held up in the process over things like traffic signals and turn lanes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But that wouldn't qualify as a -- Page 26 May 3, 2007 until the completion of the cloverleaf? MR. ANDERSON: No. No, sir, it wouldn't. It's on-site. It's on-site analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll probably get staff to comment on some of that as well, Mr. Midney. MR. ANDERSON: I'd like to ask Mr. Perry to come up for a moment, who's much more articulate on transportation issues than 1. MR. PERRY: Good morning, Jeff Perry from transportation planning services at WilsonMiller. I just wanted to clarify the issue of concurrency. Concurrency is not normally granted to a project that's going to be developed. The trips are not counted in the county's checkbook system until the site development plan stage. If a project is -- an old project has already gone through that, didn't get trips at that point, they might be picked up at the building permit stage. With the exception of other projects that are exempt from concurrency, such as previously existing DRI's that technically don't have to get through the concurrency system, there are other projects that the county, years ago when they initiated the concurrency management system, evaluated based on developer agreements, contributions and the like and granted them trips, reserved them trips in the concurrency system. So this project is different from another rezoning project that would be coming before you today for an identical project next door that might be asking for shopping center or whatever, does not have concurrency. They are not in the system. That agricultural tract next to us has no trips in the system. We have trips that have already been credited in the concurrency management system to us because of previous commitments by Mr. Matheney. Mr. Matheney, the current owner, has been the previous owner of this property long before the 2001 date. There was a different trustee to the site who signed alot of the earlier agreements, Page 27 May 3,2007 but Mr. Matheney has been essentially the -- whatever the term is, the primary owner of the property under the trust agreement. Mr. Matheney has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in setting this project up for development. That roadway, the four-lane roadway coming down into the site, it was mandated not only by his PUD but also by the Donovan PUD to the east, that there be a single point of access shared by both projects. It's on both projects' parcels. They couldn't come to an agreement for years until another 700-pound gorilla entered the picture and wanted to develop on the Donovan site, and all of a sudden everybody came together and over a three-year, four-lane period we finally got the four-lane road, access road into the site built. All the utilities are there to Mr. Matheney's site. The curb cuts are there, the sidewalks, the streetlights, everything has been bought, paid for, constructed. Not only that, Mr. Matheney and the Donovan developer, Benderson, through Wal-Mart, paid for the redesign and the construction of that blown-out intersection with the existing westbound turn lanes. The two westbound turn lanes were not in the original design of that project. They paid for the redesign, they paid for the reconstruction of that during -- they paid for the construction offset for that improvement, extended the turn lanes, paid for the signalization. He has done everything required of him, including being a very cooperative land holder. When the county wanted right-of-way, they asked him, he negotiated, he either gave it up as part of his site improvement costs or he was actually paid for the right-of-way in some instances for the widening, not only for the six-laning, going back to the four-laning of that roadway. He has done his share and he has paid, quite frankly, he has paid his dues to get the approval of his project. It's unfortunate that the delays have created him a position where Page 28 May 3, 2007 he can't move forward when now maybe in fact the time where everything is in place for him to move forward. And to expect that he should have to wait even longer and be subject to additional sun- setting provisions that would come about as a result of a new clock starting because the county is trying to get something on another section of!-75 or another section of!mmokalee Road, the project in front of his section -- in front of Immokalee Road in front of his project has been completed. He has concurrency trips in the system for his project unlike hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of other PUD's that are zoned that do not have those trips. So it's definitely in the concurrency system and unlike any other zoning approval that you will probably see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Perry, I understand that this property will ultimately be developed. And I'm not objecting to the fact it will be developed. I think that it will -- it's logical. It's in an activity center. I'm not really objecting to most of the issues you're presenting to us in regards to your PUD for reinstatement. Don't have a problem with that. The PUD sun-setting was put in place probably to have an opportunity to re-look at prior approvals and deem them whether or not they are still consistent with not only today's codes but maybe timing. The timing of this one in regards to that corridor is where my concern is. It's not what you're trying to do in regards to what you want to build there for the most part. That's some tweaking that can be done pretty easily. But Immokalee Road is a disaster, it still is. And I-75, you want to talk about another corridor, that's an acknowledged failed system. And it isn't going to be improved for years. N ow traffic getting on and off of I -75 could be sitting on that future cloverleaf backing up onto Immokalee Road, which would be Page 29 May 3, 2007 bad. But at least they'd have that cloverleaf through that access point providing more through lanes underneath that overpass under I - 75 to go east and west for Immokalee Road. Right now Immokalee Road is backed up for a mile or more in the morning. Drive down it yourself. I understand the logic of what you're saying. I understand on paper it seems to be vested and it works and if you put these on there they're vested to be there and therefore it's concurrent. But that's just not the logical world that we're dealing in when you drive down that road. And that's where my concern is right now. MR. PERRY: I understand that. And admittedly, concurrency and the vesting of trips has nothing to do with operational conditions. It does not deal with the operational conditions of that intersection out front, the driveways that Mr. Anderson spoke of or the interstate interchange. Those are two separate issues. And Mr. Midney was asking about that particular ramp and how that could be considered concurrent. That intersection improvement that's ultimately going to improve the on and off ramp capabilities of I-75 interchange is separate from the concurrency issue. I was trying to point out that we are different in terms of concurrency. From an operational standpoint, there are improvements that are in place out there. We don't know exactly when our project is going to get a site development plan. We don't know exactly when our project is going to be constructed. But it is certainly not going to be open for business tomorrow, nor is that ramp going to be constructed tomorrow and open for business. I'm not sure, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, I'm not sure that anyone within a five-mile radius of that interchange is restricted from getting their building permits, either single-family homes or site development plans approved or anything else. The county doesn't go to the extent of when the project across the street comes in for its next site development plan at the Strand, I would be Page 30 May 3, 2007 surprised if the county will say we're not going to give you site development plan approval until that interchange ramp is approved. I may be mistaken about that, but that's my experience thus far, that the county doesn't do that when a project is funded and is in the work program to be constructed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that SDP that you're getting for in the Strand, for example, would be provided for in an active PUD. One that hasn't sun-setted, one that is under continuous development. Therein might be a difference, and that maybe why you're here today. The other question, you had said something that ago has no trips. In various times that we've asked Nick or Don Scott when they've been before this board, I thought I had clearly asked them if the urban area at four units per acre was what they factored in for trips on the roadway system, and I thought the answer was affirmative in response to that question. You're saying it's not. You're saying that ago doesn't have any trips factored in. I was under the impression that the urban area on its base of four units per acre was what was factored in as trip counts for undeveloped land. Do you still feel that isn't the case? MR. PERRY: Yes, sir. And Phil will correct me if I'm wrong. But the checkbook concurrency system registers the trips for a project at some point in the approval process. And it is generally speaking at platting or site development plan stages. It may occur at building permit if a project has already been platted or SDP'd before concurrency system got into place. The next time a project comes in for a building permit the trips are recorded. They are recorded in basically in a balance sheet. The capacity of the road, there's an existing number of actual cars driving the road which are counted in the system, there's an available capacity that is then chewed away at by development orders. And when a development order is issued for a single-family home, for a shopping Page 3 1 May 3,2007 center, the number of trips that the analyst says travel that particular roadway are subtracted from the balance and there's a remaining balance left over. And it is not until they're bought and paid for, basically, at the time of development order when you pay your impact fees or 50 percent of your road impact fees, or if you're at building stage that you pay the rest of it, that those trips are banked is the way the staff calls it. Agricultural carries with it absolutely no development orders. If they did develop it as a single-family home or came in and got rezoning for multi-family, they're not getting trips at the rezoning stage. There is no concurrency granted at the rezoning stage. Ultimately they would come in for a either a plat or a site development plan if it were multi-family. The trips would then be accounted for on every segment of the roadway that they're impacting and the balances would be adjusted. And then when the balance, when the actual project is completed, in order to rebalance the system when the project is actually built and there are real cars instead of paper trips on the system, those trips will appear in another column in the system and they'll go back in and they'll rebalance the numbers. They'll take the paper trips out because they're now showing up in the traffic counts. But it's not until the development orders that those numbers are actually accounted for. Future proj ections that they might make, if you ask the county planning staff, transportation planning staff about their projections, they would tell you, yes, we look at agricultural land in the urban area. It's zoned or potentially could be zoned for four units per acre, up to four units per acre. In the build-out study, for instance, we did that kind of analysis, and you generate traffic based on those numbers. That's a planning exercise, those are not concurrency checkbook, concurrency-based accountings of the development impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you for your explanation. Page 32 May 3, 2007 Any other questions of transportation from the applicant's side at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think staff report, we'll start with, as we usually do. MS. ZONE: Good morning, Melissa Zone, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development. I'm here today representing Kay Deselem, who was the project planner and reviewer for this PUD. Kay was unable to attend today's meeting. The subject property is 17.7 acres. And it was at one time as the Styles planned unit development. That was approved by ordinance 86-58 on August 26th, 1986. There were amendments and then a PUD extension that the applicant brought before the county. But the PUD extension, there was no activity after a year and a half, and the applicant brought the PUD in extension on January 28th of2004. But after August 1st, 2005, we -- the staff had withdrawn this petition because of no activity by the petitioner. For that reason, the PUD has sun-setted and they are by our county LDC requirements have to come back to either amend the PUD or, as this applicant did, was come back and went from a PUD to PUD rezone, which is repealing the old PUD Styles PUD document and bringing forward your Gaspar PUD. The land uses that are being proposed not only were in the Styles PUD but today are still considered compatible with the surrounding land uses. It's an interchange activity center number four. And that's the type of land uses that are encouraged along your interstate on and off ramps. And the PUD has met that land use requirement. There's -- the main issue being that there were some residents in the neighborhood who were against some of the proposed land uses, as well as our transportation concurrency with, or the meeting Policy 9.3 Page 33 May 3, 2007 of our transportation element. And staff would defer to transportation to discuss those issues. But if you have any questions for the zoning department, I'd be happy to help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Members of the panel? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hi, good morning. You just used the word repealed, okay. And so I just really wonder, when something is repealed, it ceases to exist in the legal sense, if!'m not mistaken. It's no longer valid. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand the practicality, I think. Yet we're bringing it forth because in essence all of the factors involved in a PUD are deemed to remain the same. So don't -- I guess I'm trying to deal with what I think are questions of residual rights, as opposed to what the new code or the revised code may have said today, changes. Is it your understanding that -- and I recognize you're standing in for someone else, so I'm not trying to put you on the spot. But is it your understanding of within the PUD that there are no significant changes in the Land Development Code that would cause us to think that it shouldn't be approved as a PUD to PUD. MS. ZONE: Correct. In fact, the land uses that were established in the Styles PUD which have been brought forth in today's PUD, the Gaspar PUD, which is today's petition, are consistent not only with the land uses of the LDC but also the land uses that are of our Growth Management Plan for the activity center for interchange activity centers. So they meet that criteria for our GMP as well as our LDC. They met it back when they originally came in, as well as today. They are consistent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Page 34 May 3,2007 MS. ZONE: And compatibility as well, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Now, the next question was, and you may have had an opportunity to quickly review. The question was posed about the interconnection to the west or the interconnectivity. Would you acknowledge that that might have been an error on the part of staff to have required or requested that it be interconnected at west? MS. ZONE: You know, I mean, can't sit there and say I'm sure it was of an error. But not being the planner, I was -- I am not aware of that exactly. I mean, though Mr. Anderson did give a very fair explanation and it seems appropriate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you take the position that you don't see that it would be illogical or inappropriate for that? MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I guess our chair will perhaps go into more questions about the residual rights against repealed. And I don't mean to be presumptuous of you, but I'm struggling with that, simply because it does come down to the word concurrency and whether or not things are counted. And whether or not if something is repealed do we start again or what -- MS. ZONE: When you're repealing -- right -- when you're repealing you're removing everything that was in that PUD and you're bringing back something new. But that's not to say you cannot acknowledge that the owner of the Styles PUD did provide the transportation roadway easement to help build or widen I-75. And that acknowledgement from the staff report says that transportation has also acknowledged that. So that, I don't believe, has to deal with the repeal, because the PUD itself, the Styles PUD talked about the land uses, the development standards and how it would be developed. But the base of the matter is the developer did provide these -- for the widening of Page 35 May 3, 2007 Immokalee Road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do understand that. I think my only question there was really when the Styles PUD was created, we didn't have the conditions on Immokalee Road that we currently do. So I think that is, the question, a valid question to ask. And I understand Mr. Perry's comments. He makes a very clear case from his point of view, and perhaps it's the only point of view that should be accepted. We'll find out as we go forward. Thank you. MS. ZONE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Murray. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I don't know if this should be to you or to legal. But it seems to me like approving a major addition to traffic at this intersection at this time would be poor planning on our part. Do we have any legal basis for denying it on the basis that the transportation is inadequate? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think rather than denying it, I think the better -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Or to make a stipulation that we wait until the -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I think the stipulation, the recommended stipulation's the better route than sheer denial. If the issue is the fact that there is insufficient on than road and you're waiting for -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's what I meant to say. MR. KLATZKOW: And you're waiting for a cloverleaf -- which by the way may never happen, we've had that experience with the state before -- if you're waiting for that you can, if you want, recommend that condition. Staff may disagree with that, the applicant may disagree with Page 36 May 3,2007 that. The board may disagree with that. But certainly, if that's your feeling, you can make that recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Melissa, I have some questions of you, and then Mr. -- I'm not going to say his last name, I still, after all these years, can't. But I have some questions of Nick, too. I know you didn't do this one. On Page 6, there's a nice little sentence from emergency management. I don't know who initiated this PUD to go back to emergency management for review, but whoever did that, I congratulate them. That is a good move. And I would hope that all of our future reviews and PUDs have a similar connotation as some acknowledgement from emergency management as to what is going, especially with the hurricane seasons and all. This is a good move. So I want to congratulate staff on doing that, that's a very good point to find in here. MS. ZONE: Commissioner Strain, Mr. Bellows here has made it that that is a standard. And sometimes you might not see it in someone's staff report, but emergency management, as long as I've been here now, has always reviewed every PUD document. And unless they have an issue, usually it's not brought forward. But every PUD and any land use petition always goes to emergency management. So for the record, just so that you know, it's not this particular PUD, all land use petitions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But an acknowledgment from them in the staff report is nice to see. MS. ZONE: I will bring it up in our next staff meeting that we should all make note that you are aware of this. MR. BELLOWS: Makes my job easier, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 8 -- I shouldn't say Page 8 necessarily, it's about the concept of the west two nine-acre parcels and interconnection that has been suggested by staff as a requirement. If those nine-acre parcels were not interconnected to this parcel, Page 37 May 3,2007 how would they access -- how would access to those two parcels be granted? Does staff have any idea? MS. ZONE: Those two parcels to the west, I mean -- you know, and I don't want to take in front of our transportation department to overstep them, but when the applicant or the owner of those parcels were to come in, they would then have to look at a way to make the interconnection. Not the burden but that would be put on them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they couldn't make an interconnection to this PUD if it wasn't allowed. MS. ZONE: Absolutely right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I guess my question will be of Nick then as how they would get access out of their parcels. And I think my remaining questions are for Nick. Does anybody else have any questions of Melissa? Okay. Thank you, Melissa. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Want you to know, Phil came up forward ready to be hung for you. He was standing tall right for you, Nick. So -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's a good man. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, luckily you showed back up agam. We had a lot of discussion about transportation that you missed, which might be good because now we have more of an impartial review by you, except I saw Phil filling you in back there. Can you explain to me why you found this project to be inconsistent with the GMP based on transportation policy element 9.3, and if you have changed your mind on that position. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have not. And I'll have to defer to legal in terms of review of the document of what restricts that. Page 38 May 3, 2007 But if you look on the viewer, it shows the Wal-Mart site that's on top of there. And I'm going to take this mike and kind of point out a few things, if I could. Where this is located, and you can see this access driveway right here, it comes in, the highlighted PUD and two vacant parcels, as Commissioner Strain pointed out. One of the things at transportation that we stress upon over and over and over again is to try and get parcels interconnected so you can take trips off the main arterials. At some point in time this project will develop. And ifthere's no viable interconnection, they will get at least right in, right out access on Immokalee Road. This is a residential development, and if they ever do any sort of amendment or update, we would like to have them interconnect all the way across, residential, residential, most likely residential or commercial. These people will shop at Wal-Mart, interact with that commercial center. If they were interconnected you would take all those trips off that intersection and off Immokalee Road. So we're pretty adamant about that interconnection. If legally they can't do it or ifthere's some restriction to that I'm not aware of where that would go, but it would seem to me that putting a restriction on that's inconsistent with the interconnection policy of the county is kind of circumventing what we're trying to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, you mentioned the word legally. And when I read the PUD, trying to be as unbiased in the review of that as I could, I also read a couple of things that seemed to provide the applicant with a basis for their position. That is that the PUD clearly said to the east they could interconnect. And it clearly said they would effect an agreement that provided for a private road system in which they would maintain it. They did that. Now, in that agreement they added a no public access to that road as well, which is benefiting them in their arguments today. So I Page 39 May 3, 2007 guess maybe it's a legal issue that -- I know Jeff, you're jumping in here at the last minute, but do you have any thoughts that you could help us with on this? MR. KLATZKOW: I have a couple of thoughts. One, one of the reasons that we sunset PUD' s is because things change, and we don't want circumstances 20 years ago to dictate policy today. Immokalee Road 20 years ago was a very different corridor than it is today. Old North Naples 20 years ago was entirely different than it is today. That's why we require them to sunset and come back and amend their PUD, all right. So to simply say, well, we had this old PUD, we're simply going to take it word for word verbatim, you have to approve it, I don't agree with that. You have to take existing circumstances, and based on your experience as a Planning Commission and based on what's going out there, you need to conform that to what is happening today. You've got a significant issue with Immokalee Road today. Nick's been working trying to lessen the traffic on Immokalee Road. One of those is through these interconnects. And it's a public health and safety issue. And quite frankly, I don't care if they have private deeds amongst themselves saying we can't do it, all right? My understanding is Collier County is not a party to these private deeds and we're not bound by them. So that if you as a board feel that it's in the public interest to require these interconnects, you should recommend to the board that that is a condition. The board may disagree, the applicant may argue at that point, but I think you have that ability. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Klatzkow. As usual, your responses are frank, to the point, and appreciate that. Nick, I have some other transportation issues that I would -- if those two nine-acre parcels could not interconnect, then their only source of access would be right in, right outs on Immokalee Road. Page 40 May 3, 2007 MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. Another driveway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pass-by traffic. In the report provided by the applicant, they address pass-by traffic. Usually pass-by traffic is used to reduce the impact on the road system. Is that what they did in this particular case? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have the report in front of me, but I'm sure they did. If they're assuming that that kind of development is commercial they would be allowed a certain amount of pass-by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, people driving on I-75 are going to be passing by. And with this there, there's more likely, just like for the Target and Wal-Mart, going to say I think I'll get offhere, and contribute to a road system that I'm not passing by, I'm simply going to use that to get to my destination. How is that factored into a traffic report? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is. It's totally accounted for in the application. When someone submits that, that's a consideration taken into that submittal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it offset pass-by? Because it really -- it's pass-by bringing people onto a road system that wouldn't have been there before because of another road system that isn't controlled by us where they've seen it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's usually included in that first initial submittal, that pass-by is considered. So I would say it would be included. It wouldn't be additional. It wouldn't double count that pass-by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think it would increase the traffic generation, not decrease it. Pass-by decreases it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, for instance, when they submit you got a new destination, so that attracts, regardless whether it be from I-75 or from Immokalee Road. Your pass-by reduction is considered from all the traffic, not -- I wouldn't look at it from just one Page 41 May 3, 2007 road or another road. So their submittal with a pass-by would be consistent. It wouldn't -- if I said I have to give you a deficit, or your deficit to the road because you're close to I-75, that wouldn't be the way you'd want to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't know without further review whether or not they addressed any destination draw from I-75 to this particular project site? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, they would have in their original submittal. I mean, they're going to split their traffic accordingly. I think they showed, off memory, 15 and 15 going north and south of I-75. So it was included in there, in fairness to that application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Immokalee Road right now, are you -- have you experienced that lately, going, let's say, westbound in the morning especially? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it's a good thing to drive in the morning, unless you want to wait a considerable amount of time. The Target is under construction. It is not even close to being open yet. When it gets open, it's my understanding the cloverleaf designed on I - 75 will not even be attempted at that point or be completed or even started, maybe. The traffic on Immokalee Road, do you think it will get better when the Target opens? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Do I have to answer that question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think you understand my point, Nick, is that we have a situation that's bad there now, and when the Target opens, it's only going to get worse. And so acknowledging and realizing that that's going to happen, I'm just having a problem understanding the vesting and concurrency issues involving this project. There is a paragraph in the applicant's TIS, and it says -- I'll just Page 42 May 3, 2007 read the first couple of sentences. As a direct result of meeting the conditions and obligations of the previous PUD approvals, the Gaspar Station, Styles PUD has been designated as vested for planning purposes within the context of the county's concurrency management system, and to date one-seventh of the project trips have already been reserved to the project in the county's checkbook concurrency management system data base. One-seventh? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That was the direction from the board to do one-seventh ever year. When that document was done it probably most likely would be two-sevenths, because we had one-seventh every year for seven years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So their entire property, all of their concurrency is not vested, only two-seventh of it's vested. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, when you say vested, and there was an attorney that said vested, for what? They're vested for planning purposes. They've done a contribution to a DCA for the right-of-way. One could argue that if they could propose that they are vested, they have done that determination, probably successfully come through that process. As far as traffic on Immokalee Road, I can only recommend through the codes, I can't require that they wait until I-75 improvements are completed and the improvements are. But I would concur with you, it's a recommendation from staff that they wait until those improvements on Immokalee Road and the interchange are completed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but even if they weren't, contrary to what we seem to have been led to believe today, at the most at this time only two-sevenths of their total capacity is really vested in regards to what's been calculated onto the road system. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Only two-sevenths is into the system at this time as far as earmarked for that roadway. But we've planned Page 43 ______._,_,._...~.~.___.._,..^__.'._.."_.__ _'~_"'_'" _ow. __0_,_",___,,__. ___'"_'._ May 3, 2007 for them to be all full seven-sevenths, 100 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But one-seventh a year for the next five more years. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. And I think there would still be -- when the roads are completed, there would be capacity for that project if it was to go at that rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you, when the roads are completed. Okay, that puts an interesting twist on it. Are there any other questions of transportation? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, when they were making these improvements to their property and dedicating property and stuff, do you think in their mind they thought they were protecting what's in the checkbook for their trips? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would imagine I would if! was part of that application. I think that would, making improvements to the intersection, donating right-of-way, constructing that centerline roadway, they anticipated being part of the transportation network at that time. But as attorney Klatzkow pointed out, they have sun-setted. They had the opportunity to do something up until that time. They choose not to for whatever reason. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they didn't go out and take the improvements back. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They didn't take the -- so there is some value that we have received for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions for Nick? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, thank you very much, Nick. Appreciate it. Ray, do we have any public speakers? Page 44 May 3, 2007 MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce, did you have any final comments? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. I would like to have Mr. Perry speak again, and then I'll have a very brief closing. MR. PERRY: For the record, Jeff Perry. I wanted to talk a little bit about the interconnection. The -- there's a -- there was some discussion about the lands to the west and even to the point of the developed parcel to the west of those. There are two parcels that are immediately to the west of our tract that are owned by the same party. They're two separate parcels in the tax roll. And to the west of them is the Eboli PUD. It's a residential project that has been developed. The -- in the staff report, the staff report indicates that there's an easement across the front of the Eboli project that provides this interconnecting access across the project. And the presumption is that the parcels to their east, the vacant parcels that are not yet zoned, would have to provide that same kind of easement. The fact is, that easement has nothing to do with that. That easement that's recorded and in the documents is the compensating right-of-way easement for the Eboli turn lane and has nothing to do with an additional easement that is recorded for shared access or continuous access, frontage road or whatever. On the site plan there is a buffer in fact in that area south of that particular easement. There is a requirement in the Eboli PUD, like our PUD, that requires them to interconnect or share an access point, a single point of access with the vacant land to the east when it comes in. And if they can't get it adjointly (sic) on the property lines, the Eboli PUD can go forward on their own and build the access as they have done on their particular parcel -- So there is no provision on these vacant parcels for any easement across the front to interconnect with our project. It's likely presumably Page 45 -____..'_'_'__"__'___'__",,_ "'_"""_~'____."_~,_,___,.__w'_'_',____~__,._._...= May 3,2007 that they would be zoned residential. I think that's the assumption at this point. As Nick has pointed out, there may be some rational thought that residential traffic might want to cut across through parking lots to get to commercial development, but the traffic goes the other way as well as, and there would be commercial traffic and traffic going back in the other direction across parcels. So I'm not sure that this interconnecting of driveways and parking lots is really what the county has anticipated in their Growth Management Plan when they talk about interconnecting local streets. We're not talking about local streets here, we're talking about driveways and parking lots in residential multi-family developments. To make matters worse, when the design for the entrance road was going through the county's review process -- and incidentally, the county requires these roads to be privately maintained, they do not allow them to become public roadways, they don't want them to become public roadways where they have to maintain them. During the design of this particular roadway, we had requested that our first entrance point, which is immediately south of the main intersection of Immokalee Road, we had requested that this entrance into and out of our site, which is built, be a full access point for us to be able to get out to turn left to get back to the traffic signal that they were helping paying for. This is our private road, and even though our analysis showed that with all the extra turn lanes we have four through lanes leaving this roadway exiting onto Immokalee Road, two lefts, a through and a right. Even with all of that storage that was provided, our analysis showed that we could operate a full intersection right here. The county staff refused it. Denied it. Said that the only way you're going to get this approved is if you build a pork chop in there that prohibits that movement and force all your traffic go come down further south and make a U-turn to get to the traffic signal. So any additional traffic that would have to come through our Page 46 -----..- ~ ,..__.__~.._____..",___..._,._,__"__,,_~_,_.._u__"~_,_._._ May 3, 2007 site would have to meander through our parking lots to go all the way down south on Juliet Boulevard to make a U-turn, along with everybody else. This particular roadway was designed and built and sized for these projects that are participating in this agreement. They are maintaining it. They built the road, they paid for it. Nobody else contributed to it, the county didn't contribute to it. Any other traffic that gets to use this roadway, whether it's the one parcel to the west or whether that's connected to the parcel to the west and to the west all the way back to Livingston Road, all that traffic is going to be coming out this particular intersection, this particular roadway, which was not built or sized for that particular amount of additional traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Perry, are the vacant parcels that are the subject of this discussion, are they within the activity center boundaries? MR. PERRY: Not to my knowledge. I think there's outside. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Based on what you've just indicated here, and I certainly understand you're making a point for your side. But I guess if the intent of the county was to try to create interconnectivity in anticipation of eventual loaded roads, I guess maybe based on your premise, shouldn't we remove that from the LDC, because there's no point of doing these things if we're going to be stopped every time we seek to achieve traffic congestion relief. It may not be the best methodology from your point of view, but isn't it fair for the county to have attempted to find ways to reduce that congestion? And I recognize it's a view of equity, okay, but our job, I suspect, is a greater equity, which is the county and the relief for all of its citizens, if possible. So it's one, it's a conundrum, isn't it? It's a problem that we have to deal with here. Page 47 May 3, 2007 MR. PERRY: I think the Growth Management Plan provision for interconnection and the LDC implementing regulations are good public policy. I think there's good reason why developments should be interconnected, why public roads, and even to some extent private roads should be interconnected. But I don't necessarily agree that that extends to parking lots in residential neighborhoods where people are concerned of security, of traffic, their children are playing out in these parking lots, they're cutting across, and all of a sudden you have cars, twice as many cars, three times as many cars that would have been using that parking lot are now using that parking lot because they're going from point A to point B and these people just happen to be in the middle of it. I think you have to use these provisions with a little bit of care and understanding that we're talking about -- in this instance perhaps a backage road, at the very backs of all of these parcels might have been the appropriate step for the county to say we're going to require a piece of right-of-way and we're going to get it as a donation from all these landowners and give them impact fee credits and we're going to build a public road back here to help benefit Immokalee Road. But we're putting the security and the integrity of residential developments at risk when we all of a sudden start sending commercial traffic and other residential traffic through systems that were not intentionally designed that way to handle that additional traffic. This is not a frontage road system we're talking about here. These are interconnected parking lots and driveways in residential neighborhoods. There's some valid use of that technique in commercial, and I know that Nick has been very successful in commercial areas along Pine Ridge Road where you have driveways and parking lots in commercial areas that are interconnected, where you have sort of a similar reason for people to be moving from one to the other. Page 48 May 3, 2007 But I think you have to use that kind of -- that leverage and that kind of requirement with a little bit of care and understanding as to whether or not you're doing something good for somebody or whether or not you're really just putting them at greater risk or putting someone else at risk by doing something that appears to be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well said, sir. I appreciate your position. MR. PERRY: If! could just add one other thing. These kinds of things are good. And if they're good for one, they're good for everybody. The county has historically not treated their old projects the same way. There's no connected access to the new park to the adjacent residential areas. There are security issues that need to be considered. There are reasons why access, interconnection access needs to be controlled and needs to be kept in a situation where it can be judged on a case by case basis. And we don't believe it's the proper case in this instance. We think we've done our share of interconnection and shared use by providing and building what has been built. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Perry, I have to disagree with your rebuttal to Mr. Murray. The subject of the staff requiring the pork chop in the upper section of Juliet Road and you suggesting that U-turns would be forced to go down further and make those at the full turn intersection, I don't see as that valid because it's based on the way you design your property. If you want to make it as difficult as possible for the public as possible to transverse that property, make them drive through parking lots, certainly you can do that. But again, with the amount of flexibility you have in the design of this property, including retail, office and hotel, a good parkway through the property as a nice route would better serve your property, would better separate the uses and make it a more distinct sectional Page 49 May 3,2007 piece of property and you could have it loop and come out at that full intersection with no problem to the public. So I'm not fully agreeing with what you're saying. It's really a planning and land use design that's up to your applicant how he wants to treat that connection. So just for the record, that's where I would sit on that. Thank you. Mr. Anderson, you wanted to finish up? You're taking the rebuttal phase to its limitation, so -- MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Murray, I just wanted to stress again that why was the language added that interconnection will not be required were it not legally possible? We have to give some effect to and respect that language. That was added by staff, not a private property owner. And, you know, you just have to ask yourself, why was that added if they feel that they're free to ignore it? What happens when the other property owner association members say no, we want them to allow an interconnection? A deal's a deal. They have no incentive, no reason to amend the deed restrictions to allow an interconnection. And as I said before, this PUD property owner can't do it on his own. If he did try to allow an interconnection, the property owners association could rush right to court and get an injunction to prohibit that because the deed restrictions say thou shalt not interconnect. The bottom line is that if you put that interconnection requirement in there under the circumstances where it is not legally possible, this PUD could never go forward unless of course the county came in and condemned the private roadway and wiped out that legal restriction because the property owners association would no longer own the road or have the control and it would wipe out the deed restriction. But that's not been advocated. And I think it's highly unlikely with the budget constraints they have already. They'll be building new roads, not condemning existing. Page 50 May 3, 2007 And I would just say that the county has already received in years past advice from their outside counsel that when a PUD comes in, that there has to be a rational nexus between any change that the property owner is asking in the PUD and any new exaction. And there hasn't been a change that affects transportation. In fact, this property owner didn't even want the PUD amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes, you used the word exaction. And that's interesting. Because if our stipulation were to say that we require an inter-connectivity by you, by your -- that doesn't exact anything from you. That may potentially diminish some values, which is what your assertion is, but it doesn't cause the occurrence. It doesn't make it happen. It provides the potential for it to happen. How does that represent an exaction, exactly? MR. ANDERSON: It's no different than if the county insists on, in a rezoning, to put a reservation for future right-of-way. That mayor may not ever get exercised but it is in fact an obligation, an exaction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, under your philosophy, every restriction in the LDC is an exaction, every setback is an exaction, every piece of property that has a restricted use on it, whether it's a buffer, a tree requirement or whatever would be some sort of exaction. I think that -- MR. ANDERSON: Let me retract that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a philosophical discussion about it that's way beyond what we need to be doing here today-- MR. ANDERSON: Exactly. Let me retract that and just say that they can't legally do it. And the code recognizes an exception for that. There has to be a reason why the county put that in. I mean, I think they recognize their constraints. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, you said there were no public Page 51 May 3,2007 speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Midney first. Mr. Kolflat, I'll let you second it if you want to -- or you have comments? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I just want to make a comment. I don't know if it's mentioned, but in our packet we've got signatures from 113 persons that are in opposition to this project that live in that area that primarily are concerned about the traffic impact on Immokalee Road. And I know though there's no public speaker, I think the record should show that there has been voiced a substantial opposition to this project by the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you Mr. Kolflat. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, if! could, I would like to make a motion that we forward Gaspar Station PUD 2006-AR-10698 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval, subject to stipulations. The first is the EAC stipulation about the lake shape and size, that it has to be adjacent to the preserve area. The second, that we approve the staff recommendations that they show an interconnection to the west. And the third, that we require that this be subject to the I-75 interchange improvements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by I-75 interchange improvements, you mean that they won't be allowed to be issued COs until those improvements are completed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion by Mr. Midney? Page 52 May 3, 2007 I'll second Mr. Midney's motion. Okay, is there discussion? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I-75 improvements, that's a pretty big -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he was referring to the cloverleaf design. Is that right, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I intended as the second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the opening of the cloverleaf CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The opening of the cloverleaf-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is the milestone? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a motion and second. Is there any discussion? Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We can't control the cloverleaf happening or not happening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we can control the traffic that we're allowing on that road system. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But suppose the cloverleaf just never happens, the state changes their mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do we want a road system then that's permanently failed and even gets worse by more being added to it? We've had testimony today that the road is already jammed. We have testimony today that the Target opening will probably cause even worse. Do you think this will help it? If the cloverleaf is never designed, just as if I -7 5 is never widened, maybe we should never approve anything until things are Page 53 May 3,2007 fixed in this county. So that's where I'm -- I mean, I don't know how consciously for public's safety and welfare a road system that's functioning as bad as this one is can have more allowed to it without it being approved. I have no doubt this PUD is justified to go there in regards to what its uses may be in the future. But as far as the timing of it, that's why I seconded the motion. I can't see the timing. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't think that we should assume that the I-75, you know, probably will not be approved. I mean, the pressure's just going to be building for them to do what needs to be done. I think that we can assume that it will be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I have is that these people really have been in there, they have been playing on the roads. I mean, other people have come in and stepped ahead of them, why didn't we stop the people who were coming in ahead of these guys I mean? And I'm not sure that the amount of load they're going to put on the road is going to make that much of a difference. It's a drop in a big bad bucket. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most of the development that I've seen in this county is a first come, first served basis. You're ready to go to development, you get a building permit, you build. Next guy following you doesn't have room for him, he has to wait. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in this case these guys, you know, the county's been pushing them around, getting right-of-ways from them and having them help build out road systems. I'm sure that they did that with the intent to keep their position alive and active. The fact that they didn't cut down the trees and build a building I think is the only thing they didn't do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's why they're here, because Page 54 May 3, 2007 times have changed and the PUD is being re-reviewed for its applicability now with the systems the way they are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is the message then not to cooperate with the county on these kind of things? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think that's a bad thing to be sending out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think the message is when you cooperate with the county be prepared to perform. If you can't perform, then you may become under some rule changes as they come up in the future. And that's what's happened here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern I have is these guys performed all the road stuff the county wanted. They performed what they did for the community. The only thing they didn't decide is that the market wasn't ready for them to develop on their field. But it's not like they just laid limp. Look at the right-of-ways they've given away. And I'm sure that there's been a lot of money expended. Anyway, I'll be voting no for the thing solely because of the tying in with 75, to the cloverleaf. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is any other comments? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm -- I recognize fully what the intent is in that motion. But I'm struggling. I'm favoring what Commissioner Schiffer has been advocating, and yet I wish to remain consistent as much as possible. I think it's just a little beyond for me. It's very, very restrictive. I would hope we could have a lesser restriction of some sort. Tying it to that -- directly to that may be the right thing, but it seems, based on what Commissioner Schiffer has indicated, it seems like it might be a little bit harsh on our part. I fully agree that the word should be out that if you come forward you should be ready to build and not simply try to put a lock Page 55 May 3, 2007 on the land and a lock on all your rights and just sit it out. But in this case they have done some things that I think are worthwhile. And if the stipulation survives having to do with interconnectivity west, we will have achieved a better purpose there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I just won't be supporting that motion for the same reason as Brad. I just think there's a sense of fair play that these guys have played all along, saying we'll give you this, we'll give you this, we'll give you this. Now we're ready. And I just feel that this I-75 stipulation that we have is the only thing that I'll be voting on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and you know I got through discussion something else just occurred to make it fairer so that the applicant doesn't have to go through the process again when the systems are up and running. I would suggest adding to the motion that, an additional stipulation that the sun-setting provisions will not kick in until such time the first development order is issued on this property or the I-75 interchange is -- I-y5 cloverleaf design is completed. That way they're secure in the future, their property is secure in the future, they're covered and they have five years after the time if either one of those occurrences occur, either after they start or after the I-75 cloverleaf is completed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that comport with the policy of the county at this time? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a stipulation, just like any other stipulation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it might not fly at the other level ifit doesn't comport with policy. No? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you talking about, what other leve? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At the level it gets to the County Page 56 May 3,2007 Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or they could reject this for any number COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I recognize that. I'm trying to -- helping to craft something that will have a chance to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I saw this as an improvement for the applicant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm trying to see whether or not that would fly, whether or not that would be tossed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Again, I'm coming back to that cloverleaf. If it never happens, we can't control that. We don't know if, we don't know when. If it never happens, that's like putting a moratorium on this piece of property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, Bob, if we don't get the roads and the -- for example, if we ran out of water to put in the pipes, would we still want to build houses? It's the same thing. Ifwe don't have the system to support the public, what good is it? What good are we improving stuff if it's not there? Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I just wanted just to make a point that I think what you're relating your condition to is the tolling aspect, the sun-setting would not -- we cannot alter LDC requirement pursuant to sun-setting, but the provision that you're talking about would be addressed at the tolling, the actual time clock doesn't start until as a result of government action. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what would happen then is because we put the stipulation at the cloverleaf, their sun-setting provision time frame wouldn't start until that cloverleaf was completed. MR. BELLOWS: As an action of government that would be prohibiting concurrency of the roadway. Page 57 May 3,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we don't need the amendment. But that clarification helps put the fairness back into some of the actions in which that is stipulated by impact. Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have to change it. His explanation just actually explained that. Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Short. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. What ifit never happens? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's my concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if we didn't have water in the pipes, should we improve them -- it goes back to the same argument -- MR. ANDERSON: Well, the county at least controls the utilities in putting the water in the pipes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The county controls the ability to put density on the road system if they wanted to exercise that control. Okay, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, one thing is there really wasn't any testimony that this would be the straw that breaks the camel's back on Immokalee Road. You gave your personal experience. I live in that area, I go down that road. I'm heading east at the time, and it's not this big a disaster the times I'm going through, which I think that there was no testimony from either side that this thing would cause a transportation problem. The people have been acting in good faith that they've been counted all along, so any time anybody looks at concurrency they've been in the checkbook, and they paid their way to get in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I unilaterally disagree with your comments, Mr. Schiffer. But that's okay. That's what this discussion is all about. And if we are finished with the discussion, we'll call for the Page 58 May 3, 2007 vote. All those in favor of the motion to recommend approval with the stipulations as outlined, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. One, two, three, four in favor. Those against the motion, same sign. COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Signs.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Signs.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Signs.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Signs.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff, Mr. Vigliotti, Mr. Murray, Mr. Schiffer voted against the motion. That remains in a tie vote. We can change the tie vote by another motion or if the tie vote goes forward like it is, that means no action by the Planning Commission with no recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, if I'm not mistaken. Is that correct, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Someone want to attempt a second motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's going it be four, four. I mean, this project's enjoyed limbo, it may as well have this be part of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will close this is meeting -- not close the meeting, close this particular item on the agenda. Thank you all for your time. We will take a 15-minute break, or actually, it will be 17 minutes. Be back here at 10:30. (A break was taken.) Page 59 May 3, 2007 Item #8C PETITION: PUDA-2006-AR-10916 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from our break. We'll reconvene the Planning Commission meeting. Next petition is PUDA-2006-AR-10916, the Grand Inn of Naples for the Pine Ridge mixed use center PUD. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll go forward with the applicant's presentation. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Michael Fernandez with Planning Development Incorporated, representing the applicant. This is a rezone. It's an amendment to an existing rezone. It was last rezoned January of2006. And at that time we came in to convert the existing hotel, 105-room hotel to a 56-unit residential condominium building. That building is now under construction, if you've driven by the site. At that time we mentioned that there was a slight possibility that our client, who was at that time trying to negotiate the purchase of the restaurant from Bennigan's, would like to do so and convert it to an office building. He has reacquired the land. He was the original developer of the property. He has reacquired the land from Bennigan's and is now forward here with his proposal to do a two story over parking office building on the site. We had our neighborhood meeting. It went very well. The Page 60 May 3, 2007 neighborhood actually made the recommendation to convert this restaurant to an office development. It has been problematic from the very beginning, and our client knew it was going to be a problem selling units as well. It was going to devalue his units. So he took it upon himself to move forward with the office building project. There are really only a couple of significant changes, the first being that the existing commercial use was previously -- or is currently existing 10,000 square feet of restaurant. We are converting that to 34,000 square feet of office. And of course office will generally have an 8:00 to 5:00 Monday through Friday work week as opposed to a seven-day week operation for a restaurant. The second of it is the setbacks to the east. When this PUD was originally approved, there were single-family homes to the east and we had more aggressive setbacks. The setback that we're requesting is the minimum of 15 feet or half the height of the building. And with the proposed building height of 35 feet, it would be a 15-and-a-half-foot setback. The residential that was to the east is no longer there. That's a commercial PUD. They have the same setback, 15 feet or half the height of the building. And those setbacks are consistent with existing commercial districts in the county. Although we are maintaining an overall maximum development height of 45 feet, and that's to accommodate the hotel, the proposed office building which is shown on the -- location of which is shown on the master plan is limited to 35 feet and two stories over parking. With that, I'll be happy to answer questions you may have regarding the application or regarding our -- the public process that we've gone through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there questions of the applicant from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know I'm not going to let it Page 61 May 3, 2007 go that easy. Okay. You refer to general office. And in the language of the PUD you're saying general office uses which are listed by the C-l through C-4 commercial zoning districts of the LDC as they may be amended and further limited to those uses which do not require parking in excess of the parking requirements for office. Regardless of the parking -- say something required a less parking intensity than office but it wasn't office, you still would not then be allowed to do it; is that what this paragraph says? MR. FERNANDEZ: Essentially the intent of the paragraph is that it restricts all commercial use to general office, specifically those office uses that are general in nature, which means that they require a parking ratio in today's context of one to 300. For instance, medical would be prohibited in this PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So even though one of our commercial categories would allow medical offices, by this language it would be prohibited. MR. FERNANDEZ: General commercial by definition would be that which has a parking ratio of one to 300. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your maximum number of stories, you went to stories instead of height. Stories can be very ambiguous. Some people may think 17 feet is a story. I don't believe that is a good way to go. I also only notice in your neighborhood informational meeting in the data that was provided, you actually talked about certain heights, including architectural embellishments. I'd like to see G clarified to heights. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay, two things. There actually is height requirements in the PUD. And this is coming back. If you look under 3.3.C, maximum building heights and setback requirements-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hold on a second, let me find it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Page 3-1. Page 62 May 3,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to use the strike-through version so it's a little harder. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Maximum building height 25, 35 and 45 feet. But G goes back to stories. So can we have something that says maximum number of stories not to exceed the building heights above. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, absolutely. No problem with that. Furthermore, there is the commitment on the PUD master plan, which is part of the PUD that restricts this building to 35 feet. And that was a commitment that we made to the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as there's a maximum to height, that was my concern. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make sure I have none others. That's the only questions I had. Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a staff report? MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, my name is Mike DeRuntz, I'm a Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. You should all have a copy of the staff report that was dated April the 29th, 2007. This petition was continued from that date to the present. The staff has found that this petition was consistent with the Growth Management Plan, in particular the area that this development is identified in as an activity center, and that it is compatible with adjoining properties, and staff is recommending approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I have one question, and maybe Page 63 May 3, 2007 it's a Ray question. But we have these PUD's come forward and they've got the heights noted in them. But we have two definitions of height in the Land Development Code. We have zoned and architectural, and we have to many times at each PUD ask them what the architectural is and have it stated. And that is for the benefit of the public, because people perceive what they see, not what the zoned height may be. Why doesn't staff get that clarification included in the PUD up front instead of having us have to debate it at the meeting? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We have talked about this in our staff meeting, and the planners should be trying to do that. I will reinforce it. And I'll start looking on my checklist when I review these documents to see if they're in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I guess then that will bring into question, when we finish with Mike, maybe the applicant can come back up and tell us where they want to be with architectural height that's defined -- MR. BELLOWS: The actual height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actual height as defined in the Land Development Code. Mike, one of the items in -- talked about office hours will be better for this neighborhood because there'll be closed earlier than a restaurant would. Are there Land Development Code restrictions on office hour operations? MR. DeRUNTZ: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So theoretically the office hours could be whatever they want to set them at. Most likely not, they won't be at late hours, but okay. Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Page 64 May 3, 2007 MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, if you could talk to us about the actual height of the buildings. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. I believe what we discussed at the neighborhood information meeting is that the maximum height that we saw of the architectural roof areas and so forth was 42 feet, and that's what we represented at that time. There are still exclusions in the code that, for instance the stair tower, for instance, that has to come out by code above a building of this height would be 35 feet to the roof and then you'd have the stair come up above that. And what that actual number would be on this building, we don't know. But we would assume it would probably be between ten and 12 feet between the clearance you need to the door and so forth. But that's an exclusion that's in the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The exclusion, though, doesn't apply to the measurement of actual height. The actual height measurement includes the exclusions. So what I was wondering -- and I'm not saying that then forty -- I understand your argument of 42 feet was that it was the architectural embellishments that would go to 42 feet. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you feel would be under the definition of the LDC the actual height that we could insert into your PUD for this building? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, to be on the safe side, for including the elevators and so forth, I'd add 14 feet to that elevation of the 35 that was committed to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying 49 feet. MR. FERNANDEZ: Forty-nine feet for those elements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we were to add maximum height for architectural element for maximum actual height would be 49 feet. That's acceptable? MR. FERNANDEZ: Absolutely. Page 65 .. -__'___......_________"~~~._~__~._;_w_..."_.__.__._.____ May 3,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike and Ray, can you insert that in the appropriate place in the PUD. Is there any objections from the panel? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why are we pressuring him to do that? For example, they could be designing something. They could put a nice little pinnacle on top of a roof and they can't because we said they can't. And it might look nice. Is there a reason -- because we've always dealt with zoned height. Is there a reason now we're starting to deal with actual height? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, a Commissioner from a particular district, I think it was yours, suggested adding a definition to the LDC for actual height to get the truth in public out there in regards to what they were actually seeing height-wise. And trying to be consistent with what his wishes are, I think that we ought to post an actual height when we can. So that's where I was going with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But knowing the Commissioner, the concern was is that people were saying the building had a certain height and then when they actually saw it, it was crazy. So what he wanted is on the drawings that were being reviewed, certainly by his committee, that actual height be shown so that they could make that judgment. It wasn't necessary to start regulating that judgment, that height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought the idea was to regulate it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner, we don't have a problem with it. But I would tell you from a practical standpoint, it really is limiting. For instance, if you have -- if it's being measured to the center of a roof, depending on the pitch of the roof, the design, I could change significantly. And we certainly don't want everything looking like a flat roof. And I think that's what you're pushing or pressuring design to get toward that extent. In this particular case, I think we've gone far enough where we Page 66 May 3, 2007 know what the client is proposing. But in many cases I think it could be problematic, so -- but that's something that Ray and his staff can study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, if we were to go in with no actual height under the PUD and they would come in with an SDP, then at least showing an actual height, it wouldn't have any impact because there is no limitation. The limitation part of the definition occurs at this level. Otherwise, there's no reason to have it. Just to have actual height stated on the plan, every plan's going to have that at in its elevation anyway. So I don't know why you wouldn't come up with a definition that you don't want to have used in a regulatory language somewhere. So I honestly think it's good to have actual height stated in the PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wouldn't the LDC height, in the absence of any stipulant, wouldn't the LDC height fly? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the height in the LDC is zoned. The actual height is exempting all the architectural embellishments and stair towers and clock towers and pinnacles and everything else. I always thought the objective was to get it stated. We've done it, like the Naples Daily News building and the other buildings we've done it. It was a big issue with those. All of a sudden now it seems like it may not have been. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. One of the main reasons given to me for having the actual height listed is to also account for flood zone information. Many times a zoned building height, say 35 feet, would not include the flood elevation, which may add ten or 15 additional feet to the structure. So when the actual building comes out, it is consistent with the zoned height of, say, 35 feet but the actual building height might 45 feet. And that's where people got confused. So we added that language to really account for that. Page 67 May 3, 2007 Now, there are the other issues that Mark raises, the appurtenances on the top of the roof that could also add increasing height. The zoned height would still remain, say, 35 feet, but we can reference height for any additional rooftop features. Right now the LDC doesn't count that towards the maximum building height. But if you wish it to occur in this location, we can address that with the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ray, I know we have an actual height discussion in the Naples Daily News, and I'm using that one because it was one of the most controversial ones that have come through us. And we dealt with it there. And it seemed to be pertinent to the PUD process. MR. BELLOWS: Well, it is. I'm not saying it isn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I was getting at. Brad, you're trying to indicate it's not. I'm confused now, because we've always brought this up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again, I think in the Naples News, the reason we discussed it is because height was a major issue and they wanted some way to get a handle on it so they were always discussed in terms of actual height. Remember, actual height goes out, it starts from the roadway, the average roadway elevation at the crown of the road to the top of the building. And that gave everybody a tool that they could turn to a neighbor and say this is how tall -- remember we were using words like tippy-top and, you know, truth in advertising, that's what that's for. Is there a height problem here? I mean, the building mass is going to be regulated by the zoning height. That's going to regulate your roof, that's going to regulate the height of your building. This is only if they put an elevator tower or something. I mean, the footage you had is probably fine. But I'm just saying I'd hate to see us start regulating what, you know, adornments people Page 68 --~--"-'-""'----'._.."--_."--'----_."--"",,---",^-- ._._-,..-._---~'.._.... _.,--~ May 3,2007 can put on buildings by this actual height. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. The other think I want to put on the record is the additional 14 feet I was talking about on top of the 35 would apply only to the office building. The existing hotel is already substantially taller than that, it's 45 plus all the accoutrements, so it's, you know, getting closer. By the time they finish with it, it could easily be 60 feet. But building heights haven't been a significant issue for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you. I think that we have a definition in place and I was simply trying to cross the T's and dot the I's and I will continue to try to do so. Mr. Klatzkow, as far as the actual height as a definition in the LDC, is it something that can be applicable to a PUD or is that the most appropriate place for it or is that something that is a just a simple symbolism for a re-submittal afterwards? MR. KLATZKOW: I think for purposes of clarity, I would like to see it in the PUD exactly what you're voting on. Because everybody has got a different view of what height is. And it's a tiresome discussion because it's so easily rectified. So for purposes of clarity, if this board wants to just say exactly what it means, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, you said 49 feet. I just want to make sure you're comfortable with that. I'm not trying to peg you with too low of a number at all. I want you to have the flexibility you need but I also want to the public to know what the worst case scenario is they can expect. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, if it's going to apply to both structures then you have to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, this will be applying to the office structure, that's the only one -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, then let's just make it simple and say 50 and that way we've got 15 feet to play with. And we're fine with that, we can accommodate that. I don't think it's a good thing to be Page 69 May 3, 2007 getting into, but for this project we can agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, be careful, because remember, it's not measured as you measure zoned height, the zero on that is out in the middle of the street. MR. FERNANDEZ: In this particular case, the height of the street is actually going to be less than our site, hopefully. No, I'm familiar enough with the site, my office is around the corner. And also the -- there's no flood issues here. In fact, this is a very, very high elevated area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is that the difference between zoned and actual height is they start at a different MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. And I'm only saying I can do that on this particular project. In most cases I said I think it's going to be problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a question to you probably more than anybody else. Would we be saying -- would it be redundant to say inclusive of all appurtenances? Is that necessary -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The definition takes care of that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So in other words, we're clean with what you're saying. Then the 50's fine, I don't have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant or staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Page 70 --_.__....,._~-".__....__.,.,...._. '-"---"--~"'-"-'._~-~._..'-~ May 3, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-I0916 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. Mr. Adelstein, would you entertain a motion to entertain to your motion a stipulation that the maximum actual height for the office building to be 50 feet? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you second that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other discussion? All those in favor of the motion with the stipulations, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 to O. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Item #8D Page 71 "."~'---'-"""-"""-""--"'--"--"'----~"-'~""~ .'.~..--".,-~y~.-,,- May 3, 2007 PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-8379 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now for the one that we said would happen past 10:00, we are true to our word. This is petition PUDZ-2005-AR-8379, Home Dynamics of Naples, LLC, known as the Boxwood RPUD. This was continued from our 4/19 meeting at the request, I believe, of the applicant. And we are here today to go forward with it. Is there any disclosures -- first all, all those wishing for testify on behalf of this petition please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm going to have to recuse myself. I do building and fire code consulting for Home Dynamics, which is the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And I had discussions with Mr. Y ovanovich, both in April and just recently about this particular project and its relationship to the Vanderbilt Beach Country Club. And I'm sure we'll hear more on that matter today. Any other disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll proceed with the applicant's presentation. Go ahead, Richard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. With me is Bob Duane with Hole Montes and Associates, the planner on the project, and Matt Ford with Home Dynamics, representing the property owner. I have others here who can answer questions regarding engineering and landscaping, if those questions come up. Page n May 3, 2007 On your visualizer is the location -- an aerial depicting the location of the property. The property is a roughly 29.9-acre parcel located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately one-quarter mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road. As you can see to basically our north and east is Vanderbilt Country Club. To our south is the Bucks Run PUD. There's a little notch-out area of I guess un-zoned agricultural land. And then we have Collier Boulevard to our west. The property is designated urban residential in the future land use map. In front of -- you received your staff report, and -- at the last hearing, and the reason we continued the hearing is we were meeting with our neighbors at Vanderbilt Country Club. They had raised a couple of issues regarding our proposed project, and we concluded our discussions with them earlier this week. And we're going to propose some revisions to the project that, they're not difficult revisions, they actually basically downsize the project. But I'll go through those with you all. The first concern raised by the residents was the overall project density of eight units per acre. They were comfortable with the seven units per acre recently approved for Bristol Pines in that area, but they were uncomfortable with eight units per acre. So we met with them, redesigned the site, which I'll show you another concern, how that affected the overall density. But we went back, we redesigned the site. And based on redesigning the site, we can achieve a density of seven units per acre. So we're requesting an affordable housing density bonus of only three units per acre instead of the four units per acre in your staff report that you received. And with that change, that changes the overall project density from 238 units to 207 units. And that's an approximate density of 6.97 units per acre. In changing the affordable housing density bonus from four units Page 73 May 3, 2007 per acre to three units per acre, that changes the number of units that are dedicated to gap and the number of units that are dedicated to workforce housing. Under the matrix 10 percent of our project density would be gap units and 10 percent of our project density would be workforce units. And as you recall, the gap units are 150 percent or less and the workforce are 80 percent or less of the median income. So that's 21 units of gap and 21 units of workforce housing. So the affordable housing density bonus agreement in front of you will be resized accordingly to reflect those changes. Another concern raised by the leadership of Vanderbilt Country Club was the -- this area right here is single-family housing within Vanderbilt Country Club. And there was a concern raised about our having buildings, two-story buildings, basically with the rear of those buildings looking over into their area. So they asked us to see what we could do about reconfiguring our site to address that concern. And on the visualizer, you will see, we established a basically 100- foot zone from approximately right here on the -- can you see that? It's hard for me to see. Can you see the cursor? From approximately right -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you're losing the speaker is what's happening. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me do this. It's probably easier if! can point with my finger easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The cursor is pretty bold in that particular drawing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know what, maybe I need glasses. I was having a little trouble seeing it myself. That's why I asked. We created a 100-foot zone basically from right here on the project, as you can see that's near their maintenance building to our northern -- I mean, our eastern boundary. This 100- foot area would have limited uses. We would be allowed to have a two-story building Page 74 May 3, 2007 in this area and we would be allowed to have a one-story recreational building in this area with the double crosshatching. And then from here to here in that 100- foot area we would have our roads, landscaping and limited recreational facilities but no buildings. So -- in doing that, that is what resulted in the loss of some units and brought us down to seven units per acre and addressed the concern -- two concerns for them. What were they looking at and two, overall project density. So we addressed those concerns, and hopefully this exhibit will address language we've provided to staff addressing that 100- foot area as to the limited uses within that 100- foot area. The PUD document, other than those changes I just described, will basically be the same as what you've already seen. The PUD document already included a limitation on when COs could be issued for the project to the substantial completion of the Collier Boulevard widening from Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road. I was going to ask that we make it clear that sunsetting doesn't start until the completion of that road, but based on an earlier petition, I guess it's clear that the code already provides that since that's a requirement of our PUD and that's a government condition, I don't have to worry about the clock starting on our sunsetting because we agreed to wait on COso We provide an interconnection, as you can see on our master plan, to our project to the north that will be able to interconnect and use our access road, therefore limiting the number of access points on 951. And I didn't see this in our document, and I would -- and I apologize for this, but we talked to our property owner to the south, Bucks Run, and they would like to have the ability, and we would like this ability as well, to basically share the berm between our project and their project so you don't have that no man's land that occurs when each individual project has a berm. Page 75 May 3, 2007 So I don't know if our PUD document adequately addresses that, and if it doesn't, I apologize for that, but we would request, if there's no objection to the Planning Commission, that we go ahead and add whatever provisions we might need to, to allow for us to share a berm with our neighbor to the south. Again, it eliminates that area where it's basically a no man's area. And that would allow us to put our wall right on the property line that would serve both Bucks Run and our project. With that, I think that summarizes the project. If you have any specific questions of me or anybody else on our team, we'll be happy to answer your questions regarding the project or the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, do you have that drawing with the map that you just previously had in the overlay? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do we go to podium computer, Ray? Ray, do I go to podium computer to go back? All right, Mike, how do I go back? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One crashes everything, so be real careful. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You want to go back to the aerial, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, I'm interested in the density around this project. Vanderbilt as I understand is about 2.48 units per acre and Bucks Run is about four units per acre, and also Sonoma Oaks is four units per acre. You mentioned one other development was higher than that. Which one was that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you go a little bit further north on Collier Boulevard, it's not on this exhibit, it's the Bristol Pines PUD. A little bit further north, same side of the road. It was recently approved at seven units per acre based upon an affordable housing density Page 76 May 3, 2007 bonus agreement, similar to ours. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's not adjacent to this project. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. But that seven unit per acre project is adjacent to other units that are approved at roughly four units per acre or a little less. So it's not really been an issue regarding density, it's really -- and the residents of Vanderbilt Country Club don't have an issue with the density, it was more of site. And we've addressed those through the revisions to the PUD document. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, you're asking a deviation of the right-of-way from 60 feet to 42 feet, which is a substantial deviation. But you also mention a drainage system that's embodied in there in the roadway. Can you explain that a little further? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I could try, but I probably would not do it justice. MR. NEAL: Jerry Neal, with Hole Montes. The storm pipe that collects the runoff through the inlets on the roadways will be inside the right-of-way. Is that your question? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is that up right under the roadway or alongside of it? MR. NEAL: It would be under the curb. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Under the curb. MR. NEAL: Yes, that's typical. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And for that reason you feel is a justification for that reduction in right-of-way? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, historically -- and maybe we should again, we've talked about changing the Land Development Code. For privately maintained roads it's -- the right-of-way width can be narrowed. You still provide all of the same things that you would Page 77 May 3, 2007 have in the 60- foot. You still provide your water management and your utility-related issues. But for private roads, county staff has really not had an issue with narrowing the road right-of-way. Maybe in this cycle of the LDC we can perhaps make a change so we don't have to continually ask for this deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, just so you know, most of the residential PUDs coming forward do request this deviation and they all, to my knowledge, have always been recommended approval by the staff. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Would that be a reason to change their Land Development Code? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it will be. That's what Richard is saymg. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. All right, another question I had regarding the density and intensity factors there, you mention that there are ameliorating factors that compensate for that. What are those ameliorating factors? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I would -- if you -- well, I've got to switch back to -- that's -- well, if! can, I'll go back to the visualizer. What you have -- what you have, Mr. Kolflat, is this is where the single-family homes are adjacent to us. And we have made the changes I described to where you will not have buildings within 100 feet of those single-family homes. This portion of Vanderbilt Country Club is multi-family. So we have basically addressed compatibility issues through that process of the PUD process. And usually compatibility as addressed through that way is buffering, putting like uses near like uses, appropriate setbacks. It's really not been an issue with having seven units per acre next to a project that has less units per acre. I mean you have that internally on some of these projects. You'll have a multi-family pod within a master plan community with a higher Page 78 May 3,2007 net density next to single-family pods. And that's not a compatibility issue regarding having single-family next to multi-family. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So the ameliorating factor is not a reduction in density intensity, it's a change in the impact of that density intensity. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, that's what we're talking about, compatibility issues. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right. You also mention that you'll hold the final COs until improvement to Collier Boulevard is substantially completed. Can you be a little more definitive than substantially completed, what means? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what we've been talking about on this road or on several projects that I've been involved in, substantially completed means the through lanes are open for use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is a threshold recognized by transportation in the completion of a road. That is actually a point of time in a road's completion. Remaining items are usually just considered punch-out items after that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So that's definitive enough-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Need to bring that mike a little closer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's definitive enough then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we've been using that term in all of the other PUDs that we have been using, so -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't recall the progress we made on this the last time, to be honest with you. But did we ever establish on the masonry wall with the Vanderbilt Country Club the vegetative buffer portion of it? Was that going to be maintained by whom? Who will be responsible for maintaining the Vanderbilt Page 79 May 3,2007 Country Club side? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will -- we haven't even begun discussions on this one. So, I mean, it's easy to confuse them, because we've had several. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Y ovanovich has represented each one too, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We take care of the landscaping on our property and they have their own separate berm on their piece that they will take care of. So the landscaping will be on our property, some of it will be on our side of the wall, if you will, and some will be on their side of the wall. But we'll be required to maintain all of the landscaping that's on our property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That makes sense, yeah. But you will not be responsible or you don't think you'll be responsible for the other end of that -- you've answered my question, thank you. I think it's pretty clear cut. There's a lot of things in here, but pretty clear. And the folks here from Vanderbilt, they now have reached a comfort zone with this? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe they have. And I'm sure they're here to speak. If I forgot something, I'm sure they'll correct me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's good that the change was made to move those units away from the proximity of the single- family homes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Richard? Richard, let's start with your new plan. You made a statement a minute ago that the proj ect that you're building, the nearest home will be 100 feet from the nearest home on the Vanderbilt Beach Country Club. Actually what you mean is you got 100-foot setback from your property line; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the northern boundary we have a Page 80 May 3,2007 100-foot setback from the northern boundary. You can see it crosshatched on that. That is the clear zone, subject to what I discussed about that one double crosshatch where we can put the single-story residential building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure that what you said was not contradicting what the plan shows. That's why I asked the question. You asked about a shared berm with Bucks Run PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I just was told it is actually in our document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But my question is, as far as Bucks Run's PUD goes, does that require any changes to that particular PUD so that they can share their berm with you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: To my knowledge, it does not. I spoke to Mr. Hoover about this. It was actually a joint idea of both property owners to see if we could make this happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a good idea. I just want to make sure we don't run into a problem enacting it. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I just want to make sure the language in the PUD document includes that it be subject to a maintenance agreement that the shared buffer will be maintained by -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. If it's not in there, that makes sense to add that to that provision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, on page 26 of the staff report, which actually is Exhibit B of your PUD, is your development standards table, and the one I have has got numerous things on it that are missing or in error, I think. I just need to make sure we clarify it for the record. When you get there, let me know. It's page -- it's listed as Page 26 of 38. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Got it. Page 81 May 3,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Top right-hand corner under the clubhouse recreation buildings, minimum lot area. It just says SF per unit. I'm not sure how that references anything real. There's a whole bunch of these, so. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I saw a couple this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, well, we're going to go through all of them. Boy, I hope you guys aren't going to tell us we got the wrong version of the PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not telling you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't blame you, I wouldn't tell me either. I don't think we need to hear that again. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What is the page, Mark, 26 of 38? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 26 of 38, yes, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are there any non-table-related questions you might have while -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they may be irrelevant if we haven't got the right PUD, Richard, so let's see if we've got the right one first, because we may end up still doing a continuance until we get the right one and have time to review it. I know that's not the wish of the day, but I don't know what else we can do. Is someone going to respond to what -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Strain, I'd love to tell you, but I don't put the packet together, so I'm going to let Mr. DeRuntz. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to pass it on to staff. MR. YOV ANOVICH: He sends you the packet. And I don't know what he sent you. So you're asking me to answer a question I can't answer. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Don't you get a copy of what we get? Page 82 May 3, 2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's starting to happen, yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: After they're put together, you should get a copy of what we get. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That process has begun. I don't know that on this one it happened. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We have initiated that the applicant gets the exact same back-up information that you get. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We talked about that a meeting or two ago, so I think staff -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And we've initiated it. We also initiated the other request that you have for the sign-off page to ensure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw that. Thank you. There's been improvements in this particular -- these packages today, example in several of them. So thank you for doing that. Mr. DeRuntz, we need an answer so we can decide what to do with this meeting. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What's the bottom wording on the page of that? Is there a reference to a date anywhere? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says capital G semi colon backslash, DeRuntz, backslash AR-8379 Boxwood RPUD backslash, application 4-4-07 doc. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think you have the -- we're all reviewing the same document and they all have the same missing information. So we have to figure out what that information is for you. So we're still reading -- I think we're all reading from the same document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have the correct PUD but it's just not right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's a couple of spaces that are mIssmg. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: They're all equally wrong. Page 83 May 3, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, look at Richard -- go ahead, Mr. DeRuntz. MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner, Department of Zoning and Development Review. There was also an attachment of a more recent application, and it was a fax copy. And you should all have received that as a supplement that you had come up with. And that was dated -- the fax on the corner was 4-18. And the footer, it had a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have that copy, Mike. Anybody else here have a copy? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't have it either. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was a PUD revised effective 4-18? MR. DeRUNTZ: That was the fax that was sent over from Mr. Duane. MR. BELLOWS: Was that a one-page fax. MR. DeRUNTZ: No, it was the entire application. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You wouldn't be faxing that to us anyway. MR. DeRUNTZ: No, not the fax to you, I received a fax and then I made a copy of that and that was sent out to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't we normally require the applicant to supply a certain number of copies? And is a fax copy, because of its legibility, normally accepted with the kind of detail that these site plans have in them? MR. DeRUNTZ: This was provided because it was -- provided because they were negotiating with the property owner and this was a more updated, and I thought that you should receive this because the mailing was going out and I wanted to provide you with the most Page 84 ---'-"-"'~-,--,---_."._"--,-_._,,,",., .-._"--.,.",._,'----'-',.'- May 3, 2007 recent information. And so that's why it was of this quality. But if you haven't received it, that's a moot issue then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have not received it. And I would hope that in the future staff requires hard copies, legible, distributed in an appropriate manner. And if we don't have time to do that, then the applicant can wait till the next meeting to present their case. Now, as far as what we have in front of us today, is there a way to fix this? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The answer to that statement should be N/ A, not applicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to ask you, the version of the PUD that we are reviewing is the 4-4-07. So I don't know what Mr. DeRuntz had gotten on 4-18. But ifthere's any deviations or changes in the 4-18 to the 4-04, you better put them on the record because if they're not, the 4-04 is what's going to go forward. Are you comfortable with that? I'm just wondering why you had given him a 4-18 if the 4-04 was acceptable? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I don't know the answer to that. I didn't generate it. I don't know the answer. I'm told by Mr. Duane that we're comfortable working from the 4-07 version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4-04 version. MR. YOV ANOVICH: 4-04 version, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, four dash four is what it is, four dash four dash 07. And then, before we go too far, Mr. DeRuntz, were there any changes from the 4-04 to the 4-18 that staff needed to have included that you're aware of, so they can be put on record? MR. DeRUNTZ: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to be on the mike just to say no, SIr. Got that? THE COURT REPORTER: Got it. Page 85 May 3, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let's go back to the table on 26 of 38. The clubhouse recreational building under minimum lot width, that will be an N/A for that instead of what it says now, is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under minimum side yard, if you go down to single-family attached and townhouse, it said five feet or. And the one next to it says 12 feet or. But the or isn't filled in afterwards, it's blank. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe the or should be five feet or ten, and then 12 feet or six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five feet or ten. Well, then you need to have some kind of asterisk to represent that you're looking at a zero lot line situation then because you have zero on one side. So it would be zero or five. Or zero -- it would be five or five or zero or ten. You couldn't have five feet or ten. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're right. You see where we have the triple asterisk in the references, basically on the next page it says zero or 12. We'll have to do another asterisk system to say zero or ten. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we've got to do four asterisks. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whatever number you're up to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're up to three on the -- by the 12 so you're looking at four asterisks to represent-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. Or we can convert them to numbers, might be a little bit easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Under maximum building height not to exceed -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Multi-family. It should be SPS. Delete the word feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's start with single-family, second column. Go down to development standards, maximum building height not to exceed 25 feet or two stories. That's the one that I'm -- Page 86 May 3, 2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are we talking about accessory or on principal? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on principal. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were down all the way to accessory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All the way across there it says 25 feet or two stories. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Zoned height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But we want to get into feet. Stories are ambiguous. You could have a 20-foot story, so then you've got a 40-foot building. So don't you mean 20 feet or two stories, whichever is -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're right, it should be two stories, not for exceed 25 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, Cherie. Two stories, not to exceed 25 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then you would see the reference to 35 feet should be actual -- height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you brought that up, because I don't even have that on my table. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where do you have that? What table are you reading from? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm reading from the table that shows under the max. building height, mine says 25 -- well, we just corrected it, 25 feet or two stories height as zoned but not to exceed 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yours says that. Would you put yours on the overhead for a moment? I have a feeling that you've got a third verSIOn. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to let you handle this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have that development standards table that Richard was just looking at, Mr. Duane? Could Page 87 May 3,2007 you put it on the overhead? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: While he's thinking about that, may I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The matter of Mr. DeRuntz having something he intended to send to us, should that be entered into the record? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It already is by the statements he made, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No other way. We don't have a document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This document that they've been reading off of is not the one that we've got. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's a third copy? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We don't have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, I don't think this should go forward. I don't know how many problems there could be in this. I think this panel needs a true correct current strikethrough version of the PUD -- not strikethrough, this is a new version, but of a clean PUD so we can read it and we know what we're voting on. MR. BELLOWS: I certainly agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Klatzkow, is this something that staff has to request, I would assume? MR. KLATZKOW: I think you've got the ability to make that request. You can't vote on something you don't know what you're voting on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I recommend that this be moved to a continuation to as close a meeting as possible that the paperwork can be provided. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second's been made by Mr. Adelstein. Any discussion? Page 88 May 3, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any comments, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. Members of the public that are here to speak on the Boxwood PUD, because you're here today, if you have -- if you want to speak, you can, but we would prefer that you wait until this came back to us with a clean version of the PUD, to do so. If you disagree, please stand up and come forward. Otherwise we'll just move forward it to the next hearing. Thank you very much. I hope this gets to us correctly. Item #8F PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-7588 With that, we will move on to the next petition. It's petition PUDZ-2005-AR-7588. This is the Richard Evans PUD. This is by Richard Evans. It's called the Evans CPUD on Livingston Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 89 _~_C'_"___".~'_'" _", "." "_k'"""_,,, ....__.._,.,_._..~..>~^~~..__~~__~__.,_ May 3, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? I was contacted by the applicant's representative, but I had to let him know that I was out of the state and I hadn't had time to review the package so I couldn't comment on it to him. And I will be discussing everything here today. With that, we'll go forward with the presentation by the applicant. MR. HOOD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Frederick Hood with Davidson Engineering and I'm here today representing Mr. Richard Evans, the property owner, who is seeking the rezoning of six acres of rural agricultural land to commercial PUD zoning for the development of medical and general offices. I just want to direct your attention to the aerial exhibit that I've put up. Currently the subject property is developed and operating as a commercial landscape nursery and landscaping company for the last 17 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I'm sorry to interrupt you. You have a highlighted area on this plan. Is that the area that you believe you're here today to discuss? MR. HOOD: That's the entire property. We're only acting on a six-acre portion to the northeast corner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I was just afraid we got the wrong information again. MR. HOOD: Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HOOD: Okay. To better orient you with the property location and surrounding uses, to the north of the property that we're talking about lies a golf course maintenance facility serving the Kensington golf course. To the west is a single-family residential development that is Page 90 May 3,2007 part of Kensington PUD. To the south is agricultural zoning that lies totally within the FPL easement, and as such will not be further developed. Immediately to the east is Livingston Road, and the subject property lies about a half a mile south of Pine Ridge Road. Change the slide to the site plan. This rezone application seeks to develop the property with no more than 52,000 square feet of medical and general office space with a maximum height of 50 feet. The proposed limitation of floor area is both practical limitation, based on the maximum developable area of the site as well as a limiting factor to achieve compatibility and transportation consistency. Of the total six acres subject to the rezoning, only 1.5 acres will be developed with buildings and parking, while the balance of the property may be utilized for landscaping, open space, water management and the like. I'm going to move on to the future land use exhibit. The proposed CPUD rezone is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan through the application of development standards contained within this PUD. The proposed project is consistent with the following specific policies and objectives. Actually, before I want to go through that, I just want to direct your attention to the overhead. Weare within the Livingston Road commercial infill sub-district as outlined here. The subject property is within the Livingston Road commercial infill sub-district of the urban designation and identified on the future land use map. This sub-district allows professional and medical offices and non-commercial indoor storage by occupants of the buildings to serve surrounding residential within a convenient travel distance to the subject property. The subject property is also consistent with Policy 5.4 of the Page 91 May 3, 2007 Collier County Comprehensive Plan in that this proposed development with and complimentary to surrounding land uses. While the rezone is compatible it shall also accommodate the surrounding uses with adequate landscape, buffering and screening methods. Policy 7.1 of the Collier County comprehensive plan encourages developers and property owners to connect the properties fronting collector and arterial roads. In this particular case, the property owner and petitioner's parcel in question has frontage on Livingston Road, a six-lane arterial road. The proposed Evans CPUD will have access to Livingston Road via an existing driveway providing right in and right out access currently being utilized by the current landscaping and nursery business. Signalization will not be warranted. Policy 2.2.2 of the conservation and coastal management element is also furthered with this rezone by the water management design of the project, which will meet South Florida Water Management criteria for quality and quantity. As a result, the cumulative impacts of runoff are be reduced and water quality treatment will be improved. The proposed rezone and subsequent development proposal will meet or exceed the required open space for commercial PUD. Currently Livingston Road is operating at a level of service C. And the proposed project represents a de-minimus impact of 1.29 percent. I direct your attention again to a more blown up version of our master plan. As you can see from the PUD master plan, the developable area has been pushed to the proportion of this site adjacent to Livingston Road and further from residential development to the west. The adjacent residential component of the Kensington CPUD is Page 92 May 3,2007 buffered by existing landscaping on Kensington High Street. The proposed development area is approximately 235 feet from the western property boundary. The adjacent residential development is also separated from the subject property by Kensington High Street, which is a 60-foot right-of-way that includes a landscape buffer. The resulting separation between the development area and the existing residences is approximately 295 feet. The existing berm will be augmented with landscaping to achieve the opacity standards contained in the LDC for Type B buffers. The northern property line will require only a Type B buffer, since the adjacent use is a golf course maintenance facility and is not residential. No wall will be required along the northern property line. Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering is here with me, and he'll elaborate further on the coordination between the property owner and the Kensington homeowners. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Tim Hancock, for the record. I'll try to go slow, Cherie. This petition represents precisely what the public participation element of rezone processes was intended to do. Through a number of meetings with the Kensington Park Homeowners Association, we were able to arrive at a mutually beneficial agreement relative to the required buffering between the proposed use and the existing residential development. As you can see, there exists today a landscape berm that falls along the common property line between the Kensington development and the subject property. The berm is heavily landscaped and maintained on the Kensington side. Interestingly, the company that maintains the landscape for the Kensington Park Homeowners Association is Landscape Florida, Page 93 May 3, 2007 owned by Mr. Evans, who's the applicant here today. So they are neighbors, have been good neighbors, and hopefully will continue to be good neighbors into the future. While the LDC requires that a wall be constructed between residential and commercial, it was our opinion that a well-placed and maintained vegetative buffer would do more to hide the future development and its associated impacts from impacting the existing homes. The first factor is one of distance. The developable portion of the PUD lies nearly 300 feet from the nearest residential property line. Those homes also face east, which means the back of the home is to the west. And we all know we more or less live in the backs of our homes. So from the area around pools and lanais, this site is not even visible. Additionally, the proposed vegetative buffer design when installed and maintained will visually screen in excess of 90 percent of the project from view as you stand within the Kensington development. An existing hedge, which is actually shown here on -- if I can draw your attention to the exhibit before you, in the upper left, is really the existing conditions. You have low-story, mid-story, you have an existing hedge on top of the berm. The berm lies really on both sides of the property line. The top of the berm is pretty much the property line. And again, the Kensington side is maintained by Landscape Florida. This is what exists today. What's being proposed is to add a Type B landscape buffer, really at the toe ofthe berm on the commercial side. And the reason for that is that the lower portion of the plants on that berm over time may get a little woody in between growth periods and replacement, and by putting additional landscaping and Type B buffer on the back side of that berm, it will fill in that lower area where it may occasionally get thin due to Page 94 May 3, 2007 trimming and whatnot. Additionally, based on our line of sight study, combined with our physical requirements and restrictions from FPL, we determined that the hedge on top of the berm would be maintained at a height of 13.5 feet. Through the line of sight study, what that did is it basically took you from the front yard in the Kensington Park, over and through the hedge and all but obscured the building at its nearest possible construction point at its maximum height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is? MR. HANCOCK: Which is 50 feet zoned height measured to the midline of the roof to the top of the roof. And Commissioner, to pick up on the conversation you've already had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm going because you show it on here, and I just want to make sure we understand it. MR. HANCOCK: Zoned height is 50 feet. Actual height including all embellishments and appurtenances, I think that the 15 additional feet that was discussed on the prior project would be more than ample here also. So if we put that at 65 feet, I think we'd be in very good shape. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: This exhibit quantifies in essence the agreement that we have with the Kensington Park Homeowners Association. That agreement is by itself executed between both parties. The elements of that agreement that are subject to enforcement by the county, such as what's to be planned and how it's to be maintained have been contained in the PUD that's before you today. So basically we reached agreement with them. We have an agreement signed. We incorporated elements of that agreement into the PUD. We provided the PUD to Kensington and they okayed it. So what we've got is a very good neighbor relationship with the Page 95 May 3, 2007 really only property that's impacted by the proposed development. There are two items that I'd like to bring to your attention quickly to just make sure that the record reflects the plan correctly. First of all is that the staff report indicates a developable area of 1.14 acres, but the PUD master plan shows it as 1.5. The 1.5 is correct. I spoke with Mr. DeRuntz about that. We're not sure where the 1.14 came from. But the square footage is the real limitation in this project, and the developable area is still 300 feet away from the nearest home. So it's a change in that I don't want the staff report to be incorrect. But what you have in front of you as far as the PUD and the master plan do reflect the actual developable area of 1.5 acres. The second item much smaller is on the PUD on Page 13, under Item 2.1.5.5, the word upon is tacked on to the end of that sentence. And that was our fault. We missed that. There's just one extraneous word on the end and that word needs to be deleted. With that being said, Mr. Hood and I and Mr. Evans if necessary are here to address any questions you may have. And I appreciate your time and patience this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, in the staff report it says that the developer is not committed to any assistance toward affordable housing. Would he be willing to commit today to the very minimal extent that recent applicants have been to our county affordable housing trust fund? MR. HANCOCK: And by that I assume you're talking about I think on commercial square footage there have been many applicants that have come in at, I think, 25 cents a square foot at time of site development plan approval? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty cents, I believe. Nice negotiation, Tim, but it didn't work. MR. HANCOCK: I wish I could claim negotiation, instead I Page 96 May 3,2007 have to claim ignorance. But Mr. Midney, I can count on you to be consistent, sir. The applicant will voluntarily address that matter at 50 cents of square foot to be paid at the time of site development plan approval. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Could you put on the overview the last slide that you had. No, excuse me, the one prior to that that shows the plan. Now, the Florida Power & Light transmission lines still run over this property that's zoned, right? MR. HANCOCK: That's correct, sir. They go from the rear property line adjacent to Kensington all the way to this point here called out as the buildable area. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, my impression is that electric utilities, when they provide an easement underneath their lines or their equipment, still want it to be available for maintenance or repair work and therefore they allow no permanent structures to be there. Generally they're collapsable structures or things that can be relocated to enable their people to come in and do maintenance. MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. We propose no structures within the easement. That's why the buildable area is called out. That's the only place we can place structures. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And there's no lines above that, electric lines? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, nor are there easements over this portion of the property. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay, thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Mr. Murray after that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, go to page 16 of the PUD. It's the development standards. And the concern is you have a Page 97 May 3,2007 minimum distance between structures of 10 feet, yet the structure could be 50 feet high. So do you really want to put buildings that big that close? I mean, could you make that a minimum of 10 feet or one half of the building height, like -- MR. HANCOCK: Whichever is greater? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, a minimum of 10 feet and it's one-half the building height, whichever is greater. MR. HANCOCK: That's a standard, and I don't have any problem making that change. I think ultimately this will be one building in any event. The parcel is not very big. But one-half the building height as a distance between principal structures is acceptable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you'll be rewarded by the building code for that, so -- that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just out of curiosity, two things. How close is the actual live line that will be to your building? And what is the kilowatt that we're talking about? MR. HANCOCK: You asked one question that I have a general sense of and one question I have absolutely no idea. From a general sense the actual line itself is approximately 50 feet to the west. If you stand on the edge of the developable area and look up -- you know, we haven't had it surveyed-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand that. I'm just -- my reasoning is based on safety, health and welfare. And there had been some issues that have been raised in the past proven to be, at least believed to be valid associated with electrical power of great -- I don't know how to phrase it, but you know, strong electrical current affecting people. I just wondered at the distance associated with the building. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't build there. And this is an office Page 98 May 3,2007 building, it's not going to be someplace that somebody would live in but they would be there eight hours. Okay, 1'11 back off, because there isn't any ground that I can bring in the LDC associated with in, but it's something I thought was interesting. MR. HANCOCK: I think you did hit on a key point. As an office building, the exposure, at least in the literature I've read, is really when you're not within a structure, it's increased when you're outside. So being an office building may mitigate some of that. But beyond that I'm out of my element, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And me, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anything else? Tim, I've got a series of questions about the PUD, but unfortunately they're Ray's. MR. HANCOCK: Unfortunate for Ray, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a lot of redundancy. We have to go back into that issue again. But Page 15 of the PUD, under 3.3, if you go down to the one that says business services, you see the page -- I just want confirmation you have the same thing on the same page. MR. HANCOCK: I do, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The last number is 7579. That doesn't exist. I think you mean 7379. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Typo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a fair change? MR. HANCOCK: I believe you're correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have the book here if you want to study it. MR. HANCOCK: The SIC code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll see 7579 does not exist, but 7379 follows 7376, which is more along the lines of where I think you're trying to go to. Page 99 May 3, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're here to build the PUD up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right or wrong it's -- MR. HANCOCK: Not that I should have doubted you in the first place, but yes, sir, that is a typo and I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem, I want to make sure the PUD is accurate. Under the engineering section, you've have a series of groups. The only one that I'm concerned about not fitting into the general office category that you have told the public that you are going to put there is 8713. 8713 is for a surveying office. While surveying is done out of an office, part of it is done as a field operation. Their trucks and their crews gather in the parking lots with their trucks and they load up early in the morning before sunrise in a lot of cases because they have to get out there before the workers do. I would suggest that that would not be a good use for this property. MR. HANCOCK: Can I ask you to consider where development services is on Horseshoe Drive, a local engineering and surveying firm called RW A was immediately adjacent to development services and operated their survey crews out of that building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HANCOCK: And I have been up and down that street all hours of the day. I've been in and out ofRWA offices, and it actually appeared to be compatible to me. When I worked at WilsonMiller we had the huge survey bay in the back and massive crews. But when you have maybe one or two crews, it then becomes less of an issue. I would suggest that maybe it is compatible. And if you get of too large a size you end up building ancillary buildings to address that. Do I think it's a big an issue for us? No, sir. If it's your desire and you're firm in that, then I understand. We would agree. Page 100 May 3, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm willing to go with what this board feels. I know the language that you put forth in your public meetings was it would be limited to professional and medical offices with limited indoor storage for tenants. And if you -- if surveying is considered a professional and medical office under that discussion, fine. I just don't want the public misled by something. MR. HANCOCK: Understood, sir. I do envision that and I think most surveyors these days would envision that they are an office use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any concern? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a comment on uses, Mark. For example, architects' offices aren't listed in there. Do they fit in that or is that something that wouldn't be allowed or -- MR. HANCOCK: Architectural services are 8712, which is covered under 8711 to 8713. We failed to list it specifically just to irritate you, sir. (Laughter. ) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My problem is that what we're showing is all a bunch of numbers. And unless we, like Mark would do, is go down numbers, we have no idea what those numbers mean. MR. HANCOCK: I would suggest the county should probably provide each of you with an SIC manual, because on our end it's very confusing sometimes when we get a call from a client what number are we. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The county did. That's where I got it. MR. HANCOCK: In that case, kudos to the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They haven't in a while. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Seems to be a past tense issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, isn't it available on the Internet anyway? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. You go to OSHA and get all the SIC codes. In fact, what's nice there, you can do a search, you can pull Page 101 May 3, 2007 up different ones and you can cross-reference it to NAICS as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's better for us. MR. HANCOCK: I'm old school I guess, I like the hard back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't forget to give it back to me, then before you go. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. It will be returning, I promise. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: He didn't say when. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 16, Item 3.4, under maximum height, you had three stories, a maximum of 50 feet, and you won't mind if we add there the actual height of 65 feet that you previously agreed to or commented on. Is that -- MR. HANCOCK: No problem at all, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next one, you have H period lighting. I don't think you need the H, do you? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just a small typo, but I saw you correct the other one, so I figured we'd get that one too. And the last question I -- yeah, the two questions. The easement agreement. I notice in the public meeting someone had commented that they wanted to see the wall put in, and they were from Kensington. But yet easement agreement clearly removes the wall. And I think your argument is correct, it leaves that landscaping in place. I just want to make sure the easement agreement is what we're going by. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. The easement agreement is what we're going by. There was one member of the Kensington Park board who wanted to see the wall. He was outvoted. And the board approved the agreement without a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has anybody checked the Kensington agreement to see if it's in conflict or inconsistent where it compared to our LDC? Page 102 May 3,2007 MR. HANCOCK: It is not inconsistent with the LDC from the standpoint that the exact verbiage of the agreement was transferred into the PUD for, if you look at the agreement, for items A through D. There are additional items such as a successor ownership and notification that we did not deem to be enforceable by the county, therefore, we did not put them in the PUD. But the performance criteria of type of landscaping, timing to be installed and maintenance are all consistent with the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then you know the county cannot enforce private deed restrictions. And in order for the Kensington people to make sure they have enforcement power over this through the county, I would ask the county attorney if we could incorporate this as an exhibit to the PUD. MR. HANCOCK: You mean the agreement itself, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. It's recorded, I realize that, but deed restrictions are not enforced by Collier County. And since this has become an issue in regarding the ability for Kensington to approve this PUD or to work with it, then I'm wondering if we can incorporate it as an exhibit to the PUD. MR. HANCOCK: Technically from the landowner's standpoint we don't have a problem with that. I was falling back on -- I may be hampered by history here in that third party agreements where they address something that is not specifically handled in the LDC, such as notification of change of ownership and so forth, that if you put those in the PUD, they're not really enforceable. So I was trying to separate those two. Certainly if Mr. Klatzkow thinks we can -- MR. KLATZKOW: We're not going to enforce that. If there's a private deal between neighbors, that's fine. They can enforce them amongst themselves. But we're not going to enforce that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought I'd ask the question. Last one I have then, Tim, is on the original document that you Page 103 May 3, 2007 all showed on the overhead, it looked like that the owner of this property owns quite a bit of the property to the south as well. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The property to the south seems to have the same restrictions on it that this property does in regards to the FP&L easement along the back side, and along the Livingston Road frontage you have buildable area more or less if it were zoned. MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, we have no buildable area on the balance of that property. It's 100 percent subject to FPL easements. And as Mr. Murray indicated, we really can't do anything outside of our agreement with FPL for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why did FP&L take all the way to Livingston Road on that south piece and leave the piece that you're building in now, do you know? I think it's just kind of odd. They can't run lines and just stop them. MR. HANCOCK: What happened here, I understand, is that we are at the crossroads of an east-west transmission and a north-south transmission, and we are the corner piece of that. MR. EVANS: If you look-- MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Evans -- hey, Dick, he can't -- they're not going to be able to hear you unless you're on the microphone. And he was sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to wait till you get to the microphone, sir, and then state your name first for the court reporter. MR. EVANS: Yeah, I'm Richard Evans, the landowner. If you look to the north, we are really at an intersection on the south side where that six-acre parcel is. And to the north you have the golf course maintenance building, and to the north of that a Hiawassee piece to Pine Ridge, which have the same frontage on Livingston which are buildable, but the back side and everything south of our six-acre parcel do not. Page 104 May 3, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And that's all the questions I have of you, Tim. And I'm going to get my book back. Thank you. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Tim, since actual height's become the issue du jour here, do you realize that it's not measured from the grade like your building height, it's measured from the average centerline of the road? So therefore that could be less. MR. HANCOCK: That's why I wanted the 15 feet, because you're only going to get an eight or nine-foot difference between your zoned height and actual height if you were measuring both from finished floor or finished grade. But in this case the road elevation, you know, is going to be at least 18 inches below our finished grade. So that's why the 15 gives us an -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the concern I have is that what's going to happen if you -- remember you show how you measure your height to middle of the roof. The actual height's going to be at the ridge, unless you have something above that. So what this could do is cause you to lay your roof down lower, if we're not careful here. That's why I'm not a big fan of adding this to it. I mean, it was a good way to report information. I'm not sure it's a good way to regulate building heights. MR. HANCOCK: I tend to agree with you. I think on our end, if this is the way we're going to be proceeding, what we're going to have to do is come into these hearings knowing exactly the difference between the adjacent roadway elevation and our finished floor and make sure we factor that in before making this kind of commitment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if we make a mistake, we're going to flatten roofs in Collier County. And one of the beauties in Collier County is these beautiful steep roofs. Page 105 May 3, 2007 MR. HANCOCK: Agreed. A building of this size, if it's built in one, as one building will probably from a cost standpoint have a flat roof as opposed to mansard. I agree with you, though, I wouldn't want to discourage the roof peaks, they're much more attractive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll have the staff report. MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. You have your staff report dated May the 3rd. And the staff has reviewed this application and it is found it to be in -- consistent with the Growth Management Plan and in particular the infill, Livingston Road infill commercial sub-district. And we were very pleased to see the cooperation that the developer and the Kensington Homeowners Association had in working out the issues of this development. Weare recommending that the deviation for the wall be approved. And we have found that this is compatible with that agreement, maintenance agreement and buffering with Kensington. And we are recommending approval. And if you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to try to address those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of staff? Mike, this is actually Ray, but Mike, too. Ray, you know what I'm going to say. How did this happen again? Another one of those that was hanging around? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew you were going to say that. We Page 106 May 3, 2007 had a lot of those. I hope we're coming to an end to them. MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, Evans was the first one with the application. So we're starting to see these starting to happen now. And this one was prolonged quite a long time because of the environmental issues that was related to this site, and that's the reason for the delay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a lot of redundancy, though, and this is a really bad example of redundancy. It's got tons of it in it. But on Page 13 I have a question. And it talks about the landscaping buffer along their western property line shall comply with the following standards. And it begins to list them. And I'm just wondering, are those standards consistent with the LDC? Are they above the LDC standards, or are they a deviation to the LDC? MR. DeRUNTZ: They are meeting the LDC standards for a Type B buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know the county from past experience hasn't seemed to like ficus as a plant species, yet by this they're requiring ficus to be there. I'm wondering, is that a contradiction in -- MR. HANCOCK: The ficus is already there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that. MR. HANCOCK: Has been there. But it's not part of the Type B buffer. The Type B buffer is in addition to the ficus, and will be placed on the Livingston Road side of the berm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What happens at such a point in the future if that existing ficus hedge doesn't exist? What happens in this language? MR. HANCOCK: The agreement with Kensington Park requires that should it have a problem, that it be replaced. It has to exist as a function of the agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the agreement is not part now of the PUD, and as far as the county is concerned, it does not exist. So how does the county treat this existing ficus that dies five years from Page 107 May 3, 2007 now? MR. HANCOCK: Actually, it states in the PUD that the county would be requiring us to replace it. It's a requirement of the zoning. So that is one element that is contained both in the PUD and in the agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the replacement then, as far as staff is concerned, would be with the ficus material, even though the ficus material, a lot of brands or a lot of species of ficus -- brands, how do you like that, environmentalists will kill me -- a lot of species are outlawed in Collier County. This just seems to be a contradiction. I know that it's to the benefit of the Kensington people, I'm not really obj ecting to it, I just want to make sure that the PUD is consistent with the code and that it can be applied in the future. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. The county staff would more likely not approve a ficus hedge, but it would have to meet a Type B buffer of some other plant material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, you just produced by problem. If the county would not approve a ficus hedge, how can they replace the ficus hedge pursuant to the terminology in this page of the PUD? It says the developer or its successors or assigns shall have the obligation to replace the hedge as it becomes necessary. MR. DeRUNTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're replacing it with a non-ficus species? MR. DeRUNTZ: If the entire hedge was gone. But if it was just portions of it, I would think that you would go with like material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm not -- this isn't that big of an issue. All I would like to do is have someone between now and the time it goes to the Board of County Commissioners with the landscaping staff verify that this can be successfully operated in the Page 108 May 3,2007 future as we go on with this PUD. Is that fair? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. My understanding, it was above and beyond the Type B buffer requirement for the ficus. So it's just additional buffering. But we will run it by landscaping staff to ensure that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd just like to add that, you know, I think ficus is considered an Category 1 invasive species, so it would be good if you would run it by our environmental staff and see if they would recommend changing the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments of staff? MR. DeRUNTZ: I just would like to say on the affordable housing element that 50 cents per square foot at CO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. DeRUNTZ: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. Is there a motion? Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a statement and a motion. I like it when developers and the next door neighbors get along well and work a good agreement that everybody walks away happy. I like to see that. So I'll make a motion for approval with the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll read them. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, thank you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion for approval, seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Discussion. I would suggest three stipulations that we talked about, that actual height be stated at 65 feet, that the affordable housing Page 109 May 3, 2007 contribution would be 50 cents per square foot at CO, and that, as Brad pointed out, the minimum distance between buildings would be half the building height. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that consistent with everybody's understanding? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Accepted by the motion maker and accepted by the second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I raised this issue early on today with regard to Page 7 of the staff report with the phrase affordable housing impact. The developer has not committed to any assistance towards affordable housing. This is not an appropriate statement in the document because it infers that there's a potential for exactions. I checked this with our attorney, Mr. Klatzkow. He agreed that it didn't belong in there. I checked with Mr. Bellows and he suggested that they will find better language. I would hope that we would do so. Because while we all have the desire to achieve the result, we don't want to get ourselves caught up in that situation, I suspect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Why does the language have to be there anyway? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We are trying to address a concern raised by the Board of County Commissioners that all projects at some -- at a level impact housing and housing needs, and they wanted a report or understanding how these projects are dealing with the problem for providing affordable housing. Page 110 May 3, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if the board wants that information, then we should have it as well. And whether it's a conflict, I think it's a point to be raised. And now that it's been raised, maybe the board will take a second look at it and decide how they want to address it. MR. BELLOWS: And we can work with the attorney's office to make sure the language is more palatable. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Additionally, if the board knows that we recognize it as an issue and we're working on it, there may not be a need to put it in writing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we have a motion, we have three stipulations that were already read into the motion now and agreed to. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries eight to zero. Thank you. Cherie', we have one issue to discuss, a couple staff members actually, but they'll be short. We'd like to continue through lunch. Is that going to work with you? Would it be helpful to have a break right now? THE COURT REPORTER: Maybe five minutes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll do better than that. Okay, gentlemen, I'd like to see us work through lunch to finish up, because we're pretty close to finishing. Is that okay with Page III May 3, 2007 everybody? Then let's just take a 10-minute break for the court reporter and for Kady, and then we'll be back here at ten after 12:00. Thank you. (A break was taken.) Item #9 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. We're back on line. Welcome back everyone. Couple of clean-up issues before we go into the remaining two staff items. First of all, the applicant and application that we had a little while ago with the Boxwood PUD. I remember when I asked the applicant how this happened in regards to the mix-up of the PUD, they turned and held their hand out looking at staff. And I've been reflecting on that, and I should have been stronger on my response to that at the time that happened, but it now has come to a point where I think I need to make a statement on it. The applicant changed some things and at a late moment faxed a version to staff well after our package had already gone out, attempting to get it -- leaving it in staffs hands to get it to us. That is not the way the system is supposed to work. If the applicant wants to make changes, they should be -- they should adhere to the guidelines that they're required to adhere to. They should send a number of copies required, whether it's nine, ten, 12 or 20 in hard copy to staff with ample time for staff to distribute them. And if there isn't ample time, then the applicant doesn't -- changes are not accepted and we go forward with the one we have or they reschedule. So Ray, I know that there seemed to be upset attitudes and may have been towards the staff members who were involved. I don't see this as an issue for staff. I see this as an issue for the applicants. And if Page 112 May 3,2007 they don't want to get their act together, then they can schedule another time, because it's not fair to the public to go forward with documents that are not correct. And it certainly wasn't staffs mistake in this case. It was the applicant's for trying to avoid the system. Instead of faxing it they could have hard copied, couriered within two hours or driven down themselves if it meant that much to them and gave it to staff properly, not blaming staff for that mistake. So I want to make that clear on the record. And from now on I hope that staff treats these things a little more harshly in regards to trying to help them out only to get slaughtered in the public meeting. MR. BELLOWS: I appreciate the compliment, and we definitely will be taking a harder line on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item I have to ask is I believe we've got AUIR meetings coming up for May. Mike Bosi had e-mailed me about some dates in May to coordinate with the productivity committee. I was wondering if you have those, Ray, or if you don't if you could e-mail us the dates that are being circulated for our May meetings in regards to the AUIR. So they would be May 21 st, 25th and 29th; is that what I'm reading? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: May-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-first, May 25th and May 29th. And Ray, are they all in this room? MR. BELLOWS: The first two are in the board room. The one on the 29th is a back-up date, and that is tentatively scheduled for conference room 609/610 at the community development. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I won't be at that meeting -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far, any meeting in that boardroom or over in that conference room is no longer going to work for us. We have too many members of this panel that have Page 113 May 3, 2007 problems with hearing. That room has proven to be deficient in the ability for these members to hear. And so, if we can't schedule it in this room, I don't suggest we schedule anything in that room over there, so we may want to look for another date. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you put that back up again so that I can see. I have the 21 st and the 25th. I thought you said something else. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: He said 27th, and that's when we're talking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait, wait, gentlemen, one at a time. Mr. Adelstein, you have to wait to be recognized. It was the 21 st, the 25th and the 29th. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. I apologize, I had it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But the 29th is going to be in the other room, so we're not doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ray's telling us they scheduled it for the 29th. If they can, between now and then they'll have to find a better room to accommodate us. Yes. MR. BELLOWS: I've just been informed that the county has just recently installed a new sound system for that room. We haven't tested it yet but I assume we will be testing it. I don't know if you want to come down and take a listen to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a last resort, we'll leave the 29th on for that room, and if it doesn't work we'll cancel the meeting and wait till you get the right room. That's the only way I can suggest at this point then. Thank you for that information. Everybody, I assume you've got it on your calendars. And on the 17th we'll check to see about how many people will be at each meeting. Page 114 May 3, 2007 Okay. Melissa, I believe old business, Item A is a discussion to clarify how staff determines when the maximum size limits for each type of sign has been met as required by Section 5.06.03 of the LDC. This was brought up by Commissioner Kolflat about a month ago. MS. ZONE: Correct. Melissa Zone, principal planner with department of zoning and land development. Today's presentation is going to be based on Mr. Kolflat's questions that he gave to me in a letter on April 16th -- or April 6th. I provided all of the commissioners a packet, and that letter was part of your packet. The presentation's going to hopefully answer every question. If not then I will continue to go on. The first question is what is the definition for the size of a sign? And obviously we have different signs there we look at. And Commissioner Kolflat says -- gives examples as Exhibit A is a sign, and he goes on. Well, we use -- staff uses the Land Development Code. Definitions for signs is in Section 1.08.02. Sign regulations, as in size of the sign, setbacks, location, you would find in Section 5.06 of the LDC. Now, staff, when we come up with -- to the board on sign variances, we're looking at the appropriateness, the size of the signs, the setbacks, location. We do not review for the sign itself. That is our permitting department, which is the sign plan review department. The picture below is the picture that Commissioner Kolflat provided me to use as examples, and that's what I'm going forward with. As you see on Exhibit A, the sign area is actually -- the purple is called a sign copy. And below, I'm going to read it, is the actual LDC definition. A sign copy are the letters, text or other graphics which compose the message displayed upon the sign surface area. So as you Page 115 May 3, 2007 look at the purple, you see that it is just Unity Church of Naples, nothing more. This is an example of a sign copy. And why I use this picture is because what our sign permitting department looks at is the word Jamestown. If you look on that structure, it's a wall. So you cannot actually determine a structure because it's the wall around the gated community. And so it's very difficult to size that up. So what they're looking at is the sign itself, this being a sign copy. If you go to sign area, it is the sign itself and the definition is the area of a sign as the entire area within the periphery of a regular geometric form or combination of regular geometric forms comprising of all the display area of the sign, including all the elements of the matter displayed. The sign should include aggregate sign area upon which the copy is placed and all parts of the sign structures that bear advertising matter or are constructed in such a manner as to draw attention to the matter advertised. The example of the sign are two here. And if you look at -- hard to tell, but Laurel Greens, if you look within that picture there, you see the whole sign is considered between the two inner columns and below the white coping on top. That they look at is the whole sign area. Another example would be that Big Corkscrew Island Fire and Rescue District. The whole area within the blue of that is the sign area. If you look at the arrow, this is the sign area. So that whole area in here is the sign area, as well as this. Okay? The sign face is the area display surface or part of a sign in which the copy or message is placed. That is the whole area. And you'll see that outlined in blue. An example of that as a sign face is this whole -- as you would look at it as a structure. As well as this one. That's the whole sign face. Why I chose this is because this is not just the sign face but also Page 116 May 3, 2007 you can see this is your sign area. And here is another sign area. So that's the sign area with on the sign place. The sign structure, any structure which support or is capable of supporting any sign. And in this case it has a small roof and this being the whole structure. An example is Canterbury Crossing, which is an excellent example, because you start off, you have the sign copy, which would just be a picture of the cranberry and the words. Then you have your sign area, which is this area. The sign face goes a little bit lower down. And then the sign structure is this whole area. Different signs for different developments, commercial, residential, require different things. And so as not to cloud the determination, these signs definitions are in the LDC Ordinance 0607, which I also provided a copy for you. That might have cleared up some of the questions of how do we determine what's a sign area, sign copy. The ordinances are -- once they're approved ordinances, we have them all listed on the zoning department's web page. If there's any other additional questions, I could go back to the slide or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me get Mr. Kolflat first, because he originated this. Do you have any questions, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I have one but why don't you go ahead first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't. Mr. Murray, and then Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I just had a simple one. Could you go back to that last slide, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Simple when we have 28 pages to regulate signs in this county? I'm not sure anything would be simple. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you bring me through the Page 117 May 3, 2007 process of someone coming to the county seeking to have such a sign. They have to go to the sign people. Do they go to those folks first or do they go to the structure people? What's the process in this? MS. ZONE: Well, they apply for a permit for signs. There's a requirement. And in that, the -- you have like a sign like Cranberry Crossing, it has to be engineered. You can't have just a flimsy structure. So you're going to have the engineer presents the plans, they bring it to the permitting department, who does strictly signs. They look at all of those, the engineering, there's -- you know, they have to make sure they have for wind testing. All of that meets the building code regulations. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. It depends, as Melissa said, it depends on the structure. But a structure like this would go through a normal review process. It would go through structural review. If it has electrical, which most signs do, it would go through electrical and then go through fire as well. And it has to through transportation for view corridors and setbacks. So yes, it goes through the sign permit technician, but then depending on what the structure is, it will go through other reviews. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would have imagined that, I was just trying to understand the process, which one gets preference, is it first structural or is it sign? But it's not as significant in your mind as it might have been in mine. Ifwe could go back then to the Jamestown one where you have -- now that one, you're dealing with proportionality, I assume, size of letters against the structure in this case. MS. ZONE: Correct. Well, not so much against the structure, it's just the lettering itself, because the structure is the wall. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know you made that point, and I purposely emphasize the word structure, because it is still a structure. But it's because it's a wall, it's once again a difference. MR. SCHMITT: Part of the problem here, again, when you look Page 118 May 3, 2007 at height, and I'll give you a recent example. You drive down 41 now and you see the rather ornate entryway into the Treviso Bay. And what you'll see now is what they're doing is actually going to build a wall in front of the portion of that structure which will actually be the sign. Because that is what complied with all the requirements. They wanted, actually, the name affixed or fixed to the wall, but the wall exceeded the height of the sign ordinance, so what they had to do was actually build another smaller wall in front and that's where they're going to put their name. So you're using part of the wall, the entry feature, as long as the entry feature is within the criteria of the sign, then you can put the sign on the wall. So there's kind of ways, if you want to build this 30-foot entry feature, then you can't -- the entry feature can't be the sign, if you understood what I just said. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I did. MR. SCHMITT: Because the feature then becomes the sign. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. And I guess that's what makes your job a little bit challenging. MR. SCHMITT: You understand, those who were in the community here, this was before my time in the community, this went through an enormous amount of review and committee to create the sign ordinance, and we're probably one of the more stringent. I think the only other one I can think of that's probably more strict that us is -- I just lost the name of it in South Carolina. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hilton Head. MR. SCHMITT: Probably the most strict sign codes in the country. And we're not far behind them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you go back one more slide, please, Melissa. MS. ZONE: To this? Page 119 May 3, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what you do is you, then you draw a rectangle around the words; is that right? MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does it have to be a rectangle? MS. ZONE: Well, the words -- no, what you're doing is taking the widest point of the lettering, of this, you know, the name, and going just from underneath the words to the top part of it. So you're doing strictly just here. This is the widest point. So for visual, I made it like that. But I mean, you can look at it this way as well. But you would still -- you're still looking at this width. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the copy area is the smallest rectangle that could circumscribe the lettering. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So ifthere was a cross on top of Unity, you would have to include that cross. MS. ZONE: Correct. But you would not include, ifthey had their address -- Commissioner Tuff, if they had their address above Unity, you would not include the address, because that is an address which they're entitled to do. So that's why we make sign copies strictly just what they're advertising. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So go to the next slide. Okay, so Jamestown was measured from the bottom of the wording to the top of the 1. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go to the next one, please. So in this case if they put this background, then that's what we regulate. We really don't regulate sign copy, we really regulate the sign area. And in this case it's the sign area is the background square, that texture 111. MS. ZONE: Right. Page 120 May 3,2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If that wasn't there, and that was just the wall, would they then be able to swell words Unity Church to the red line? MS. ZONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that putting that little geometry behind your sign could hurt you in the size of your sign. MS. ZONE: It could hurt them. But then we would look at the sign area right to the red. And if that exceeds -- for them it was 18 square feet, 12 square feet -- if it exceeds what the code allows, then they would have to make it smaller or come in before you for a vanance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point is that if you don't have copy area, if you don't have geometry behind your copy area, the copy area would be the determining size. MS. ZONE: It would, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the next slide. MS. ZONE: And then those are the examples. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when you did Laurel Green, how did you measure the sign? You said you measured it totally from the ground up underneath the coping to -- MS. ZONE: Right. They look at -- for a sign area they look at, exactly, the ground all within that tan color. This crest was also part of the sign area. But here, if you look at Big Corkscrew, right there is their address. Technically that does not have to be part of the sign area. They included it in, they still met code requirements so they were fine, but technically they wouldn't have to be measured there for the height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would you do, go back to the textured 111 on the Unity sign where you show it as sign area in your packet. If they would throw an address into that rectangle, then you would reduce that a little bit. MS. ZONE: No, we just wouldn't count the address. Page 121 May 3, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the rectangle -- MS. ZONE: So they probably would be able to go a little bit larger just because of the address being added on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do we have anything that regulates the size? In this case, this Laurel Green looks like an entrance feature kind of thing. Is there something that regulates the size of that? MS. ZONE: Well, you're allowed in residential, and they're larger, and they're like 64 square feet, I believe, or something like that. So if Laurel Greens wanted two signs, they would have to split that number up. But the structure it's on itself, we do not regulate as in other than in height. So it does not -- width-wise, no. MR. SCHMITT: We regulate the height of the fence or the wall. But if it's the entry feature, I don't know if you wanted to put the Eifel tower there as an entry feature, no, we wouldn't regulate that, per se. I mean, we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we really have no regulations for entrance features? MR. SCHMITT: We do not. You want to build the Arch de Triumphe, as long as there's not lettering on it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's keep that quiet. I think I'm done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Go to the one that shows the sign area. That's what we're trying to determine. MS. ZONE: This one? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right. So what we're saying then is that this is the sign area when we talk about the area of the SIgn. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, a petitioner comes in and Page 122 May 3, 2007 you go to the LDC, there are certain maximum limits in square feet. For example, the one we had in this church I think was 12 square feet. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right. So the 12 square feet area then is what is encompassed in the red. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But now if you go to the code at 5.06.03, it says this: The maximum size limitation -- which is what we're trying to establish here -- the maximum size limitation shall apply to each structure. MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, ifit says to each structure, why doesn't that include what part of the structure? MS. ZONE: Well, as I put in there the definition part of your packet I gave the LDC definition of a structure as well as a sign structure. Both definitions. A structure -- signs fall under the definition of a structure. So when they use -- when they said in -- and it's right in the beginning. It's the first sentence when they use the word structure, they're referring to the sign structure. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But it says that the maximum limitation in square feet we consider should include the structure. MS. ZONE: Correct. But when you go to each individual sign, like for sign area for residential or sign area for commercial, sign area for off-premise signs, sign area for real estate signs, it gets specific and then tells you height and those type of limitations. So it's just using that as a generic term to recognize signs are a structure. But then when you get into the specifics, if it's residential or commercial, then they go into more of what the structure should look like as in height. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, there's one other part that bothered me that I had in the memo there, was that the functionality of Page 123 May 3, 2007 the signs not having much influence. For example, this Unity Church one that we viewed was a sign that was on property that was leased or not owned by the person that had the sign on there. And as such, there was a specific limitation of area that could be there that took no consideration in its location as far as the roadway was width. And for an arterial roadway or collateral roadway you'll have much higher traffic rate, and your rate of response in recognizing the sign is diminished from that as you would have on the slower local road. And yet there's no variation that we could consider in that petition for the fact that this should have been larger just for the visionality (sic) of it. MS. ZONE: That's why you have the sign variance process. Because it would be very difficult to have every road listed in the LDC and list specific requirement for each road. So you give the basic requirements that are standard, that are out there, and then if the applicant feels they need more they come before you to ask for that sign variance. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So that's where they would make the request for a variation? MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Interesting, just a point. I do recall the question, and it may have been Commissioner Kolflat who asked that of the petitioner, why didn't you seek a larger sign. And the response was something to the effect, well, we were concerned we would lose everything or we were concerned we would be turned down and we didn't want to go there. They indicated that they were -- not fearful but they were unsure. Now, given that I just posed that, if someone were to come into your office seeking to have a larger than that on the same premise that's been offered, what is the level of cooperation in that regard? Page 124 May 3,2007 What do we do? MS. ZONE: Well, staff is always very cooperative with our-- with the petitioners who come in. And you would take -- and Commissioner Kolflat had an excellent example. You're on a road that traffic moves quickly and so it could be harder to view. That makes perfect sense. That is their hardship. When they're applying for the sign variance, they need to state that. The applicant did not state that in their application. It was Commissioner Kolflat who presented that. But the applicant also stated for the record that they wanted to have their sign -- they didn't want a larger sign than what Seacrest School had. And they also noted that they took it not only to Seacrest who approved it but then also took it to their parishioners, who also approved that. And she did not want to go larger, because this is what Seacrest approved as well as the parishioners. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're absolutely right and I'm glad you corrected me, because I lost sight of that. That's absolutely true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Melissa, thank you. MS. ZONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next on the agenda is Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: I just had one issue. Last meeting you brought, the question was raised regarding the amendment to the LDC for the additional neighborhood information meeting, if an applicant was more than one-year-old before you saw it. I said that it was in the last LDC amendment cycle. I sent you all a note. I was mistaken, that's because I reviewed it and it actually is in the LDC amendment cycle you're going to be seeing here shortly. So it is, Mr. Adelstein, it is in this cycle. It hasn't been approved yet. So I wanted to correct the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Is there any other old business? Page 125 May 3,2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other new business? Item #10 NEW BUSINESS (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion of addenda? It's kind oflate for that. Motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. We're adjourned. Thank you all. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:37 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARKP. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected , as Page 126 May 3, 2007 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 127