Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/17/2007 R May 17,2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida May 17,2007 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 Tor Kolflat Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA 2" REVISION COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 17,2007, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAlL 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 PRJOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRJTTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRJOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERJAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A 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 - APRJL 5, 2007, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS - APRJL 24, 2007, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 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 5/3/07 1 B. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8284, Tree Farm Land Trust, represented by Robert Mulhere, AICP of RWA, Inc., and George Varnadoe, Esquire, of Cheffy, 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 commercial 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 FROM 5/3/07 C. Petition: BD-2007-AR-II278. Lawrence Besko and Louis Cassi Boat Dock represented by Eric Schneider of Turrell & Associates, Inc., requesting a 12.5-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot limit as provided in LDC Section 5.03.06.E.I to allow a boatlift addition to the existing dock to accommodate one vessel for a total protrusion of 32.5 feet. The subject property is located at 197 Topanga Drive, Bonita Springs, in Section 06, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ashley Blair) D. Petition: BD-2006-AR-1 1004. Martha Murtaugh, represented by Eric Schneider, of Turrell and Associates, Inc., requesting a 32-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06.E.1 to allow a boat dock facility protrudiug a total of 52-feet into the waterway and accommodating 2 vessels. The property is located at 267 6th Street W, Bonita Springs, Little Hickory Shores, Unit 2, Lot 16, Block E, Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike Sawyer) E. Petition: V A-2007-AR-I1300. Irvine Dubow, representing himself, requests a Variance petition to rebuild a pool cage damaged from Hurricane Wilma that would encroach 5 feet into the setback area. The property is located at 5901 Almaden Drive, in the Sonoma Lake subdivision, Unit I, Lot 26, Folio # 0000073755001459, Section 8, Township 49 S, Range 26 E, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John- David Moss) F. Petition: V A-2007-AR-11446, The District School Board of Collier County, represented by Gary Krueger, AlA, of Schenkel Shultz, Inc. and Vladd Ryziw, Graef, Anhalt, Schloemer, and Associates, requests a Variance petition for the Immokalee Career Center. This variance is for the building height. The District School Board is requesting a height variance of IO-feet to proposed design height of 45-feet from the currently permitted 35-foot height restriction. This request will only apply to one of the three proposed structures on the redevelopment site. The subject property is located at 800 Immokalee Drive, New Market Subdivision, Block 24, Less OR 1518, Page 2030, 6.48 acres, Section 33, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 5/17/07CCPC AgendalRB/sp 2 May 17,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the -- what is the date today? May 17th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And if you happened to notice a couple different kind of flags on each end of this podium, we have two people here who are celebrating the Norwegian -- some Norwegian day. Those are not rebel flags. So, politically, please don't get upset. Those are Norwegian flags. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY CLERK With that, I would like to have roll call by our secretary. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. Page 2 May 17,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gentlemen, what is the date? What is it officially? COMMISSIONER TUFF: May 17th is Syttende Mai. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Syttende Mai. That's how it is pronounced, okay. Well, we have a Hungarian statue downstairs for some kind of independence day for Hungary and I think we ought to have one for Ireland. Why don't we have one for Norway, too. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Okay. With that, we'll move into the agenda. We are into our second revision of the agenda and I would like to explain to you how that has come about because there is another revision needed today. As you recall, we had the Home Dynamics of Naples, LLC continued from our last meeting due to a confusion in documents. It had originally been on the very first agenda towards the end. In talking with staff, it came to a decision that we ought to move continuances up to the first part of the agenda from now on in each planning commission meeting. And out of fairness to the public, hopefully that means they will be sitting long and waiting through the meeting only -- shorter the second time than the first. So as a standard from now on, any continued item will be moved to the first of the agenda, unless there is a reasonable request by the applicant not to do so. And with that, we also had a request for a continuance for the Tree Farm Road PUD, which is at the intersection of951 and Immokalee Road. The continuance was requested by the applicant. I have a letter here from RW A. And the reason for that is that there was a series of documents Page 3 May 17,2007 distributed, which lent to a lot of confusion. Although, I think that the -- while the applicant requested it, he did so because there may be a staff generated reason why this is needed. So maybe it is a staff requested continuance as much as an applicant's. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. Anyway, with that, I would need a motion to amend the agenda for Tree Farm Road being continued until June 7th, '07. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein and seconded by Commissioner Murray. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. I don't believe there are any other changes to the agenda at this time. Anybody else have anything? (No response.) Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll move on to the planning Page 4 May 17,2007 commission absences. We have three dates scheduled in the next week, eight days, ten days for the methodology document that we have all received in regards to the AUIR. Now, this is not a discussion of the AUIR facts and data. It is a discussion of the methodology to get there. If you all recall, the last AUIR there was a lot of concerns over the population statistics and the ways that we generate the need for the facilities that we have. And we asked staff to go back and look at alternative ways. This report is in response to that. So it's not going to be something that we are going to be dissecting every department's request for services and all that. We're basically looking at the methodology. Staff has put three dates on the calendar. May 21 st, which is Monday; May 25th, which is Friday; and May 29th, which is Tuesday. I don't see how we would use up that much time, but because it has been scheduled that way I would like to first ask for May 21 st. How many members of this commission will attend, which is Monday of next week? Okay. Looks like just about everybody. So that is a go. May 25th is next Friday. The Friday before Memorial Day. Everybody -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I won't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who could attend that one? Okay. We have a quorum again. Okay. And the Tuesday after Memorial Day is May 29th. It looks like they want to make sure you don't take too long of a holiday weekend. In case we have to go to that day, which I seriously doubt, what is the attendance? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Where is it going to be? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that one -- good point, Mr. Adelstein. Page 5 May 17,2007 In the last meeting there was discussion about the 29th meeting being over at developmental services, if needed, because this room is not available. Staff indicated that the hearing or sound system over there was improved. Mr. Adelstein was going to go check it out. Did you check it out? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Not yet. When I went out there, there was nobody to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, at this point it doesn't matter where it is scheduled. We'll leave it like it is. On the 25th we'll discuss the 29th. I don't think we need to go into that today. We'll see what happens. Mr. Adelstein, could you check out that room between now and the 25th? Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: All regular times? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. All those meetings start at 8:30. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~ APRIL 5, 2007, REGULAR MEETING We have minutes from April 5, 2007 for approval. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein and seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 6 May 17,2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. I tern #6 BCC REPORT ~ RECAPS ~ APRIL 24, 2007, REGULAR MEETING Ray, we have the BCC recaps. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The board met on May 8th and they heard the PUD extension for Marisol. That petition was withdrawn by the petitioner. The board also approved the sign variance for the Unity of Naples Church. And that was approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman's report. My comments were basically going to be about the instruction of the agenda, which I have already made. So we can move on to the advertised public hearings. Item #8A PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-8379, HOME DYNAMICS OF NAPLES, LLC Page 7 May 17,2007 The first petition is PUDZ-2005-AR-8379. It's a continuation of the Home Dynamics of Naples, which is a Boxwood RPUD. It's off of 951. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this hearing, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the planning commission? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, I recused myself last time, so I will continue that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I talked to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I, too, spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. I reminded him that the last meeting got continued after I asked my first question and I did not finish asking the many questions I have. So we will get into that certainly today. And then just before the meeting, Mr. Duane came up and wanted to go over some of the concerns, the changes potentially in the development standards table. I suggested we wait and go over them at the meeting. Okay. With that, Richard, it's all yours. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I believe we were in the development standards table at the time your questions came up. And I am going to have Mr. Duane answer any questions you may have regarding that. But before we get to that, I just wanted to basically update the planning commission on -- if you will recall, we discussed the possibility of a shared berm between the Bucks Run PUD to the south and our PUD. We have met with the developer of Bucks Run, Bill Hoover. He Page 8 May 17,2007 is receptive to that idea. He thinks that's a good idea to get rid of that no-man's land. He expressed that it wasn't -- it wasn't necessary for him to have a concrete block wall between the projects. That he would be fine with a nice, pressure treated wood wall with landscaping on both sides. So I would request, if we could, add that as an option. We'll still do the wall along the south boundary in either pressure treated or solid concrete. Of course, the north wall and the other walls adjacent to Vanderbilt Country Club would remain solid concrete walls. So we are not asking to change that, but the developer of Bucks Run said, in his opinion, it was unnecessary for his development to have a block wall there because the landscaping would be -- more than hide that issue. He didn't want to put our clients through that necessary expense. And we would be happy not to go through that necessary expense, if that is acceptable to the planning commission. I spoke briefly to Mr. DeRuntz and he doesn't have an issue with a wood wall there in lieu of a concrete wall. And I am just bringing that up as one of the requests or revisions after meeting with the neighbor to the south. With that, I will back away, unless you have any other questions regarding other parts of the PUD document, Mr. Strain, at this time or if we want to just go back where we left off in the development table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question with your first statement that you just made about the wall. And then Ms. Caron does, too. My question about the wall is: He wants a wall. He just doesn't want it block; he wants it wood? MR. YOV ANOVICH: He's fine with a pressure treated wood wall on the boundary. There is going to be landscaping on both sides of the wall. We're each going to be responsible for the maintenance of our side of the wall and the landscaping. And he believes, for purposes of protecting his development, that Page 9 May 17,2007 the wood wall would serve the same function. He did not plan on putting up a wall anyway. Because he wasn't required to. He was going to put a fence up -- a chain-link fence, which he could do. So he said -- all he really cared about was during construction the solid wood wall would serve the same function as protecting him from nOise. So he was happy to work it out with the developer, my client, to the north. So that's where that request came from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Long term though, what is the -- what would be the difference in maintenance between a concrete wall and a pressure treated wood wall? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I would imagine that the wood wall will, obviously, need to be painted over time, and probably the same thing with the concrete wall. I think what was important is you have a residential project to a residential project. A wall really wouldn't be required. It was a request originally from Mr. Hoover that we put a concrete wall there. And it would be totally within our property. Not on his property. Because it would have been backed off, as we talked about. You would have a situation where you would have -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No. Mr. Yovanovich, I understand that. I am thinking long term about the people who are going to live in that development and be responsible for that fencing, that wall. And, yes, it is cheaper for the developer to get out of it by doing a wood wall, but is it cheaper in the long run to the people who are going to have to live and maintain that wall? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not an expert in what it would cost to maintain a block wall versus a wood fence. But the -- I can't imagine that with -- that it's going to be that significant a difference in maintenance costs. And the short term -- keeping in mind there was not going to be a Page 10 May 17,2007 block wall there anyway for the people of Bucks Run. What was going to be there was a chain-link fence. And they are going to get upgraded from a chain-link fence to a pressure treated wood wall. They thought that was a fair trade-off under the circumstances. And it makes it a little bit more economically feasible to share the berm with a wood wall in place than to each have their own separate berm and no-man's land in between with a concrete wall on Boxwood's property and a chain-link fence on Bucks Run's property. And that was the thought process that Mr. Hoover had in trying to save everybody some money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Y ovanovich, are you familiar with the Type A buffer? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not, but Mr. Duane can probably tell you what that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't believe the Type A buffer requires a wall. Mr. DeRuntz, is that true? MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I'm not sure why we started this exercise. Because I noticed in your -- it's more complex in your PUD document. The PUD document refers to a south buffer detail, which does not exist in the document. But on the master plan, the south buffer is referred to as a 1 O-foot buffer, Type A, or 15 buffer, Type B, to be determined during site development plan or plat review. So I'm just wondering since you have the option on your master plan why we need to get into the decision with you on whether it is a pressure treated or block wall since it looks like you're going to have that option anyway through the SDP process. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think because -- during my opening remarks at the last meeting, I said there was going to be a Page 11 May 17,2007 concrete wall around the entire property. And being ever -- trying to be careful to make sure I don't contradict myself, ifthere was a change I felt like I needed to express that to the planning commission. And that was something that Mr. Hoover -- originally, as I said, Mr. Hoover requested the concrete wall. Now that there is an opportunity to share the berm, he doesn't feel that the concrete wall is necessary. And I just wanted to clarify on the record the change that Boxwood and Bucks Run have agreed to and point that out to the planning commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you still comfortable with the language that's in your proposed PUD? MR. YOV ANOVICH: As long as it gives us the option, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think -- the way I just read it, it seemed to leave it up to the SDP process. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. Again, I said what I said on the record and I didn't want anybody to come back and say, "You said a concrete wall and there is a wood wall there." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll see where it goes then with the discussion. Are there any discussions further on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The last time we left off, we discovered we had a document that was incomplete, let's say, for lack of a better term. We now have received a new document and this morning received another supplement to the new document again changing the same document section that was requested to be changed last time. Now we have a third rendition. I had not finished my questions from last time, but I have always asked the commissioners first for their comments, if you would like. Since this is a new document, do you all want to ask your questions first or do you want me to go into mine? COMMISSIONER CARON: I haven't even read this. Page 12 May 17,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Duane, I guess this is your document. Although, I'm not sure why you'd want to lay claim to it, but we'll go into that. MR. DUANE: Here we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I noticed you passed out a new Exhibit B, Table One. MR. DUANE: This reflected a few of the changes that you discussed with Mr. Y ovanovich. And I indicated to you before the meeting I understand you may have some other questions or changes. (Commissioner Midney entered the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're clarifications to understand what you're trying to say. Let's start with the very first line under minimum lot area, multi-family. You have 2,100 square feet per unit and then under the asterisk, minimum area for multi-family use is 10,000 square feet, but each individual unit may be a minimum of2, 1 00 square feet. MR. DUANE: Staff wanted to maintain some minimum area for multi-family use. And that was really put in there at their behest. The important standard is the 2,100 square feet per unit, but at a very minimum there has to be 10,000 square feet of area contained in any component of the project developed with multi-family uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With this -- and the minimum floor area of 1,000 square feet per developmental unit. Up on top it says 2, I 00 square feet per unit. And the third line says 1,000 square feet for DU. Can you explain that to me? MR. DUANE: Yes. The 2,100 square feet is the minimum amount of area that needs to be maintained for each multi-family lot, if you will. That's the minimum lot area where the minimum floor area would be 1,000 square feet. We are going to plat the lots and each of these lots is going to comprise more or less 2,100 square feet for each multi-family unit. Page 13 May 17,2007 The minimum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you can have less than five units in a multi-family building. You can't do a four-plex then? MR. DUANE: No. That was not the intent. One of the standards in our code today is that you have a minimum of an acre for a multi-family development. Staff and I discussed that. They just wanted something other than the 2,100 square feet. And we agreed to put that the minimum area of each multi-family area would be 10,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't have-- MR. DUANE: I don't think the standard particularly is very relevant, but I added it at the behest of staff. A minimum lot area for multi-family use as distinguished from the minimum -- distinguished it from the minimum lot area per each unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a lot ofPUDs come through here. This is the first time I have seen any reference this way. And I'm trying to understand exactly where you're going with this. Mr. Y ovanovich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think this goes to the confusion of how you treat townhomes under the Land Development Code. The townhome is where we actually plat the individual lot and the building is on it, but it's in a building that contains six, seven, eight units in it. So staff considers that multi-family for purposes of one standard, but it's an individual platted lot for purposes of another standard because we are selling the land beneath that townhome unit. So I think what we're trying to say is the lot beneath that town home unit will be 2,100 square feet, but the individual square footage -- the building portion ofthat will be no less than 1,000 square feet. I think we were trying to address that the code doesn't really specifically deal with this situation. And I guess -- I guess as we are going through the process, different -- different reviewers are coming up with different ways of Page 14 May 17,2007 handling that issue of how do you deal with townhomes when you have more than three in a building. So I think that's -- it's confusing, but I think that's what we were trying to get at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This first came up, I believe, in the Summit Place project that you were also part of. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. We had -- at one time we were both doing an SDP and a plat and they were both dealing with the same thing. We still haven't gotten that figured out yet on how to make it work. And, frankly, this is the first time I have seen this standard, as well. I understand what staff is trying to do. And, you know, maybe we didn't do a very good job of explaining it through the table, but I hope the explanation we're giving right now kind of explains how we got to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To understand this, from my perspective, if you wanted to build 2,100 square foot units and you wanted to have that as to size, you would have to put five of them there in order to get to the minimum of the 10,000 that you need. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that correct? So you're looking at a five unit building at 2,100 square feet as a minimum that you have to get to the 10,000 minimum -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: 1 don't think we have any buildings less than 10,000 square feet cumulative, as far as the lot will be. Not necessarily the square footage in the building, but the lot that will be assigned to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm trying to understand. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Duane, your patio -- what is a patio or a zero lot line home? I know what they are, but I want to Page 15 May 17,2007 hear you tell us. MR. DUANE: A zero lot line is where they share a common-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get the speaker closer. MR. DUANE: They share a common property line. The two units are attached to each other and the property line goes down the middle of the unit. That's why it can be zero on one side and then you increase the side of the setback to 12 feet outside the unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about the patio? MR. DUANE: I viewed that as very similar to the zero lot line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have -- very similar. Usually it's written zero -- let me ask. You have got zero or 12. And that means if you have got 12 feet between them, you have got six and six in each building. Six on each side of the line, is that correct, and zero on the other side? So you have got zero feet on one property line, 12 feet to the next building on the lot next-door, zero feet. Now, how wide do you think your lots are for one of those patio homes? You're saying 80 feet. That is much wider than your single-family home. So you're going to have 80-foot wide zero lot lines? MR. DUANE: Well, that is correct. That's the way the table is written. This is principally going to be a townhouse development, but there are alternate standards allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you realize that an 80-foot wide lot is what most developments would consider an estates lot, not a patio or zero lot line? MR. DUANE: But that's for two units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It doesn't read that way. You don't have two patio homes on an 80-foot wide lot. Where does it say that? MR. DUANE: But you have a zero lot line where you share a common property line. COMMISSIONER CARON: It says "or". Page 16 May 17,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you have got zero on one side and 12 on the other. They are not touching. They are not common walls. That's a duplex. That would be your two-family. A patio and zero lot line aren't the same as a two-family or are you saying they are? MR. DUANE: I am treating them similar for this purpose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So basically we can cross off patio and zero lot line and all you're putting is duplexes on an 80-foot wide lot? MR. DUANE: No. I wanted to be able to have a zero lot line, attach the two structures along a common property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Maybe I need staff to help clarify their understanding of this. If you have a zero lot line -- say you have a 40-foot wide lot for your purposes of discussion. And according to your minimum side yard, you have 12 feet and zero. That means on one side of that lot line that unit is on zero and the opposite side is 12 feet back from the other side. So you're down to 26 or 28. And then that means your next house starts on that next property line over. So how do you get to 80 feet? You're still at 40 foot for two lots. MR. DUANE: What is your suggestion to change? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm trying to help you out. If you want to lock your client into 80-foot wide lots for patios and zero lot line, be my guest. I think you're making a grave mistake. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think what Mr. Strain is saying is that probably is a mathematical error and probably should be 40 feet, instead of 80 feet. And I appreciate that suggestion and I think you're right. It should go down to 40 feet in width versus 80 feet in width because you're right. That would leave a 28-foot wide structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you put a duplex over the common Page 17 May 17,2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your minimum side yard -- your new table cleared up the .05. So it's 12 feet and zero feet. Under your multi-family where it says zero to 15 feet, can you explain what zero means in that regard? MR. DUANE: That's when the townhouses all are attached to each other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need the speaker, Bob. MR. DUANE: When all the townhouses are attached to each other, they will, in effect, have the zero setback from the units that they're attached thereto. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then they are considered multi-family. I thought the argument was they needed to be fee simple. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the conundrum. I think where we get stuck is we need -- obviously, if they're conveyed in fee simple there is going to be no separation between the property lines. I think zero between the units and 15 feet means from the outside of the building, okay? And, again, I don't know a better way to do it. You have your building and the internal structure would be zero and outside of the building you will have 15 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know where you're going. I just don't know how to get there any better than that either. MR. YOV ANOVICH: 1 don't either. Ifwe can figure out how to do this and put it in the code, it would sure make everybody's life a I ittle bit easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think your clarification for the record helps because if staff has a question, then they can go back to this record and look and see what you're trying to describe. In the minimum distances between structures, I'm curious how that fits in with the minimum side yards. Because in some cases you Page I 8 May 17,2007 have 12 feet and zero, but yet you have half the building height feet not less than 20 feet. Now, if your minimum distance between zero lot lines or zero patios, or whatever you want to call them, is half the building height, the building height is 30 feet, you're looking at 15 feet. Yet, under minimum side yard you're allowed to go 12 feet. How does that work? MR. DUANE: There are variances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you need the speaker. MR. DUANE: They would be a variance with another one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And a variance means it needs to be corrected? MR. DUANE: I would say that the -- the intent was that the least restrictive one apply. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, I think it's the building issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you're going to have to use the microphone. As far as -- this isn't just under the multi-family, the townhouse issue. You have that same language under every single one of your product types. So, yet, in the product type side under minimum side yards you have five feet -- five feet and zero, 12 feet and zero. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What we need to do is we probably need to delete that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Delete what? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I am trying to think. The single-family, you're right. It shouldn't be not less than 20 feet because we can get to 12 under the scenario of -- or ten because of the side setback number. So you're right. Theoretically it can only be ten feet. So we probably need to change that number to ten feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 20? MR. YOV ANOVICH: From the 20, yeah, on single-family. It should just say ten feet. Because we can get that close under the side Page 19 May 17,2007 setback requirements. That should just say ten feet. On the single-family attached and townhome, we're stuck with that situation again. Obviously you have the internal, which is zero, and then the external, which, again, would allow ten feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you say on that one -- have not less than 20 feet between buildings? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That covers you because your others aren't buildings. They're individual units. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we probably could do the same thing on the multi-family between -- 20 feet between buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is someone from staff making notes of all this? I f it is not clear, Mr. DeRuntz, you need to stand up and tell us when it's not clear. If this is going to go into the record, we need to make sure that when this development comes forward it can be appropriately judged. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, again, your same suggestion would work for the between buildings and the patio home scenario. I would propose just taking that out and putting 12 feet. Because that is the difference you can have between buildings in that scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with that. MR. SCHMITT: I don't want to negotiate this -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We are not negotiating. We are just clarifying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem I have, Richard, we can't make a mistake on this. It has to go into the record carefully. This is the third time. This is the third screwed up development standards table. I want to make sure that when we get done here today -- if we're going to go forward, staff is absolutely clear on what product you're going to produce down the road. Otherwise, we have a mess on our Page 20 May 17,2007 hands. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, I didn't say anything last time. 1 think you're right. I think we need to go through the table. And, again, you know, a couple of these don't fall under the scenario that were described, as far as the -- the townhome insinuation. Those should have been caught much sooner, but the townhome ones you can understand our dilemma on those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you or any of your people bring with them a computer that has this table in it that they could -- what I'm getting to is: When we finish -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Have it modified and handed out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We may want to get it corrected. You may have to come back at the end of to day's meeting with a corrected version. I'm just not comfortable right now. We are getting through this. There is still more to go. 1 just don't understand it myself. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Well, I have written down the changes so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So hopefully -- hopefully it won't be that hard to -- if you can read my chicken scratch, we'll assure you that it gets done correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you have got good credibility with this board I think. I would hate to see it screwed up if this doesn't get done correctly. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will get done right. I can assure you of that when we get through this continued discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I notice under maximum building height you did have 35 feet, but now you have changed that to 25. It makes a lot more sense that way. Under accessory structures the front had a 23-foot setback with an asterisk. I noticed the asterisk is now removed, which fixes that Page 21 May 17,2007 problem. Accessory structures, also your side yards. They are listed at five feet for the first two, which correspond basically to the side yards up above, but then there is zero feet and zero feet for the single-family. Does that mean you're going to have buildings -- principal structures in one portion of the project and that 12-foot setback for the patio home or the zero lot line home, as an example? You could have accessories in that 12- foot setback area abutting on a common property line so that you have got a solid wall from one end 0 f the property to the other. MR. DUANE: Well, the intent was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need the speaker, Bob. MR. DUANE: The intent was so that they could be attached. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The accessory structures across property lines could be attached? MR. DUANE: Not across property lines. On the same property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then this doesn't work. MR. YOV ANOVICH: How about we say zero feet for internal units? I think that's what we were trying to do. If you have a pool behind one townhome, it will be zero next to the other internal townhome. So I think -- we are not asking to go into the 12- foot setback area for the accessory structures. Again, it was dealing with -- with that townhouse scenario. So if we say zero between -- within building units, zero feet between building units -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that work for the patio and zero lot line properties? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, I think the issue was if you have -- if you have the straddle of the line scenario -- one unit here, one unit here, and you have your 12 feet over here -- we're not asking to go into the 12 feet. What we're saying is the internal unit that already has Page 22 May 17,2007 the zero lot line for principal structures can also have a zero lot line for the accessory structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Richard, I have done this kind of work all my life and this is the most confusing table I have come across. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry you feel that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I feel very uncomfortable with the explanations, as far as -- not the ones where you're -- what you're saying. I believe you believe what you're saying. But I'm not understanding clearly what you mean. I'm wondering: Do you have a -- is it that difficult to produce a product layout on a typical site plan to show us what it is you're trying to explain to us on a product by product basis? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, honestly, right now the plan is to do a town home project. We're not looking at doing duplexes. We're not looking at doing single-family homes. But the market can change and we are trying to make sure that the table provides that flexibility. I am doing the best I can today to explain these issues. I don't think these are changes from the table you saw originally. The questions you're raising right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Some of them are, but some of them aren't. Is this a change or has this already gone through a staff review? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. The side one is not a change. The front changed. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one above changed. The side one has not changed from the table that was passed in the second go-round. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. The zero. That zero was in the document you all saw. Page 23 May 17,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will ask Mr. DeRuntz. And ifhe can explain it adequately, that might help. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be fine. I guess what I'm saying is -- and I'm not saying you're wrong in bringing it up. I'm just saying it wasn't raised as an issue by staff. I hope my explanation helps show you the intent of that, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, before we leave here, if this is going to go anywhere, we are going to understand this. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know you are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I have a suggestion. Why don't you have a column called multi-family townhome and another column just multi-family general? And then write the standards in the general one like you would for the regular multi-family and then in the multi-family townhome write the standards for that. And then that should clear up some confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not a bad idea. Mr. DeRuntz, did you -- I'm not getting to you yet on questions, but if you had a comment, feel free. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, sometimes the light bulb just goes on. I think we have typically said in other tables the same as principal structure. So why don't we just say, "Same as principal structure"? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would save a lot -- SPS. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There you go. It clicked. I remembered how we have done it in the past. We have said, "Same as principal structure," for other tables. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the side yards would be SPS for all these then? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like pulling teeth. You have a highlighted line called distance between principal structures. On the Page 24 May 17,2007 previous document that was treated as the other highlighted areas, accessory structures and principal structures, meaning it was a header, not a factual column, not a factual line. In this new version -- the third one -- you have put N/ A in each one of those. What does that mean? MR. DUANE: It means that it was not applicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you need -- MR. DUANE: It's not applicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do we have it there? MR. DUANE: I left it blank the first time. 1 added N/Ajust to clarify it just like I have in some other portions of the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that highlighted line stuck in the middle of the accessory structures section, it's not supposed to be highlighted then? Because it appears as a header the way you have written the standards table. And then below that you have maximum building height not to exceed. Now, since that is a header, or it appeared to be as the other header, it separates it from the other two. I don't know what maximum building height you're referring to. Are you referring to accessory structures? MR. DUANE: Yes. Under the accessory structure column. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you go up to the side yard under accessory structures and over to the right under clubhouse recreational buildings -- MR. DUANE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it says building height 15. Yet, under the line that we just talked about it says feet, 20. MR. DUANE: No. Twenty feet is the maximum building height of the accessory recreational structure. That's the same maximum -- that's the same height that is provided on the master plan as the limitation in the shaded area, which is not to exceed 20 feet, which is Page 25 May 17,2007 adjacent to Vanderbilt Beach Country Club to the north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 20 foot that you have in the last line is the height of the clubhouse recreational area-- MR. DUANE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or an accessory structure, but the main structure can go to 25 feet or 35 feet? MR. DUANE: Correct. But the recreational building was limited to a maximum height of20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Let's go back to that again. If you go to the upper part of the table, it says maximum building height not to exceed. And under clubhouse recreational buildings it says 25 feet within two stories height as zoned, but not to exceed 35 of actual -- or 35 feet actual. Now, you just said it was going to be 20 feet. Now, can you clarify that? MR. DUANE: The accessory structures were going to be limited to 20 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Like a gazebo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I thought you just said the clubhouse recreational buildings would be 20 feet. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: So just take it out of above and leave it as accessory structures can only be 20 feet below down below. 'fhat's what they are. They are accessory structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what Richard is trying to say is that the principal accessory structure, which is the clubhouse, needs to be higher, but the accessories to the clubhouse need to be 20 feet; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm -- that was my understanding is that the clubhouse itself would have the standard of the 25 zoned, 35 feet actual. But if we were to have a chickee hut or a gazebo -- we just built one in the back of my house where you have your climbing Page 26 May 17,2007 vines. That could never get more than 20 feet. That's the accessory structure to the principal structure, which would be the clubhouse itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the deal that you have arranged with your neighbors or is that what your neighbors have basically agreed to? Someone said this is next to Vanderbilt Country Club. This is -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have identified on the master plan the location of this building itself and the location of the building is acceptable because it is next to their maintenance building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the reference under accessory structures says side and then it goes BH 15 feet. Is that a reference to building height or what? In all the others it was -- we have now changed to SPS. Should this one be SPS, as well? Bob, you need the microphone. MR. DUANE: Yes, sir. We can make SPS across the entire column. COMMISSIONER CARON: But that would make it 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which matches the bottom. Under accessory structures in the header, it says accessory structures, screen enclosure. Are all these standards only to apply to screen enclosures? MR. DUANE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want to drop the words "screen enclosure"? MR. DUANE: I think the table is generic enough to accommodate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I agree. But do you -- you don't want to limit it to those, do you? MR. DUANE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that gets us uncomfortably through the development standards table for my questions. Anybody Page 27 May 17,2007 else have any questions on the development standards table? Mr. Midney, welcome. You snuck in. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. There was some traffic on Davis. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can imagine. COMMISSIONER CARON: So are we going to hear -- back to the clubhouse situation. Are we going to state that the 25 feet is for the clubhouse only? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is under the principal structures header. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would be the principal structure on that parcel. I think that's what the intent was. Everybody is nodding their head yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get done with the rest of the PUD questions, I'm certainly going to ask that staff get up here and try to explain to us what they have heard today to make sure they understand it. Because if they can't, we're at an impasse again. Any other questions from anybody on the development standards table? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next page are your footnotes. You have a double asterisk footnote and it talks about a side requirement shall apply on adjacent street. And the case where this applies the side requirement is -- can be five feet. Are you aware that around the streets generally you have a ten-foot UE or does that not occur in this particular development? MR. DUANE: No. The intent-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need the microphone, Bob. MR. DUANE: The intent was not to have two front yard setbacks. Page 28 May 17,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. DUANE: And where you have your entrance running one street, then you could have a reduced setback on the adjacent street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I just wanted to remind-- MR. DUANE: Which would be the same as the side yard setback, which is 15, which is greater than the 10 foot for the UE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as you realize that the UEs are there. I am sure staff will have to monitor that when you come in. Under the next paragraph on that same page, last line. It says one-story recreational is permitted in this area at a location depicted on the RPUD master plan. What is that referring to? MR. DUANE: That is referring to this recreational area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That mike is not working, Bob. MR. DUANE: It refers to the one-story accessory recreational building located -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's still not working, Bob. I'm sure the court reporter and the -- MR. DUANE: It refers to this one-story recreational building that can be located adjacent to the clubhouse. And there is a note here that says one-story accessory building, 20-foot height and 20-foot setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where would the recreational building be; the principal recreational building? MR. DUANE: In this area right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that one-story accessory would be the -- wouldn't that fall under the development standards on the table we just talked about? MR. DUANE: Yes. With a 20-foot maximum height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We are on to the master plan at this point. I understand we are going to have a common berm, possibly a common wall. They are sharing preserve areas that connect up and Page 29 May 17,2007 things like that. Anybody talked about an interconnection between these two -- between Bucks Run since you're interconnecting or having common elements of other types? MR. DUANE: Are you referring to an interconnection regarding access? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. DUANE: We only have an interconnection to the north of the subject property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Bucks Run is to the south. Is there a reason you don't have an interconnection to the south? MR. DUANE: Well, it was largely because of our created wetland area along the south property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But if you took your control lake and cut it back by a 42-feet width of your standard cross-section, you could put it right there. I mean, is there a reason there can't be an interconnection going to the south? I mean, maybe 1 will ask transportation at some point why they didn't recommend it or consider it. And ifthere is a good reason, that's fine. I'm just asking ifthere is a reason. You have got such commonality between Bucks Run by all the side agreements you seem to be making, I'm just wondering why you couldn't have established an interconnection, as well. MR. DUANE: Well, we did have some shared wetlands between the two properties, but we had a very limited amount -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you need to get closer to that speaker. MR. DUANE: We do have some shared wetlands between the two properties and we were trying to maximize our preserve area and water management area within the areas depicted on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. Mr. Tindall Page 30 May 17,2007 (phonetic) is behind you. Maybe he can answer transportation's -- the question I had in regard to the interconnection there. Are you not encouraging interconnections to Bucks Run for some reason? MR. TINDALL: Good morning. Phil Tindall, for the record, Transportation Planning Department. We are only requesting the interconnection to the north. Obviously I'm standing here for Mr. Casalanguida. I was not involved in the discussions, but I will call back and see if I can get you a specific answer with regard to the south property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be nice to know. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have to go back to the table for just a minute and this -- this master plan. It says -- on the master plan it says principal two-story residential setback is 35 feet. Where does it say that on this chart? MR. DUANE: Could you-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Because that would be a -- do you see where your recreational area is? MR. DUANE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just above that it says principal two-story residential setback 35 feet. Just as it says one-story accessory recreational building is a 20-foot setback. So in this yard the -- in this development standard table -- MR. DUANE: The developer didn't mind us having a reduced setback in this particular area here because it was adjacent to the recreational buildings and area. COMMISSIONER CARON: So is it all that cross-hatched area will be -- MR. DUANE: Yeah. Within that area you can have a two-story residential. COMMISSIONER CARON: And it has to be set back 35 feet? Page 3 1 May 17,2007 MR. DUANE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I just don't know why it is not on the chart. I mean, somehow n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The master plan periodically will have standards that aren't typical. That probably is why it's not on the chart because it's not a typical standard. But because it is on the master plan, it's fully enforceable by staff. MR. DUANE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: It goes the entire length of the development. It is more than typical here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The 35 feet-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Goes all the way through the cross-hatching, which is the length ofthe Vanderbilt Country Club. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It is a diagonal. This goes this way. This goes this way. COMMISSIONER CARON: He just said all of this cross-hatching. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And that was an area -- that was an area after we met with the residents of Vanderbilt Country Club we came up with this master plan to address specific development standards for just the northern property line. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we elected to put that on the master plan in the hopes of not adding yet another column. COMMISSIONER CARON: Or not as a footnote. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or not as a footnote. We thought this -- a picture probably made it easier to understand than trying to write all that out in a footnote or another table. And we went in -- I tried to explain that in pretty good detail at the last meeting. That's why we -- we thought the picture was a better way to do it than through words and another table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tindall, I notice you're back there. Page 32 May 17,2007 Did you get an answer from Nick? MR. TINDALL: Yes, sir, I did. 1 called him. It is because of the water management preserve area to the south that we did not request that interconnection. And Bucks Run is an already approved PUD. So it's just a matter of not going back and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to speak up. MR. TINDALL: And readdressing that issue. So it is because of the water management area to the south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. While you're there, the right-of-way here is being asked to be reduced to 42 feet. Generally we go from 60 to 50. 42 is quite narrow. They are looking at 10-foot asphalt lanes. The standard for the county I thought was more like 12. And if it was 50 feet, they could put 12- foot lanes. Do you have a problem with 1 O-foot at all? MR. TINDALL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted it to be clear. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: This issue seems to come up every single time. We have a standard that is supposed to be met and it gets changed in every single development that I've seen come through here. Why do we still have this standard if we are not going to follow it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The standard is a lot of -- usually public roads and it is a wider standard than the private developments need. COMMISSIONER CARON: I understood. So why don't we have two different standards? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was a suggestion made to staff awhile back. It may be coming through. I don't know. But it certainly is something that we had suggested before. And, Ray, if you haven't already looked at that, as far as the upcoming LDC cycles, maybe it ought to be looked at. MR. BELLOWS: I will definitely check with Catherine Page 33 May 17,2007 Fabacher to see where we're -- if we are coordinating with transportation on that. 1 will have to check. I just don't know the status. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next series of questions 1 have will be on Exhibit C-2. That's the one that is titled, RPUD north and east property cross-section. Bob, if you look at that -- anyone of the cross-sections, I shouldn't -- anyone of them, you will see the property line. To the right of the property line is outside your project, to the left of the property line is inside your project. The project states a series of buffers that are 15 feet, 10 feet. This particular detail, especially on the north property line, you have a 15- foot buffer out there, but you have a restricted 100- foot setback. I understand that. Within that 15-foot buffer I believe you're supposed to have placed your landscaping and wall and all the other requirements required by the Land Development Code; is that correct? MR. DUANE: That's correct. And we placed the wall on top of a berm area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I know. I can see. If you look at your diagram, your existing elevation is 12.5. You're showing your wall and your landscaping at 16.5 and a four-to-one slope between the property line. If you have a four-to-one slope and your wall and landscaping are outside and on top of the berm, you're 16 feet from the property line. So how is that -- fit into the buffer? MR. DUANE: We recognize that the buffer could be larger at this location. And it probably will be. But it was going to be a minimum of 15, but we anticipate it will be a few feet wider than that to accommodate the four-to-one slope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not concerned about what you recognize in regards to that part of it. I want to make sure that by Page 34 May 17,2007 approving this diagram the planning commission, and nobody else, is suggesting that your 15-foot buffer doesn't have landscaping and a wall included within it. Because according to this diagram, in a four-to-one slope it does not. So I need to ask staff at some point then how they propose to make sure that we're going to have a buffer described with the -- and the landscaping that we are supposed to have if this diagram shows that it doesn't exist in that 15 feet from the property line, as your master plan shows. In essence, you're showing the wall and the buffer 16 feet plus back from the property line. MR. DUANE: It is likely to be wider than the minimum of 15 feet to accommodate the slope. We recognize that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I want staff to make sure they recognize it before this meeting is over for sure. Your affordable housing section of your PUD it talks about gap and workforce housing. I thought I saw in your affordable housing density bonus the table that indicates a mixture of -- levels of affordable housing. You're only putting in gap and workforce, which I think is your higher level of affordable housing. You're not putting in the lower -- MR. DUANE: No. We're doing ten percent for gap and ten percent for workforce for a maximum of 42 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 34 of your -- go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ifwe're going to talk about affordable housing, how did we get from 30 percent down to 20 percent? MR. DUANE: Because the density of the project went from 238 units down to 207 units. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that's fine by me if the density of the project only goes to 207. But that means that you're Page 35 May 17,2007 keeping 87 percent of the market rate units and we are only getting 58 percent of the affordable workforce housing that we were going to get from the last one. So I suggest that you give us the 87 percent. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what we're doing is we're following the county's adopted Land Development Code matrix. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, this is -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me explain. The matrix says that in return for providing ten percent gap and ten percent workforce, there are three bonus units. And that goes from the four to the seven. We had originally requested the 30 percent in order to get four bonus units. We met with our neighbors. They had concerns about the overall project density. They had concerns about setbacks, which we have addressed, and that brought down what we can physically fit on the property. So we adjusted our request accordingly to make it work and to make it financially feasible to be able to provide a market rate project, along with gap housing and workforce housing. And that, under the table, results in exactly what we are proposing. COMMISSIONER CARON: But, Mr. Yovanovich, a percentage is a percentage is a percentage. If30 percent of238 was good enough, then 30 percent of 207 units ought to be good enough. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it shouldn't be because there is a difference in the number of market rate units we would have had to help offset the expense of that 30 percent requirement. A 20 percent -- we have fewer units to recover the 20 percent of our project that will be gap and workforce housing versus what we would have had. The table is the table. The table was set up to be an incentive for developers to come in and try to provide affordable workforce housing. And the table says in exchange for getting three bonus units you commit 20 percent of your project. If you want to get four bonus units, you go to 30 percent of your project. You have more market rate units to spread the cost of those 30 Page 36 May 17,2007 percent units over. We have fewer units. We cannot commit to a 30 percent gap and workforce housing mixture with a project of seven units per acre. We were able to do it at eight units per acre, but we're not able to do it at seven units per acre. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't buy the logic and I said so when they put together the chart that the chart was flawed because of that. And I will stand by that. If you can keep 87 percent of your market units, then we should be able to keep a similar amount of our affordable housing. You know, I don't see why we have to only get 58 percent for the affordable. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What I'm struggling with is nobody was doing affordable housing. Nobody was doing affordable housing, then we came up with a table that worked, that people said, "You know what, now the numbers work. We are going to come in and do affordable housing projects." So we come in and we say, "We will follow the table," because that's supposed to be the incentive. It's supposed to be, "Hey, the government is not beating up the developer here." They are saying, "We are going to provide an incentive where we each get a little something." We came up with a table that went through the public hearing process. And that's the law. And we're following the law. And if you want to go back to the way it used to be when nobody was sitting in front of you bringing projects, change the table on us every time we appear. But the law is that the table is to be followed. We are following the table and we are just requesting that the planning commission follow the table. We are willing to live by it. More developers are coming forward. I would hate to see us go back to the old days where developers said, "It's just not worth it. We'll just do market rate projects and we'll charge more money and Page 37 May 17,2007 we'll wait for the government to figure out how they want to address this problem with a fee or whatever they come up with." I think that what we're doing is -- we shouldn't be punished for following the table that was adopted after public debate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sorry to have you sit and then get up again like that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I could use the exercise. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that regard, I noted that the agreement calls for workforce housing rental units. Are they all going be rental or they are all going to be fee? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. They're all fee. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 14 of31 of the Appendix A, Exhibit B speaks to that. So that's what I picked up on and 1 agreed. When I did the arithmetic -- and while you're right that that is the law currently, when I did the arithmetic it does seem to be an extraordinary bonus in this circumstance to give so many market rate units. Have you got to that page yet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, those are general tables. What really applies is when you go to -- the specific table is a little further back. It starts on page 28, I believe it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Should we then -- ifit is a general table and it's not applicable, shouldn't we strike those portions that are not applicable? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would be happy to do that, but this is the county's form agreement and they are not very receptive to when you change their form. It is -- this generally -- the table generally describes how you fill out the form. We filled out the form to make it very clear that they are all owner occupied units. There are no rental Page 38 May 17,2007 units involved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you saying that trumps this? Is that what you're saying? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. This specifically-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 14 of31, the thing I'm referencing, which is that exhibit -- I just want to be clear. It says Appendix A, Exhibit B. And it goes on to the rating system, et cetera, et cetera. So you're saying that your particular detail trumps that. 1 just want to be assured that they are all going to be sold at fee. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. The specific table that talks about the two-bedrooms under gap, ten percent of the approved density, will be two-bedroom units. They are 100 percent in the owner occupied column and not the rental column. So they are all for sale units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I noted that there is a good deal of information as to what would be put inside of the units. So the only difference would be the quality of the items, rather than anything else? You're not going to be able to tell them apart? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. From the outside you won't be able to tell them apart. I don't like -- I don't want to use the word "quality". I would say the level of finishes in the interior. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will be a good quality project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A lot of the questions I would have posed have been directed by the Chair and Ms. Caron. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not done with the PUD. So page 34 of the PUD, whoever wants to delve into that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: At the risk of asking this question, you're talking about the application packet, page 34? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, Rich, you know you have Page 39 May 17,2007 got to use the speaker, okay? Second of all, I'm talking about the PUD application that was the most recent one sent to us. You had 35 pages and the 34th page I would like to pose some questions about that. The item is 8-H. And it says a cross-section of the re-created preserve area is attached as Exhibit H. And I would like someone to put Exhibit H on the overhead. My question is: It doesn't show anything. And 1 would like to understand what re-creation we have on a blank topographical. What was the -- what is the intent of that reference when it says re-create preserve? I understand that is a topographical n the cuts of the way you're going to shape the preserve, but it certainly is not a preserve in regards to vegetation. So you either want to change the language to represent that it is a topographical cross-section of the way the preserves are going to be shaped. MR. DUANE: I would have no objection to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DeRUNTZ: I apologize. Could you repeat that, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "H" would read: A topographical cross-section of the re-created preserve areas attached as Exhibit H. I just don't want anybody to think it's not going to have plantings in it because it certainly doesn't have any. MR. DeRUNTZ: Topographical-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just the word "topographical" should go before the word cross-section, unless Mr. -- MR. DUANE: They are going to have plants within them. If you look at the master plan -- let me borrow, it, Ray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, before you go too far, I was only bringing this up because it is a reference in your PUD. The PUD says that cross-section is a re-created preserve area. It is not. It's a Page 40 May 17,2007 topographical of the shape of the re-created preserve area. That is not the plantings that you're going to put there. MR. DUANE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm trying to do is clarify your PUD. 9-A under the walls. Exhibit C-2 depicts the proposed wall and landscaping treatment along the north, east and south property lines. Could you show me the one that depicts the south property line? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark, what page are you on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on page 34 of35. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. MR. DUANE: It shows a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you have to use the microphone. That one is not working. MR. DeRUNTZ: That one is working. MR. DUANE: It shows -- it shows a wall that we discussed earlier this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it does not, Bob. Go to Exhibit C-2, the one you reference in your PUD and then show me on C-2 where it says south property line. MR. DUANE: Those sections are only the ones adjacent to Vanderbilt Beach Country Club where we gave special attention to their landscaping needs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. But then 9-A is in error then. Do you want to take the word "south" out of it? MR. DUANE: No. We indicated that along that south property line we would have some kind of a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Show me on C-2 where you indicated that. MR. DUANE: I didn't show it on C-2. We showed -- those cross-sections were specifically tailored to the Vanderbilt Country Club's needs. Page 41 May 17,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read the section you just cited. It says, "9-A, Exhibit C-2, depicts the proposed wall and landscaping treatment along the north, east and south property lines." You just admitted it does not show it along the south property line. I am asking you to correct this in some manner. MR. DUANE: Okay. We can take that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under item 9-B, the last sentence, "The landscaping shall not be installed until power and irrigation systems are in place." I guess you could delay that indefinitely. I need to tie it to a time frame. Do you have any objection to adding, "No later than the first building permit is issued on the project?" MR. DUANE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. DeRuntz, you understand that reference? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody here have a page 35 under the new PUD that was sent to them? I have 34 of 35. My 35 doesn't exist. That's not a page. That's an exhibit. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all that we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have page 35? Is 35 still an active part of this PUD? MR. DUANE: It stops on page 33. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. You need the speaker, Bob. It stops on page 33? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thirty-four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute. If you have got a different one than we're dealing with, I would sure like to know it. MR. DUANE: It stops at 34. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. It stops at 34? MR. DUANE: Yes. Page 42 May 17,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then can you tell me how you're defining what goes in -- your preserve areas, your preserve subdistrict? Does that go back to page -- to the prior document you submitted to us under 4.1 or does that -- if you look at your prior PUD, Bob, that one had 38 pages. Page 36 was the page I'm just reading from. Page 37 was your preserve district, which I would have thought would have been 35 in the new one because it preceded the -- Exhibit H that we just talked about. I would think you would want your preserve district in your PUD. If you guys don't, that's okay. I just need to understand it so we can decide how to review it. MR. DUANE: Well, the format changed and those things have gone more into development commitments now than into preserve subdistricts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I need to see in the development commitments where the permitted uses are for the preserve district because I didn't read it that way. MR. DUANE: Well, they are permitted uses in the Land Development Code for preserve areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are the permitted uses for the preserve district because I didn't read it that way? MR. DUANE: Well, they are permitted uses in the Land Development Code for preserve areas. We are trying to avoid those kind of redundancies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This entire PUD is full of those redundancies. I was going to take that up with staff next. So I don't think it was a good job of avoiding them. Your preserve area talks about the number of acreages. If anybody in staff could take a look at page 37 of the prior PUD and tell me if they think that that is no longer needed in this PUD, that's fine. We'll go strictly by what the code provides. Page 43 May 17,2007 This refers to an agricultural clearing permit that was issued in November of'87. It explains the preserve areas, the acreages, and its interconneciton of Bucks Run to the south. If staff doesn't believe that is needed, I want them to tell us that for the record. MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz again. I believe that Section G, the preserve subdistrict, should be a part of this application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you have just passed the line of confusion here today for me. I don't know if it's worthwhile going on with something that has so many mistakes in it again. I don't know what the rest of this board thinks, but between the development services table and the discrepancies between the exhibits and the references in the document that are incomplete -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can we take a five-minute break? Would you mind? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mind taking a break. We will take a five-minute break and our main break for Kelley won't be until 10:00. Let's take a five-minute break. Be back here at 9:46. (A recess was held from 9:41 a.m. until 9:46 a.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are we back on? We'll come back to order. We left off at a request by the applicant to have a discussion on the missing page, I guess. Mr. DeRuntz, did you have a comment on that? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. If you look on page 21 of the application CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one? MR. DeRUNTZ: The new, the most current. Under Exhibit A-3, it is preserve subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That gives you everything you need? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. DeRuntz, under three, the Page 44 May 17,2007 last sentence, "The cross-sections for the re-created preserve areas set forth on Composite Exhibit C of this ordinance." I didn't find that on Composite Exhibit C, did you? MR. DeRUNTZ: That should not be Exhibit C. That should be the Exhibit H, the topographic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it will be changed that the topographic of the cross-sections set forth on Composite H of this ordinance; is that how you're going to read it? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The references in the prior exhibit that referenced the southern parcels, the clearing, the 2.9 acres that will remain in place, and the re-created acres, 25 percent, 1.25 acres of this area shall be re-created as preserve area, that will -- all that kind of language that has been taken out, is that fine with staff? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the last questions I have on the PUD of the applicant. I certainly have questions of staff. Anybody else have any other questions on the PUD? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. DeRuntz, it is your turn. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, I know we have talked many times and Ray and I have, as well, about redundancy in PUDs. And 1 even heard the applicant say they were trying to do things to remove redundancy, which is why they changed Exhibit G to a shorter paragraph inside the document. Yet, when I got into Exhibit F of the document, which is transportation, the same redundant issues popped up. If you follow from Exhibit F and go into Item Two, utility requirements, B; Engineering, 3-A and B; water management, 4-A and B; environmental, 7-A, B, C, D, E, F, G, all those are redundant language, I believe. It isn't needed, unless you can tell me a reason Page 45 May 17,2007 why it is all needed. Are we still going forward with this redundant language in the PUD? Ray, I've asked this every single meeting for years now. If you hadn't told me you were going to try to clean it up, I wouldn't be asking the question. Because I am now looking for that period of time when it gets cleaned up. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The document before you is one of the first non-PUD documents to come before you and it doesn't have much of the boilerplate language in it that has the things such as signs per LDC or landscaping per LDC. This one just has the development standards attached to the application, the developer commitments. The staff has been instructed to work with, say, transportation and environmental staff to eliminate redundant conditions. My understanding is there has been some new employees in some of those sections and they're hesitant to eliminate boilerplate language. I have made it clear that they -- the principal planners need to drive home the point where they see redundant language that they have the authority to take it out and notify those departments that it's redundant language. Now, I think maybe the best thing to do is maybe 1 will meet with Mr. Nick Casalanguida and with the environmental staff and go over those typical redundant conditions and say we are no longer going to accept them and what you will get will be a clean document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, I think the point goes back -- it's like environmental. All approved agencies' permits as applicable and it lists them; South Florida, Army Corps of Engineers. They have to have those submitted prior to final site planning. That's the law. How can they not? MR. BELLOWS: I agree. Unfortunately, like I said, we have attempted to -- they are not part of our division, so we cannot force Page 46 May 17,2007 them to not ask for them as conditions of approval. But it's my understanding we have -- this is our document and we have the ability to tell them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whose division are they under? MR. SCHMITT: Mine. MR. BELLOWS: Transportation is under -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Feder. I know that. And the environmental and the other ones that were cited are under Mr. Schmitt, by his admission here today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Off the mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I would hope that somehow this can be fixed. If it's not needed, why are we putting these documents out full of this language that could trap us in the future if things change? MR. BELLOWS: I agree. And I had discussions with them. And in some cases it seemed like redundant language, but they found a way to justify it as not being redundant. So it's not a clear-cut case as it may seem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you can have the county attorney's office justify to this board why that redundant language is necessary -- I shouldn't say preferred, but necessary, then I think that's a good way to approach it. But no one has even attempted to do that. And if it can't be justified, if it isn't required, if it's purely redundant and it clouds the record, I don't know why we need it. Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. I would like to respond to that because I have raised the issue. And what Ray has told you is correct. That those departments have felt uncomfortable with, you know, taking the language out. I think they were afraid that in so doing, you know, they might create an unintended consequence. Again, this is one of the first documents. But I did raise the issue and that's what I was told, as Mr. Page 47 May 17,2007 Bellows told here. Particularly environmental and transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, transportation, for example, the very first one, "All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with the DOT uniform manual standards." W ell, okay. If it doesn't have to be, then why do we even got this here in the first place? Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Strain, for the record, Joe Schmitt, your administrator of community development environmental services. We'll take care of the problem. I mean, there is no discussion, no excuses. It will be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate it. Mr. DeRuntz, I have exhausted my questions at this point. Did you have any further -- I think you may have already done your staff report. I don't know. But if you have anything you want to add to all this activity this morning, and then Mr. Murray may have a question. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. Excuse me. 1 just wanted to say that this has been an ongoing complicated process because of the negotiations with the adjoining properties. I apologize for all the confusion. Hopefully we can -- by direction by Ray, this is hopefully not going to happen in the future. Hopefully we will just have a clean one. And if we start having these coming up, we'll just have to postpone or continue those hearings. So we'll just have one document, instead of three, as in this case, that you have to look at. I know that's very hard on you to review all of these. I apologize agam. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. DeRuntz, it certainly isn't difficult Page 48 May 17,2007 to review. It's more -- I'm mostly concerned about the accuracy for public record and what you, as a staff member, and those that follow you, will have to look up and figure out how to judge this development's submittals. Because that's where it really becomes a problem if it isn't explicitly clear. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Just a little housekeeping maybe. I am looking at page three of35. I recognize that's the PUD. But on Item D, it speaks to a limited partnership. And it speaks then that -- it says Home Dynamics of Naples, Limited Liability Company -- I think that is -- and 100 percent ownership. You might want to place that in another location, unless you want to educate me about why that should be there. MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, it is a limited partnership. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I am confused by it. 1 apologize for my ignorance then. It says 100 percent owned by David Shack. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is a limited liability company owned 100 percent by Mr. Shack. If you look at your form, the form doesn't have that form of business entity anywhere on it. We put it where it would be most closely -- a category that it will most closely fit in, which would be either a general limited partnership. And that's where we stuck it because there is no -- in the county's form -- a section for the business entity limited liability company. So we just -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, maybe it is time to change the form. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have not had an issue come up like this before. The main concern has been under what business -- any business entity, who are the real players. COMMISSIONER MLJRRA Y: I understand that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is Mr. Shack. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that. Page 49 May 17,2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's how it got there, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't mean to -- hopefully it's a small potato issues, but sometimes they can bite you. I guess, one other thing on the -- if I'm not mistaken, and I'm certainly subject to correction here, we have used a household 2.4 on the AUIR. Am I wrong? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm wrong? MR. DeRUNTZ: No. You're correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because on page ten of35 the population 207 units is predicated on 2.5. And I just wondered -- and I saw something else where there has been another number that's been used. And I just wondered if we're going to remain with fixed numbers or numbers adjusted to accomplish a certain purpose. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So should that be 2.4 for the arithmetic? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That might come out a little different. I don't know. You know, the questions have been posed here. I had very similar questions and I'm very happy that they were posed. Now we have the answers. I think that will take care of it for me now, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, before you sit down. 1 wanted to make sure that everybody had an opportunity to ask you anything they had before I asked you one question. I know that you haven't had time to probably digest all of the changes that have occurred in the developmental services tables, the standards table, but I know that you have made notes. Would you explain from your perspective -- and I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I just want to understand where staff is going to need to look into this. Page 50 May 17,2007 A patio or a zero lot line home, how is that set up on a lot? And let's take a 40-foot wide lot. How do you see that being set up based on this table? MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, based on this table that the zero lot line n the house would be centered on that property and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stop there. The house will be centered on it or would it be sitting on one line? I think that option -- MR. DeRUNTZ: You're talking about zero lot line? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So it wouldn't be centered on the lot. You're going to have the house -- in your mind, it would be one side of the house will be smack dab on the property line? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then on the other side of the house under the patio category you have a setback of what from the other side of the property line? MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, it would be your 12 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the next house would be zero? MR. DeRUNTZ: The next house could be zero, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the single-family attached and townhouse you have got five feet or zero. Now, I want to make sure on that one if you have got -- is that looked at the same way? If you had a single-family home and you had a property, ifit is five feet or zero, how would you place that on the lot? Say one house. MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, if -- when you're placing the houses, you have to know where the -- if there is any other houses on either side of you. You can be a zero and then you have five foot on the opposite side. And then the house where -- which would be adjoining the five-foot area, the separation, they would have to -- they could not place that house at zero because the building setback requirements and fire code requirements. So it would have to be shifted -- that would Page 5 1 May 17,2007 have to be their five-foot area there and be zero to the opposite side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what you would end up then with is a -- where it says single-family attached and townhouse, you would end up with a duplex really, but on two fee simple lots because you would have to have two homes zero to zero to one another and five on the opposite sides; is that -- MR. DeRUNTZ: Not necessarily. You're not meeting the fire code on the single-family house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that brings in -- okay. That's kind of where I'm trying to understand. I wish 1 could write this down. It would be so much easier to see. Can I use your -- MR. BELLOWS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not Brad, by the way. Michael, if that is your zero, this is a single-family. You have got five feet here and this next one would have to be zero or five feet; is that right? MR. DeRUNTZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you could end up with five feet between structures? MR. DeRUNTZ: And if -- if that is the case, then you would have to have a -- this wall here would have to be fire rated or then you would have your five-foot separation here. And then that would be your fire -- your fire code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, right. That's what I'm getting at, Richard. I f you have got ten feet between buildings, it is going to force you to have this configuration. Not this one. And if you have this, you're back into a duplex. MR. DeRUNTZ: You could have -- this structure here would have to have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So every one of those tables-- every one of those down tables could have a townhouse configuration? Page 52 May 17,2007 I thought we were setting the multi-family up to be accepted as a townhouse level. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is less than -- I forget. Three or five. Under the code, remember, when you get to a certain number of units, you're no longer single-family attached/townhome. I think it is via five. You jump into the multi-family category. So the multi-family category we're setting up so we can be a town home project with more than five units in one building. So that's why we talked about the minimum distance between structures -- between buildings. It was that scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I will ask the rest of my questions up here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, I guess, what led to my confusion, Mike, in regards to the layout of these homes, you could have single-family attached as a duplex layout then? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That can happen even though the two-family is really a standard you would expect to see for a duplex. Why do we have two columns for the same thing? I mean, basically then a duplex can be a single-family attached at 30 feet or a two-family at 40 feet. Who makes the decision on that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DeRUNTZ: I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not either. I'm wondering how staff would -- how comfortable is staff in understanding this development table or do you need more time with it? I mean, Michael, you guys are the ones that are going to have to judge this in the future and you will be held responsible for anything that comes out. I just need to make sure staff understands it. MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, I think when they -- when they submit Page 53 May 17,2007 this, the SDP, they would identify what type of units they are -- that they are desiring there as a part of their plan. And we would use these codes or these standards to apply to the -- that type of construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in this case if they came in with two attached units, would you review them under single-family attached or two-family? MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, it would depend on what type they are building. Are they the single-family attached or are they looking at these as patio homes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or two-family. Because ifit is under two-family, they could do it on 40-foot lots. If it's single-family attached, they could do the same thing on 30-foot lots. I don't know why they would want a two-family under patio and zero lot line homes. There is more flexibility under single-family attached. The rest of the standards remain the same. MR. DeRUNTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any other questions of staff. Does anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, I know -- do we have public speakers still left over from last time, I hope? MR. BELLOWS: One public speaker is registered. Larry Smith. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This may take a bit of time. We have got to do some debate. I know we are past the time frame for the -- are you -- Kelley, if we can finish this one up. Do you want to call the public speakers then? MR. BELLOWS: Larry Smith. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Larry Smith. I am a resident of Vanderbilt Country Club, an 800-unit association that borders the proposed Boxwood development Page 54 May 17,2007 to the east and partially on the north. I'm also chairman ofa local committee made up of Vanderbilt residents. The purpose of our committee is to keep track of new development surrounding Vanderbilt Country Club. We report directly to the board of directors of our association and work jointly with the board in an attempt to minimize any negative impact a development could have on the quality of life of our residents. It is with this purpose in mind that our committee has met several times with the developer of Boxwood, Home Dynamics of Naples, and appear before you today. Our meetings with Home Dynamics have always been conducted in a professional manner. We feel that they have spent considerable time and money in addressing our concerns. Although, we would have preferred a lower density development similar to many of the other developments surrounding us, we feel that a fair compromise has been reached. We, therefore, as authorized by the Board of Directors of Vanderbilt Community Association, endorse the development known as Boxwood. We also would like to thank David Shack, president of Home Dynamics, and his management team for including us in this process. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any questions? Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have a question. In reviewing everything, you have reviewed the development standards, as well? MR. SMITH: No. We basically reviewed just the outside relative to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Your development? MR. SMITH: The property lines and the borders. We did not get into any of the particulars. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. SMITH: Listening to the comments today, if it was Page 55 May 17,2007 confusing to you, it would have been triply confusing to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. You were probably glad you didn't get into those. Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. Ray, no other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant wish any final comments? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Close the public hearing. Is there a motion? Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will make a motion to approve. I would just like to make a few statements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see if there is a -- in your motion and then we'll have to find a second. Is there a second to Mr. Vigliotti's motion? Mr. Midney had his hand up first. So Mr. Vigliotti's motion was seconded by Mr. Midney. Okay. Discussion? Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. This was probably the most confusing petition I have seen in a long time. Mr. Duane, I wish you would have did your homework before you got here. It would have made it easier for everybody. It just seemed like a waste of time and a lot of confusion. The problem with confusion is it's easy for someone to make an error or for us to miss something that's going to cause more problems down the road as you put your SDP in. This is an affordable housing project. I think that's one of the Page 56 May 17,2007 most crucial issues facing our county at this time. Ms. Caron, I realize the formulas and percentages may not be what we want or what we planned on, but we put them together and maybe someday we'll get a chance to change them. But I'm happy to see the development community come forth and bring in this affordable housing project. And that's my reason for approving. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Pretty much second to what you said. I think that he's using the adopted matrix of bonus units. Ifwe are going to ask for voluntary concessions from developers, we have to have them to be predictable. So I'm also in support of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Both the motion-maker and the second, I want to ask you. We have a deviation. Does your motion include a recommendation of approval for the deviation? Because staff recommended approval on it, as well. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, it does. MR. MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We went through a long series of changes to this document and the development standards services n the development standards table, as well as corrections to references within the document itself. Those are on record. Staff has made note of them. Do your motion include those changes as we discussed? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. By both. Mr. Midney, as well. The only comment I have is, Mr. Vigliotti, I absolutely agree with you. This is probably the worst written document I have seen since I have been on this board. I would hope that staff does not allow another one to come forward like this. Stop it in its track. Send it back until it is right. We just don't need any more time wasted like this. Page 57 May 17,2007 With that, I will call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries eight to zero. Thank you. With that, we'll take a 15-minute break and be back here at 10:25. (A recess was held from 10:13 a.m. until 10:25 a.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. We are back from break. Ray and Michael, one thing 1 forgot to ask of you. Because of the confusion and the fact that after multiple times the applicant didn't seem to be able to get the development standards table right in the last hearing, before you send this to the Board of County Commissioners -- I mean, I know it's scheduled for them. But when they get a clean copy, which I hope is provided to them, would you send a copy of that to me and any other board member that expresses such desire. I just would like to see it to make sure that it got done pursuant to the things we talked about here today. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, 1 would like to see a copy. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's not a reflection on staff not Page 58 May 17,2007 doing it. It's just I want to make sure that all the notes you took are copied after mine so everything comes out right. MR. DeRUNTZ: Very good. Item #8B PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-8284, TREE FARM LAND TRUST Okay. With that, I'll -- the next item had been continued. It is the Tree Farm Land Trust. It was a commercial parcel on the corner of 951 and Immokalee Road. But before we go to the next item, I want to make sure there are no members of the public who are here who wanted to speak on this item that -- and we would accommodate them, if they can't get back to the next hearing. Ray, did you have any speakers listed for that? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That one is continued. Item #8C PETITION: BD-2007-AR-11278, LAWRENCE BESKO AND LOUIS CASSI BOAT DOCK We'll go to petition BD-2007-AR-11278. It's Lawrence Besko and Louis Cassi boat dock on 197 Topanga Drive. All those wishing to participate in this application, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any disclosures on the part of the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, I hope you're not going to hand out a development standards table. Otherwise, we are dead in the Page 59 May 17,2007 water, Rocky. MR. SCOFIELD: We can make one up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't want to do that. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. For the record, Rocky Scofield with Turrell, Hall and Associates representing Lou Cassi and Lawrence Besko. And I hope the planning commission is thoroughly worn out from questioning from the previous hearing. We are here today for a boat dock extension. This is an existing dock up in SouthPort subdivision in Lely Barefoot Beach. It is on Topanga Drive. There is an aerial there of the residence that we're representing. This dock was built. It is an existing dock. It was built in 1998, of which I permitted for the previous owner. It did not require a BDE. The dock is only out -- the front of the dock was out 20 feet. These were awhile back. The gray area obviously we know that now and people -- they still get permits out this far. But to put a boat in front of this dock, obviously you need a BDE. This area to the left on the picture overhead, which would be to the west, that's Lely Barefoot Beach Boulevard. To the east over there, that is Topanga Drive in SouthPort subdivision. This is a very narrow waterway. Ray, could you just zoom that out, please? I have permitted most of these docks in this area. You see that is just a little dead-end canal back there. This waterway through here -- the navigable waterway, it has got heavy mangroves on the SouthPort side and it does have some mangroves over on the Barefoot Beach side. But the canal is only 90 feet to a little over 100 feet navigable waterway through here. All these people in there are in the same situation. When you look at that handout I gave you, they all have docks and everybody has got a boatlift. There is one criteria on the application that does not meet and Page 60 May 17,2007 that is leaving 50 percent of the waterway open, but that is a given. Everybody in this neighborhood knows it. There is no complaints. Everybody has got the same thing. We are here today just to place a boatlift in front of this existing dock at this address. And that's -- that's it. A boat parked in front of that dock takes up eight to nine feet. The standard boatlift width is 12 and a half feet. So we are here today for a 12 and a half foot extension into this waterway. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On the staff report that we have here, it indicates that there will be two pilings 12 feet, 6 inches into the water. What do you mean six inches into the water; just submerged six inches? MR. SCOFIELD: Twelve and a half feet out from the dock. 12 feet, 6 inches. That's the width of the boat lift. That's what we are asking for. A 12 and a hal f foot extension today. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It is a horizontal dimension, not a vertical dimension? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Scofield, what can be built for docks across from these homes on Topanga? MR. SCOFIELD: All the docks on the Barefoot Beach Side, most of those docks only extend five feet into the waterway because the depth on that side is pretty deep right near the shore. So most of them are restricted to about -- most of the docks I have put in over there, they may be eight feet. But actually over the mean high waterline they stick out about five feet because there is adequate water Page 61 May 17,2007 and then they put in a boatlift. The ones over on Topanga -- there's a lot of documentation that you have been given here. There is a very -- especially this lot. This lot is heavily mangroved and the mean high waterline meanders back in where it's erosion. Actually this whole backyard is a flood plain. COMMISSIONER CARON: What I'm asking is: On the Barefoot side, how many more boat docks can be filled in there? Can it be a wall of boat docks there? How many more are permitted? MR. SCOFIELD: When you're looking at the aerial, there are -- those are small lots on the Barefoot Beach side. They are very small lots that are bought by the people who live in the Barefoot Beach section. I'm not -- I have permitted some of those, but I could not tell you how wide those little lots are right there. But looking at that drawing, I believe -- obviously to the north there can be more built up to the north there, but pretty much there is a dock on each one of those little lots. COMMISSIONER CARON: It is hard to see from this aerial what the lot is. MR. SCOFIELD: It is. There is no actual division. It is almost a common area over there. There is no individual lot lines. There are platted ones, but you can't see from the aerial. And then to the north up there there is a common boat dock. And that's for people of the condominiums on the north end. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Ms. Caron? MR. SCOFIELD: The thing is it's a dead-end waterway. There is no traffic, except for the people who live here. And there is just very few boats going in and out. The navigability is really not a problem. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm done. Page 62 May 17,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It is a small question really. It says the proposed -- the proposal is 88 feet of shoreline and yet the survey shows 84 feet of shoreline. Which is accurate? MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. The discrepancy we have on there is the -- this came up. One of them is the platted line and the other one is the mean high water line. And in these subdivisions, when the PUD came out, they platted it and -- as to mean high water line. Well, the mean high water line meanders through the subdivision. And the actual property line is the mean high water line. That's why there was a discrepancy there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Which is the accurate one? MR. SCOFIELD: The higher one, which meanders. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Staff report. MS. BLAIR: Good morning. Ashley Blair, Senior Planner, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Staff analysis indicates that the request meets four of the five primary criteria and all the six secondary criteria. Therefore, staff recommends approval. I don't have anything to add to what Rocky said. I have received no objections. I f you have any questions, I would be happy to try and answer those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was simple. I wish all of them went like that. Ray, do we have any public speakers? Page 63 May 17,2007 MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: 1 move that we approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to staff recommendation? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody oppose? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries nine to zero. Thank you. Item #8D PETITION: BD-2006-AR-l1004, MARTHA MURTAUGH The next petition is another boat dock petition, Page 64 May 17,2007 BD-2006-AR-ll004, Martha Murtaugh, 267 Sixth Street West, Bonita Springs, Little Hickory Shores. All those wishing to testify on behalf of the application, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, applicant, proceed. MR. SCHNEIDER: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Eric Schneider representing Turrell, Hall and Associates for a boat dock extension for Martha Murtaugh. We're requesting an extension of 32 feet past the allowed 20 feet in order to provide adequate water depths while minimizing impacts to mangroves. This dock will be replacing the existing structure in approximately the same footprint. The dock would board vessels and would protrude 52 feet into a waterway that is approximately 450 feet -- 455 feet wide, which is approximately 11 percent of the waterway. We have received state and federal approval for the dock. And I would like to open the floor to any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the planing commission have any questions of the applicant on this document? Mr. Schiffer and then Mr. Kolflat and Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Two concerns. One is -- and, 1 guess, riparian lines I think is an art, not a science. In the art of riparian lines, why does that one on the northern go due north as opposed to -- based on the studies we have been shown, the instinct is to, you know, not quite be in that direction. MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, Rocky Scofield. Mr. Schiffer, the one on the north end -- is that what you're Page 65 May 17,2007 referring to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. SCOFIELD: That was drawn by the surveyor. If you see that line that doesn't have a n that kind of arcs through there and doesn't have an explanation to that line, that was the platted line on that subdivision. The seawall is the -- do you have that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. I understand. MR. SCOFIELD: And so, therefore, you know, this dock -- there is a big bay to the north and then there is a waterway canal, I guess, to the west. That property line -- he ran the riparian line off the platted line, which goes out to the thread of the bay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean-- MR. SCOFIELD: It's still 25 feet away. Ifwe went from the actual property line where it is, it would be even further. It would be at 30 feet or so to the dock. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're going to add a little extension to the east? MR. SCOFIELD: To the east. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just concerned -- he does show the riparian line as going due north. We have had our little presentation from staff. I have studied some of the literature. And 1 really think that line shouldn't go due north, but I have no way of -- I mean, I wish we were showing the thread of these channels because that's the important thing to base this line off of. MR. SCOFIELD: I understand that. And you -- you brought that up at one of the last hearings we had. This was in the hopper before that came out or else I would have drawn a -- we would have drawn a thread down that bay. On that big aerial, you know, it just runs down. If you came up the middle and ran around the middle back to the east, that line would go out and intersect it. That riparian line is correct there, but it may be Page 66 May 17,2007 hard to visualize. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And your plan doesn't really dimension how far east you're going to go. But you're comfortable that it wouldn't get within the 15 feet, which would start to violate the setback. I think we are far enough away. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, yeah. You're 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You could arc that riparian line quite a bit before that would become a problem. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The next question is that in the application there is mention of using CCA wood. This application in no way would give you the ability to do something environmentally that the code wouldn't allow, correct? I mean, there is nothing that could be misconstrued by the way you have described the project that staff would allow you to do something that the environmental standards -- I mean, in your description you mentioned the use of that product. And I don't know if that product is allowed or not or what requirements would be used. MR. SCHNEIDER: I believe that type of wood wrapped with PVC is to prevent any leaching of that type of treated wood. And that is, you know, environmentally -- as a preventative measure for avoiding environmental impact. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what 1 want is just to make sure you testified that there is nothing in this application that has anything to do with the materials you're allowed to use. It's purely the geometry of the dock we are talking about, right? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: My question is quite a bit of what Brad had. We had quite a discussion on riparian lines before. When I look at your chart here where you show that long distance of 455 feet going across in that direction, if you were to bisect the cord Page 67 May 17,2007 that is shown on your other designation, that line would shift more to the west and would make a little bit shorter distance. It's still enough distance you have there, but I wondered why you opted to go that direction, rather than split the cord. MR. SCOFIELD: That's a good question. Because immediately you're looking for the narrowest part. If you look at the drawing, this dock does not intrude into that western waterway past the shoreline. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I see. MR. SCOFIELD: So there is no impact at all in that canal. That canal width stays open completely. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah. Well, I would hope you follow riparian lines we discussed before when you made that presentation on some ideas on that. MR. SCOFIELD: In the future ones we are going to show the thread of the channel and how it bisects that, which Mr. Schiffer requested. But this was already -- this was -- had been in the works for quite some time. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Can you come here for a minute, please? The pages weren't numbered, so I couldn't -- you have got this number here. It looks to me like the big boat docked is about two and a half times the size of the boat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, you might want to answer it from your microphone down there. You might leave that one. You have a copy of that, right? MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah. The question again? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The boat dock for the large boat, the lift looks like it is two and a halftimes the size of the boat itself as it sticks out here. Is that supposed to be or is that just a n MR. SCOFIELD: That is a catamaran boat, so it is that wide. Page 68 May 17,2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It doesn't show a catamaran for -- MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah. That is just a catamaran docked in front of the dock. Or moored in front of the dock. Excuse me. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report, please. Wait a minute now. You're a guy that does landscaping. MR. SAWYER: Commissioner, for the record, Mike Sawyer, senior planner. Actually, I used to do landscaping and what I'm primarily now doing -- is actually site plan review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Congratulations. I hope that is a promotion and not a troublesome spot for you. MR. SAWYER: It is a lateral, to be honest. It is -- it is exciting because it's new stuff, different stuff to work on. As you can see from the staff report, this particular boat dock does meet all of the primary and all of the secondary requirements. I really don't have anything else to add, other than what Eric and Rocky have already discussed. I can answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got an easy one for your first time in this regard. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the hearing. Is there a motion? Page 69 May 17,2007 Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A motion has been made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Kolflat. Were there any staff recommendations? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are both your motion and your second including the staff recommendations? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, they would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Affirmative to both. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries nine to zero. Thank you. Rocky, that was the easiest you have been through here for awhile. You're right. We wore ourselves out in the first one. Item #8E Page 70 May 17,2007 PETITION: V A-2007-AR-l1300, IRVINE DUBOW The next item is variance petition, 2007-AR-l1300, Irvine Dubow requesting a variance at 5901 Almaden Drive in Sonoma Lake subdivision. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go, sir, we have a few housekeeping matters. Anyone have any disclosures to make? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. Mr. Dubow and I had a little conversation out in the corridor. With the length of that first application, I think we had a lengthy conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on that, sir, go right ahead. MR. DUBOW: Mr. Chairman, aliI have to say is wow-we. It is 18 months it took me to get here and I'm very pleased. Gentlemen and madam, my name is Irvine Dubow. And I will try to keep this very short the history that goes along with this and the logistics. Wilma, as you know, in October of2005 destroyed my cage. It does not have a pool. It is just a cage. It was put up in 1990 by a contractor who did not pull a permit, nor a variance. It was, however, in the contract that I signed that he would so do. Unfortunately, he did not. And in my innocence, I -- and naivety, I -- sorry, I didn't look into it further. I accepted it. We lived in the house. Incidentally, to give you a few facts that are essential to the case, November 7th of 1990 apparently the certificate of occupancy inspection took place. On October 9th, the certificate was received by the contractor. November 13th we moved in. The cage was already up. Page 71 May 17,2007 And this, essentially, is my case. And 1 ask your pleasure, and with all due respect, aliI want to do is replace my cage that was up for 16 years. I did not have anything to do with putting it up. I did not have anything to do with destroying it. I am here as an innocent individual that has gone through 18 months to come here to approach you, gentlemen and madam. And I have one other thing to tell you. I would like to ask you, if you will, please try to put a proposition before the County Commissioners that there should be some grandfather's clause to avoid a problem such as myself. It was a long, hard struggle. It cost a lot of money, a lot of stress and strain. We are octogenarians, my wife and myself. She is not here. She's my partner, but she has Alzheimer's disease so I have had to work around it. I care for her seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Now, I'm asking you and I'm literally pleading with you. But, you know something, something strange happened. Two days ago on Tuesday, May 15th, I read my horoscope. And 10 and behold, this is what it said and this is why I'm -- it reinforced the fact that I'm importuned to ask you, to beg you, to think in terms of a grandfather clause. And this is what my horoscope said and this is what it read. I'm a Gemini. "You can finally realize that you have more direct control over an advantageous matter that affects you personally. Look out for others involved, as well." And I'm trying to do that. Because that's all I'm trying to do is trying to be a good neighbor and to try to help other people. But I'm asking for your help at this point in time. Thank you very, very much. I fthere are any questions, of course, I'll be more than happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When is your birthday? MR. DUBOW: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When is your birthday? Page 72 May 17,2007 MR. DUBOW: June 9th, 1925. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am a Gemini, too. Mine is coming up, as well. I thought that was interesting. MR. DUBOW: Wow-we. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, you have a question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, I do. It's not really a question. It's a fact, I would assume. You hired a group of people to do the job for you. It is your responsibility for the people you hire. Now, I would like to say, "Let's get away with it." But, unfortunately, this is the system. You sit back and hire somebody. They do the job right. You verify that it is right. It is all done. Obviously, if these people were still in business, you have a right to sue them for the expenses. MR. DUBOW: Time limitations, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understood that, too. The fact that that is gone and the fact that you did the hiring, what is it you expect us to do that would make it -- MR. DUBOW: Sir, I did not do the hiring. This is a community of 33 villas and the contractor -- the developer was from North Carolina. The contractor was a local person, Roger Fine, and we accepted it as it came. And I said -- and I reiterate very forcefully, I'm naive. I'm innocent and I accept. I would do -- if I'm asked to do something and I sign a contract particularly that I'm supposed to do something, of course, I will live up to it. I expected them to live up to it. And, remember, this was 17 years ago. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, what am I to do now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Dubow, if I'm reading the documents correctly, your cage used to be five feet or so from the edge of curb. You're now bringing it back in. You're going to be ten feet from the Page 73 May 17,2007 roadway; is that correct? I see the staff member nodding his head yes. No, it is not. It was four feet and you're taking it back to ten feet. You're going to be outside the drainage easement. Both staff members are saying yeah. MR. DUBOW: I'm sorry. You're being technical. And I have heard so many numbers thrown around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to help you, sir. MR. DUBOW: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me go through my reasoning here. MR. DUBOW: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it because I need all the help I can get, believe me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, right now you're four feet or so from the roadway. The hurricane blew it down. You're going to rebuild it, but you're going to stay ten feet back from the roadway, which is a far improvement over where you used to be. The technicality that you're here for is because even with that ten foot, you're still five foot closer than the standard law says you should be. However, if you sat through this morning's hearings for two hours, you heard us approve a project that would allow them to go five feet from the roadway, like you were almost at just to begin with. So you're almost twice better than they are based on the request you have got before us today. And I want to make that point clear for the rest of the board members. We did approve a project this morning that would have allowed his cage practically to be acceptable as it was before it blew down. Right now he's simply saying, "Let me have ten feet and go on with my life." So with that, I'll entertain any other questions the board may have. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to clarify. This is not a custom home. This is zero lot line. This is a marketed product, which Page 74 May 17,2007 he bought off the market. It wasn't like he had that control over his subcontractors that, I think, you were questioning him. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I think that's all the questions we have of you. We're going to see what staff has got to say now. MR. DUBOW: Thank you. I appreciate my appearance and 1 appreciate your kindness. You're all gentlemen. And, madam, 1 appreciate you. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more question for you. How much did this cost you up until now? MR. DUBOW: In dollars and cents, it was five or $6,000, 18 months. But, more important than that, as I mentioned before, my wife is in the last stages of Alzheimer's so the stress and strain is on me. My job description has changed dramatically from a professional. And then my major job around the house was carrying out the garbage. Now it is laundry, preparing meals, planning meals, and all the other things that go along with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Dubow, I'm sorry you had to spend that kind of money to get here today. I wish there was an easier solution. MR. DUBOW: There has to be an easier solution for those that are coming after me, sir. Thank you. I appreciate your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unfortunately, staffs hands are tied to abide by the rules and the laws. What we probably need to do is look at a way to provide rules and laws that would give them more flexibility in situations like this, especially when the damage was from a natural occurrence, well outside of your ability to take care of it. Page 75 May 17,2007 MR. DUBOW: Well, sir, I have to mention this because it is very important. Mr. Joe Schmitt and his staff have been very kind to me. It would have cost me ten or -- five or $10,000 more if they didn't assist me in preparing -- and I'm exaggerating -- 833 pages ofto-do work in order to come before you gentlemen and madam. And I appreciate my appearance. This is what had to be and I did what I had to do. And this is what life is all about. And I thank you very much. I appreciate it. Just being here is an honor. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I applaud you for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I said 1 applaud him for that. The patience, the money, and the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report now. MR. MOSS: Good morning. John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. I would just like to add that -- as you saw in the staff report, the petition meets all but two of the general provisions regarding variances that are outlined in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, you have got to slow your speech down a little bit. MR. MOSS: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's got to type as fast as you talk. MR. MOSS: Too much Starbucks this morning. To repeat that, I just said that the petition meets all but two of the criteria that are outlined in the LDC regarding variances. Staff has received 16 letters in support of the variance and two against. And those are all included in your packet. Staff is recommending approval of the petition subject to the two conditions contained in Exhibit B of the resolution regarding the five foot setback and also that all vertical construction remain outside of the drainage easement. And I would be glad to try to answer any question you might Page 76 May 17,2007 have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron, Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Who built this house? MR. MOSS: Coastal Construction, I believe. COMMISSIONER CARON: Built the house, as well as the cage? MR. MOSS: That was my understanding. Is that correct, Mr. Dubow? MR. DUBOW: They arranged for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't -- you can't entertain discussion from the audience. You're going to have to either get the person on the -- MR. MOSS: According to his narrative statement in the application, Coastal Construction. COMMISSIONER CARON: Built both the house and the cage? MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is Coastal Construction still in business? MR. MOSS: I don't think that they are. MR. DUBOW: Yes. MR. MOSS: Joe Schmitt just told me before I came up that this case was sent to contractor's licensing and they're researching it. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's where I'm going. I want to know if these people are still being allowed to construct homes in Collier County. MR. MOSS: Joe might be able to answer that, better than I. MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt. We believe the scenario in this case was that the home was COed and then the contractor went back in and probably had a subcontractor build the enclosure in between the CO and then when the closing took place. This has been turned over. I know Mr. Dubow has talked to Mike Page 77 May 17,2007 Ossorio in contractor licensing. It is an old case. We are trying to do what we can and we'll take the appropriate action if we believe, and if we can substantiate, that there was purpose and direct violation in regards to this action. We'll deal through -- we'll deal with it through contractor licensing. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because we have not just the concrete patio issue, but there is a whole setback issue, as well. MR. SCHMITT: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER CARON: Isn't there an additionaln isn't there additional setback issues here just to the other side of the steps, as well as the encroachment over here on the patio? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: The original setback wasn't n COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That is an accessory. MR. SCHMITT: I'm looking at the drawing here. I do not know where -- I don't know where the vertical is on this, but the patio can n as long as it doesn't go vertical, you can put the patio in. You can put the lanai in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Less than 30 inches. MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: It says here in the staff report that it didn't meet the 15 foot front yard setback requirement. I thought that was talking about the home itself. MR. MOSS: No, not the home. It is the accessory. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just the accessory structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, I think you were next. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Throughout this thing -- I know the setbacks are the same. Throughout this thing you call this a front setback. Isn't this a side street? I mean, wouldn't the narrower dimension actually be the front of this house and then this be a side street? MR. MOSS: No. Because it is a corner lot. It has two front Page 78 May 17,2007 yards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. That was my only question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My question has been answered because it was what Ms. Caron posed. That was what I was going to pose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah. 1 would like to compliment our planner's foresight -- Mr. Moss' foresight in wearing the same kind of tie that Joe Schmitt has on today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good catch. Okay. Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One comment. And that's maybe to Mr. Schmitt and you can stay there, Joe. You don't have to come up here. If the contractor is taken before the licensing board and found at fault, I would hope there would be some way to recoupe some of the costs that Mr. Dubow had to put out on this. It certainly has been unfair to him. Now, with that, any other questions? Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm ready to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein has already indicated he wanted to make a motion. 1 will come to you for a second, depending on what he says. But we have to finish with the testimony first. Thank you, sir. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. And Mr. Adelstein indicated he wanted to make a motion. Page 79 May 17,2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-11300 before the Board of our County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Koltlat, did you want to second that? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've put a few comments on record that hopefully will be followed up with. Hearing no discussion, motion to accept. All in favor, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries nine to zero. Mr. Dubow, thank you. Your horoscope was right. MR. DUBOW: Thank you very much. Item #8F PETITION: VA-2007-AR-11446, THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Page 80 May 17,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next and final item for today is petition V A-2007-AR-11446. It is the District School Board of Collier County for the Immokalee Career Center at 800 Immokalee Drive. All those wishing to participate in this application, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosure on the part of the planning commission? Mr. Midney. MR. MIDNEY: I have had about three meetings with the petitioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have had one meeting with two representatives of the school system and the architect involved. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Thomas Eastman in an e-mail sought to have a meeting with me, which I declined to have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll call the applicant to proceed. MR. HARDY: Good morning. My name is Alvah Hardy. I'm the Executive Director of Facilities Management for the School District of Collier County, Florida. We have our architect, Gary Krueger, here today to do a very brief presentation on our request for a height variance from 25 feet to 35 feet. This is essentially a request to go from two to three stories. MR. KRUEGER: Thank you. For the record, my name is Gary Krueger with Schenkel, Shultz Architects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the record, do you need any of those names spelled? MR. KRUEGER: Good morning. The Immokalee Career Center is proposed to be constructed on the existing Learning Center site for the school district in Immokalee. The proposed site plan is shown Page 81 May 17,2007 here. It includes approximately 90,000 square feet of enclosed academic and technology areas. The footprint is shown in basically three buildings -- three primary buildings; a three-story building and two one-story buildings. The three-story building is being proposed for the administration, as well as academic programs. The first one-story building shown there to the north is food service and dining. And the one-story building -- the rectangular one-story building proposed at the east end is for the shop and technical programs. The site includes approximately 200 parking spaces on-site and retention and encompasses approximately six and a half acres. The three-story building is being proposed because of the grouping of the academic programs. It improves efficiency of the academic programs and circulation within the building. The one-story building is being proposed as individual programs of dining and technology. We have included a couple of images here, renderings of the proposed project. The first view is from the existing middle school that is kitty-corner from the project. The other -- the view to the bottom is of the main entry into the project, into the administration area, which is basically off of the intersection. The top view here is from Immokalee Drive. The massing of the buildings is such that the one-story buildings or portions of the project are, in effect, one and a half stories because of the high bay nature of the shop areas for the technology building, as well as the high volume spaces for the food service and dining areas. The views here present the top view from a street level across the street from the project. And the bottom view from the high school side across the street at the high school site. Here are some close-up views of the corner of the food service building showing an outdoor gathering area, as well as the bottom view of more of a frontal view from Ninth Street. Some close-up views of the -- of the public areas, courtyard views. And then an overall view of the project. Page 82 May 17,2007 The project does meet the required setbacks of 50 feet. The buffering around the perimeter or the street buffering meets the minimum standards for the landscape development. And, again, the massing of the buildings is such to mitigate the -- the effect of the third floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Midney, do you have any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, you live out in Immokalee. Do you like this? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I think it is attractive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was hoping you would say something about that. Thank you, sir. Your opinion is valued, especially from Immokalee. Mr. Schiffer, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the renderings you show that there was a small one-story building in front of the three-story building. MR. KRUEGER: That is an extension of the administration area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That will always be -- there's nothing in this application that would allow that to go three-story? MR. HARDY: No. That's intended to remain a one-story appendage, if you will, out of the first floor of the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. KRUEGER: It, again, serves to create some volumes and massmg. MR. HARDY: It breaks up the impact of the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's why I asked. I didn't want that you walk out of here and make that three-story, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) Page 83 May 17,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. No development services standard table. We're lucky. Is there any presentation by staff? MR. DeRUNTZ: Michael DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning, Land Development and Review. I would like to mention -- even though there was not a requirement for a neighborhood information meeting for a variance, the school district did hold an informational meeting for neighbors just to let them know what was transpiring. They -- it was attended by residents out there and they were very supportive of what was being proposed. We also -- in your packet you should have received three letters of support from different organizations. You have the Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board and the Immokalee Regional Advisory Board and the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, all of which were very supportive of this and feel that this -- that this action by the school district in developing this educational center would be significant for their community. And we're recommending support by the board -- by the planning commission. And I would like to say that the variance as being recommended by the staff. And that the eight points that they're -- all variances are judged by were viewed to be acceptable. They are providing mitigation through the massing of the building, additional plantings that is being proposed. And if you have any questions, I would be more than happy to try to address those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. MR. MIDNEY: Did staff consider that there might have been increased traffic, either vehicular traffic because of the age of the students, or pedestrian traffic going back and forth across Immokalee Drive? And would that have -- did you feel that was going to be an Page 84 May 17,2007 impact -- possibly adverse impact on this? MR. DeRUNTZ: The traffic was viewed by the transportation and they were supportive of the variance idea. Right now at the site the -- there is traffic parking on the street and this will be pulling the traffic off the street and putting it on the property itself. Now, when the -- I know there was some discussions at that informational meeting about working with transportation about getting some stoplights or things like this. And this is something that the school district will need to take up with the department of transportation. MR. MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the staff? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1 don't have a question. 1 would like to make a comment. I think this is a wonderful step forward for the community of Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Okay. There are no other questions. Michael, thank you. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to move that we forward petition V A-2007 -AR-11446 with a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners with staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Midney, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Any discussion? Page 85 May 17,2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries nine to zero. 1 tern #9 OLD BUSINESS And that takes us to the last item of the hearings today. And we got through four in less than an hour and one in two hours. So, 1 guess, that's pretty good. Is there any old business from the commission? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What is the status of the DeVoe petition that was continued? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, you need to pull the mike a little closer. He is asking the status of the DeVoe petition that we continued. MR. BELLOWS: That's the parking exemption? Page 86 May 17,2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Parking. MR. BELLOWS: I will have to get back to you on that. I don't know what the status is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. Ray, I am getting an awful lot of e-mails for the Tennis Club. When is that coming? MR. BELLOWS: Naples Bath and Tennis? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I checked my agenda so many times because I thought it had to be in here. MR. BELLOWS: I checked with the planner assigned to this case. She indicated that there was a request by the applicant to be rescheduled. I bel ieve it was August 16th. COMMISSIONER TUFF: August. A few more e-mails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other old business items? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New business? Mr. Midney. MR. MIDNEY: Yeah. I was at a meeting of the Immokalee master plan committee yesterday morning. And we would like to schedule our meeting -- to schedule that that Immokalee master plan have a hearing before this board, CCPC, on the 4th Thursday of July, July 26th, if that would be convenient in Immokalee. And, I guess, the county is talking about providing bus service for the Naples people out to Immokalee. And so I just wanted to bring this board with that request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I -- I think it certainly is appropriate that when we discuss the Immokalee master plan we meet in Immokalee. That's a very good idea and a very good thing to do. The only caveat to that date, Mr. Midney, is I have thoroughly, and in detail, read the Immokalee master plan. And I would highly Page 87 May 17,2007 recommend before we schedule a date that we get staffs concurrence that they have read it and that the legal department in this county has read it. In my reading of it, there are issues that both of those agencies need to thoroughly digest before we could accept the recommendation from them. And 1 wouldn't want to have a meeting with the Immokalee residents in which we're there to make some kind of commitment and that we don't have input of adequate depth from both staff and the legal staff of this county. And 1 say that because there are legal issues that I read and questions. Go ahead, Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: I just want to ask the purpose of the meeting. I know -- I believe, if I recall, the board directed that it be bedded before the planning commission, and such a plan certainly would, as part of a comprehensive plan amendment, and then to follow on land development regulations, which would, of course, be part of the Land Development Code. But we are not even near -- anywhere near any type of action for either a comp plan amendment or certainly the land development regulations. And what Mr. Strain said about staff reviewing it, it has really not been, quote, officially turned over to staff. I know Tom Greenwood has been working with the committee. And for those who don't know, the contractor has withdrawn from this contract and it has kind of been sitting in abeyance now. We're trying to decide -- I believe it is up to the committee and up to the advisory board in Immokalee to decide how they're going to proceed with this. I don't think that has been decided yet. I'm not sure -- I'm kind of asking questions. What does this board want from staff because it really hasn't been a formal application? And, I guess, really it is not a document that is ready to come forward as a comp plan amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where I was going, Joe, and my Page 88 May 17,2007 comment to Paul was that the document needs work. I have read it. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It needs a considerable amount of work. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure what position we would be in to review it until it has had adequate review before us. First of all, I wouldn't want to opine on a document that staff has not reviewed and had its comments on, nor that legal staff has not actually said. Because there are some things in there that 1 think legal staff is going to have very big concerns over. I don't think we need to make a decision on this today, but I would like that -- now that the issue has been brought up, between now and our next meeting, if it's possible, for staff to come back with some kind of idea and scenario as to how we could get there. MR. SCHMITT: Possibly maybe on Monday take a couple minutes prior to that meeting -- or no. The productivity committee. We'll do it as an item with the planning commission and I will have Tom Greenwood -- maybe Tom could come and give us an update on what is going on. Because, as you know, Fred is preparing a budget for next year's CRA, as well, and they are going to try to figure out how they are going to pick up the pieces of this and move forward. I believe Thomas is going to be the staff element that is probably going to be doing the work for the next -- it is going to be at least a year, we believe, as we prepare this and package it for both the -- it is a comprehensive plan amendment because it has to amend the Immokalee area master plan and then there will, likewise, be similar land development regulations, if they will be done through overlay or separate development standards proposed for Immokalee. I think it may end up being the latter. It is just a matter of -- between the county attorney and staff figuring out how we move in that direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you come back to us with any Page 89 May 17,2007 kind of idea and direction, would you mind coordinating that discussion with the commissioner from the district? Because he, I know, has been involved intensely with this issue. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 would certainly want to make sure that in his mind, too, this is ready to come to a certain level of review. That would be important. MR. SCHMITT: I will do that. But given -- do we want to move forward with scheduling this meeting in Immokalee? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When it happens it should be in Immokalee. I think we're all in agreement there. But as far as when it is scheduled, that's the question we can't answer here today. MR. SCHMITT: Ifwe were looking at July, I mean, we would -- we would be looking at trying to make arrangements within the next week or so trying to make sure we put everything together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, if you haven't reviewed it and legal hasn't reviewed it, you guys need to tell us if you can have at least -- give it a cursory review before we start diving into it. In my own opinion, having read it, I don't think that it's ready with legal review at this point. MR. SCHMITT: Nor do I have. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. MIDNEY: I am just conveying the request of the Immokalee master plan committee for that date, but I completely understand what you're saying, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would just be more productive to be more coordinated. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other items for discussion today? (No response.) Page 90 May 17,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein moves and seconded by Mr. Kolflat. We are adjourned. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :23 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected. , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY KELLEY MARIE NADOTTI Page 91