Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/03/2008 R January 3, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 3, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Brad Schiffer Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (Excused) Robert Vigliotti (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERlALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRlOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARlNG. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM 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 SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 2007, REGULAR MEETING; NOVEMBER 26,2007, SPECIAL GMP MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS ~ NOVEMBER 27,2007, C.RAB. MEETING, 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARlNGS A. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-9127, Myrtle Woods, L.L.C, represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, Inc., requesting a rezone from C-4, and PUD to CPUD for a project known as the Myrtle Woods CPUD. The existing PUD sunsetted in 2003 and provided for a maximum of 45 residential units and commercial development on a 5.66+/- acres of land. This rezone request will revitalize the Myrtle Woods PUD on the 5.66+/- acre project and add a 1.38 +/- acre parcel currently zoned C-4 to create a unified commercial development on the now 7.0+/- acre site. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Myrtle Lane. in Section 29, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) CONTINUED FROM 12/20/07 1 B. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-IOI71, Eastbourne Bonita, LLC, represented by Laura Spurgeon, of Johnson Engineering, Inc., and Patrick G. White, Atty. of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP., requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) and Special Treatment (ST) Overlay Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for project known as Brandon RPUD, for the development of 204 single-family and multi-family residential units. The subject property, consisting of 5 I. I acres, is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) CONTINUED TO 2/7/08 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS I I. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 1/3108 eepe AgendalRBlsp 2 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the first Collier County Planning Commission for the new year, January 3rd. If you-all will please rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If the secretary will please take the roll call. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE SECRETARY COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is not here. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Vigliotti is not here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have some addenda to the agenda today. The first petition, Myrtle Woods, will be heard as scheduled. The second petition, the PUDZ-2006-AR-l 0171, East Forum Bonita, LLC is being requested to be continued to 1/17/08 Page 2 January 3, 2008 which will be our next regular meeting. Other than that I don't think there's any -- does anybody have any older new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to approve the continuation? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Midney (sic). Seconded by-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Ms. Caron. All in favor signify by saymg aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion passes. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15,2007, REGULAR MEETING; NOVEMBER 26, 2007, SPECIAL GMP MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of minutes -- well, let's-- Planning Commission absences first. Next week we have two Planning Commission meetings. We have a finishing up of the LDC cycle that started, I think, in November or early December. You-all should have gotten a book right now that put together the remaining items to discuss on the 9th, which is next Wednesday. That one will start at 8:30 in the morning in this room. Then on Friday of next week we have a continuation of the Cocohatchee discussion involving the Burt Harris claim that was remanded back to us by the BCC. That'll be Friday at 8:30 in this room. As far as Wednesday, does everybody plan on making it? Okay. Anybody on Friday is -- how about Friday? Is everybody okay with Friday? Page 3 January 3, 2008 (Indicating. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then the next regular meeting is the 17th of January. Anybody know if they're not going to be here for that? (Indicating. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have quorums all those days. Approval of the minutes, the first set is November 15th, 2007, regular meeting. Is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or a motion to approve by Mr. Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Caron. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody opposed. Motion carries. We have November 26 meeting, the special GMP meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray approves. Seconded by-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Ms. Caron. All in favor signify by saymg aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #6 BCC REPORT- RECAPS - NOVEMBER 27,2007, REGULAR MEETING Page 4 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, we have our BCC report, but I'd like to ask you. What does CRAB stand for, C-R-A-B? Mr. Kolflat was probably going to ask that question sooner or later so I beat him to it. It's on our agenda. MR. SCHMIDT: It's the Community Redevelopment Agency Board, but normally we don't brief those minutes. I don't have any idea why you would want to know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to know what it is, but I just couldn't figure out what a CRAB was. I mean, I know what a crab is, but I couldn't see what the acronym meant. MR. SCHMIDT: Normally we accuse staff of being crabs, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, ifit doesn't mean anything, we'll go on then. I just saw it on the agenda and I thought it was kind of odd. Ray, is there a recap? MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners did not meet from the last planning commission meeting so there is no recap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's no chairman's report. We'll go right into the advertised public hearing. Item #8A PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-9127, MYRTLE WOODS, LLC First petition is -- or the only petition is PUDZ-2005-AR-9127, Myrtle Woods, LLC which is on the southwest -- southeast corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Myrtle Lane. All those wishing to participate, speak on behalf of this application please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there any disclosures on Page 5 January 3, 2008 the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had conversations with Mr. Y ovanovich concerning some of the uses on the site, and I'll be going over those during the meeting today. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that the applicant can start with the presentation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the applicant. With me today to answer any questions you may have are Dwight Nadeau and Chris Wright from RDW, Reed Jarvi from -- from Vanasse & Daylor and Jason Hunt from Passarella & Associates and Emilio Robau, R W A as well. The property involved -- do you want to -- involves a 7.04 acre parcel of property located on the East Tamiami Trail prior to the intersection of 951, Collier Boulevard. It's on the south side. It's shown to you on the visualizer. The property is currently zoned PUD and C-4. Five point six-six acres of the property is zoned PUD. The PUD allows for both commercial and residential uses. The -- we are adding the C-4 parcel which is 1.38 acres to the project. So we're requesting to rezone the property to commercial uses only. We would be eliminating the 45 residential units that's within the existing PUD. The 45 units, as your staff report indicates, is a -- is a net -- an effective density of a little over 11 units per acre which is contrary to the stated goals of the Planning Commission within the coastal high hazard area. And this property is within -- within the coastal high hazard area. We're requesting a maximum of6I,000 square feet of commercial uses on the property which is a little less than 9,000 square feet per acre. In reviewing the -- the PUD document and the staff report there was a commitment made at the neighborhood information meeting Page 6 January 3, 2008 that retail uses would be limited to the first floor of any building. So we need to clarify in the development standards that -- that retail uses will be limited to the first floor and then other types of uses could be on the second and third floor if we do multi-story buildings. So we do need to -- we need to make that one correction to the PUD document. I'm going to put a master plan -- there will be two points of access for the property. The first point of access will be Myrtle Lane which is -- is right here. And the second point of access is Broward Street right here. Broward Street is a full opening on US 41 and I believe currently has a traffic light there. One of the commitments we've made through this project and I think I have a better exhibit to show. I do. Is that right, Ray? I don't know if you can see the arrows, but this is Myrtle Lane. We have committed to providing public access through the project to get traffic to this traffic light at -- at Broward. So we are going to provide public access through the project. Now, for purposes of setbacks, we need to make it real clear that this is not a road that we have to meet setbacks from the road but we are going to provide public access but we're not going to be required to treat it as if it's a public road for purposes of setbacks. And I've talked to Mr. Casalanguida and he -- he's comfortable with that and wanted to make sure we stated that clearly on the record. So there will be tremendous public benefit to -- to this project by allowing people to go through the project to get to that lighted intersection. Currently people have to take Myrtle Lane to 41, cross three lanes of traffic to get to the -- to the left-bound turn lanes and do U-turns to head basically into town. So we'll make it much easier for people in that neighborhood to -- to get to that intersection and head west on 41. In addition, as part of the project, we're going to provide a 50-foot wide drainage easement which is in this location on the property. That will be to help further the LASIP program, the Lely Page 7 January 3, 2008 Area Stormwater Improvement Program. I know what LASIP stands for, but -- so we -- we're going to provide that easement. We also have agreed that we would go ahead and install the pipe for the county and the county would reimburse us for the pipe within 180 days of that. So we need to -- we need to include some that -- that stipulation into the record. And I can read it to you or -- or you can -- we could just give you the concept, whichever you prefer. But the concept is we're going to give a 50-foot wide easement. We'll install the pipe, and the county will reimburse us within 180 days for the pipe. And, finally, we've agreed to provide a well site easement to the county which is also on our master plan in -- in this location right here if the county needs wells for their water service. The -- we are requesting the rezone to commercial based upon the commercial in-fill criteria within the comprehensive plan. I think it's safe to say that staff agrees we meet all of the criteria, the commercial in-fill, except for the long-range planning of it or comprehensive planning, sorry, believes that you interpret the adjacent parcel language to mean that the depth of the parcel is measured only for the portion of the parcel that is actually adjacent to the commercial, not the actual depth of the commercial property that's adjacent to you. And I hope you can -- you will be able to see this. This is the zoning map that's applicable to this area of the property. As you'll see this is the Myrtle Woods PUD right here, the existing PUD, and this is the C-4 property we're adding. So this will become the Myrtle Woods PUD. Adjacent to us, all this long line is C-4 zoning. And this parcel, as you can see, is irregularly shaped and -- and juts to the south. I believe that's the right direction there. Staff is -- comprehensive planning staff is saying, well, you stop here for purposes of measuring how deep your commercial parcel goes. But the comprehensive plan does not talk about the adjacent length of the boundary. It talks about Page 8 January 3, 2008 the depth of the parcel. So the Board of County Commissioners on a case-by-case basis can interpret the comprehensive plan as to how deep the commercial uses can go on the property. We did an average basically of if you took this -- this -- this depth and this depth, we came up with, I think it was 422 feet was the average depth. We're not going to go that deep. We're limiting ourselves to 396 feet in depth I think it is. But we think under these particular circumstances it makes sense to allow the entire property to be utilized as commercial under the in-fill criteria. And we believe that that's the case for -- for a couple of important reasons. One, we will be utilizing -- we will be losing building area by providing this drainage easement to the county. And we should be allowed to make up for that lost area within the property which would stretch our use of commercial uses further south. And I think we have an exhibit that shows that a little bit clearer. I wish -- I know -- I already showed it to you. If you'll look at the master plan and you look at the -- at the square footage replaced, the -- the blue area is the area that's going to be the drainage easement for the LASIP project. That area is larger than the green area that we'll be utilizing within the master plan to essentially make up for the lost area due to the drainage easement. And then addressing the other concerns as far as the well -- well site -- well easement as well as circulating traffic through our project, we believe it would -- it would -- it would make sense to allow us to put our retention areas for the commercial use also in that area. Staff points out that, you know, that -- that -- that water management area is actually serving the commercial. So in their opinion I guess it should be counted as a commercial use. We see it more as a detention use, but we believe that based upon the circumstances surrounding this particular piece of property, the board -- and we hope you would recommend to the board that in this particular case allow the entire site to use the depth of the -- the parcel Page 9 January 3, 2008 to our west as -- as -- not just the adjacent piece, but the depth of that piece under these circumstances for purposes of the commercial in-fill. We think the merits of the project, as I briefly stated, the benefit to access, the benefit to the LASIP program and the benefit to the -- the water program for the county warrant this particular treatment on this particular piece of property. In addition, when you look at the comprehensive plan as a whole, I don't think the existing residential uses is really what the comprehensive plan wants to see happen on that particular piece of property. It's in the coastal high hazard area. The density is 11 units per acre. There's been a lot of discussion. I don't think it got adopted, but there was a lot of discussion of reducing the coastal high hazard area density to four units per acre and not allowing for increases in density in that area. So we think that our proposal is also consistent with the comprehensive plan discussions that have been occurring. We think this is a unique piece of property. It's kind of similar to the Sonoma Oaks PUD, the Nagel Creek PUD on 951. If you'll recall on that particular situation, the county came in and said we would like you to do a bisecting road. And what that did, it cut the commercial piece in half. The property owner wanted to basically reverse how that parcel was laid out so that the -- the commercial would front Collier Boulevard in that case. And the board said under those unique circumstances because staff was asking for the interconnection, it made since to allow the commercial in-fill criteria to be shifted to where it now ran north/south instead of east/west parcel. We're asking for a similar treatment here because of what we're doing to enhance the LASIP program, enhance access. And with that -- that's our basic, that's a brief overview of our proposed project. We're available to answer any questions you have. And we would request that you make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to approve our PUD as currently proposed. And I know we'll get into a few uses that I know Commissioner Page 10 January 3, 2008 Strain has concerns about, but we're available to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there questions from the members of the Planning Commission? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figure you would have. It's in your district so... COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you mind in go first? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's fine. Go ahead. You might resolve all my issues. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I doubt that. Let -- let's start off with the idea of building height. Now, we know it's mixed use and the intent originally with mixed use was try to get residents in there. However, I do agree. It's coastal high hazard area. We really don't want to put residents in there. But I do have a question with -- a concern really for height. You want to build to, what is it, zoned height is what? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fifty feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fifty feet. Actual is about 65, then; right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- and I know I'm not allowed to use the word since it's 2008. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Tippy-top? I'll use it, tippy-top. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That number would be 75 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Seventy-five? MR. YOV ANOVICH: To -- if -- you know, to the highest architectural embellishment or whatever on the site on that particular building, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have the developers, the investors here, have they commissioned the study to determine the viability of a project that -- how many -- how many structures are Page 11 January 3, 2008 intended? There's 10,000 square foot lots. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It looks like right now the thought is we'll probably have three buildings, two out-parcels and one -- one main building, if you will, if I can use that characterization. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have they commissioned a study to determine what -- what the potential is? I mean, when you're talking about office space, we know that there is a number of places where office space is sitting there vacant. And I have a concern for the area that if we just build stuff and hope, that we're not going to be achieving a whole lot. So I'm wondering what -- what work was done in that area. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, of course demand has changed recently for a lot of different things. But, again, we're looking prospectively, not just for what's there today. At some point we believe that there'll be an appropriate market for not only the retail but also the office uses and other non-retail uses associated with the project. Do we have a specific building plan to go on there today, I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No? Okay. I'm going to bring you into a couple of areas I suspect Commissioner Strain is also concerned as he has mentioned. I'm looking at -- go to either location, either your part or the county's document. I would talk about the permitted uses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I noticed that the -- the PUD that was in effect had a lot of uses. And these -- unless I'm in error -- these are a reduction in the number of uses; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Under page A-I have you -- are you there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm with you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Under II, gasoline Page 12 January 3, 2008 service stations, do we really intend to have a gasoline service station there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't say a word to him. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I were a betting man, I didn't think you'd be resolving Mr. Strain's issues. You hit the first one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well-- well, that's scary, isn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly what 1-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It depends on which side of the podium you're on, yeah. We would like that flexibility; but ifthat's going to be an issue for the Planning Commission, we would recommend to our client that that use be eliminated. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that would be a great recommendation. This fellow here would not be inclined to support a gas station in that area. Liquor stores are another one. Coin operated laundries. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wow. That's two for two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're doing good, aren't we? Like I said, you're going to clear up all my questions, Bob. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're fine with eliminating the liquor store. And you said coin-operated laundry? COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yeah. I mentioned -- I also mentioned diaper service to my wife and she said, They don't do that anymore. I said, Well, you know, if they ever started again, it wouldn't be real cool for the people in the neighborhood. I could live with that I guess. Motor vehicles dealers only, I don't suppose you have room even for such a venture. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually, we could probably-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Used car? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. It says new cars only. It says new cars. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Page 13 January 3, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we could -- that would fit on that-- that particular piece of property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Seven acres. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There have been -- as you may remember, there have been a number of organizations that have come here and have looked to expand their parking and all kinds of things. And I -- I looked at that and I didn't see that you had all that much space, but perhaps you do. But in any event, those are my concerns. And I also had a question. I'm curious. In videotape rental and on the preceding page it says recorded -- record and prerecorded tape stores. And I'm just wondering if those -- if that's a redundancy or if those are uniquely different somehow. And that's not a question necessarily for you as such, but they're -- they're grouped 5735 and group 7841 and I just thought that was curious. MR. YOV ANOVICH: They do have different SIC codes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Are they, in fact, different? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under -- as far as the SIC codes are they're different. And, you know, we -- we go by these codes for what uses are allowed. So if we don't have -- if we don't list record and prerecorded tape stores under the 5735 SIC code, we can't have it under the category that we do list as videotape. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you're -- you're compelled. I see that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Those are the issues on that. On page B-1 -- oh, and caretaker's residence, that should be struck. You're not going to have any residences there, are you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The caretaker's residence, and we could strike that, but that was intended for someone who would be there to Page 14 January 3,2008 maintain the retail stores and operations to make sure that they're being properly taken care of from a maintenance standpoint. It wouldn't have been for the residences. It would have been to serve the retail that would actually be built. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would -- would that be a residence above one of the retail stores? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It could be. It could -- or it could be I would imagine we would -- we might put it separately. I doubt it, but we could put it in the building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not sure where it belongs. I mean, I'm just wondering. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's intended to be an accessory used to help maintain the -- the overall project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that like security as well? Is that what you're -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It could be. It could be, you know, the person who's cutting the grass, you know, fixing the plumbing if something breaks -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- the electrical. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a major problem with it if it's something that's fairly common. I think it stuck out to me as being odd that there should be one residence when you don't want any residence. So okay. We'll talk more about that. Under B-1 development standards the second paragraph, it looks like, really speaks to condominium. Are you going to have condominium in there? Is that what's going to happen? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It could be a commercial condominium. That's become a fairly common form of development. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your plan is beginning to be seen. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it's -- it's the flexibility. We may -- Page 15 January 3, 2008 we may do condominium, a commercial condominium, where we would do one SDP so you could have one lot but you'd have individual condominium parcels. Or we could have the -- we could do a typical plat. It gives us the flexibility to go either way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I can appreciate that. And then I have on the master plan -- I found it interesting -- but on the master plan that was in the county's presentation the proposed commercial were in three sites different than in the plan that you had submitted in your document. More specifically, and I can show it to you if you'd like, but if we're -- if we're at 41 looking at the property front on, your plan showed proposed commercial on the left of right and on the left and behind. And the county -- whoops. Wait a minute. I'm dreaming. No. I'm right. The county's plan or yours, now I'm not sure. Yeah. The county's plan showed it on the left, the right and also in the rear right, but your plan showed it where you addressed it this morning. Commercial on the right, the left of your entry . Would you like to see it, what I'm referring to? This seems crazy to try to do it this way. You can just look. And it's probably nothing significant but might be. They should be equal. They should be the same anyway. I don't know how significant it is, but it just struck me as odd that they would be two different plans. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'll be -- I'll -- I'll admit I don't see that, the real difference. I think they both reference the same thing, but we'll -- we'll coordinate with county staff and make sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I think what I'm bringing to your attention is not as a question so much as a point of reference for you. You may want to correct your documents. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll look at -- we'll look at that to make sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You would agree that they are different? Page 16 January 3,2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: It looks like the wording as far as the references to commercial look the same to me, but there were some additional words on there that we need to figure out what the difference was. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't want to make more of it than needs to, but I think it -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I just want to go in-- in the PUD document now or am I in transportation here. Yeah. I think I'm in transportation, the study. I'm in Appendix A, initial meeting checklist. Originally it was 50,000 square feet. That's been modified obviously. But I would have a question when we get in further into this, I'm still seeing 50,000 square feet as a basis. And I'm on -- I don't know how to relate to it except to say Myrtle Woods CPUD site generated trips. And it's -- let me see what page is it's from. It's difficult. I don't have any page number to reference to you. It's Mr. Jarvi's document. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I have his document. Let's make sure we're reading from the same one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard -- when you talk, Rich, you need to be near the microphone. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Looking at the top where it says 80927.01. That's the identification Myrtle Woods CPUD. I guess that's his identification number. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The one I'm looking at says November 21st, 2005, updated November 13,2006. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, see, I don't even have the privilege of that on this -- on this document. And that's what attracted my attention to it's still referencing 50,000 square feet and it talks about a passed-by deduction. Page 17 January 3, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're -- you're -- I'm sorry. You're looking at the document from the initial meeting that did have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that's still the initial meeting? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It has been updated -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- in the traffic analysis. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Well, then-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: What we did was based on 61,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. I do want to talk about the pass-by trip deduction because that's another factor. And while I may not be able to properly qualify my question now because I don't -- I can't reference the real number you're referring to, but how does that work now? The assumption being that you're going to have so many vehicles passing through that because you're -- you're asking them to do so by realignment of the road and you're able then to take a deduction? Did I understand that correctly or is that not correct? MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi for the record. You're actually mixing two different issues. One is a pass-by of traffic that's on US 41 that would use the commercial parcel. And that's done by ITE formula in this case. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the capture? Isn't that a capture? MR. JARVI: That's the capture we've talked about several times before. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand that. MR. JARVI: Right. Now, there's another you could call it pass-by which would be the Myrtle Lane people passing through the project which would be their traffic is added to the access and signal at Broward Street. Page 18 January 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to get to. MR. JARVI: That's a pass-through more of that than a pass-by. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay. Is that referenced in here in such a fashion that I could see that? MR. JARVI: It's included in here. If you look at, let me find the -- in the exhibits what we have done -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which exhibits here? MR. JARVI: I'm looking. I think it's 2 or 3. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's got it. All right. MR. JARVI: Yeah. If you're looking at Exhibit 6 which is, I don't know, 15 pages into it give or take. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Exhibit 2,3. Okay. Ah, right. MR. JARVI: Yeah. Exhibit 6 shows-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Everybody else got it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. JARVI: Exhibit 6 shows the background traffic which was taken from the number of units that we looked at that we showed -- that we were observing on Myrtle Lane. And it shows that there is an amount of traffic turning right on Myrtle Lane and then -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see that, yes. MR. JARVI: Now, if you look at Exhibit 7, we have transferred -- we've assumed that the people will be using our access, you know, the pass-through traffic would be using our access. So we've included that in the analysis of the intersection and access point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would that be the 124 as opposed to 12? MR. JARVI: Well, the 124 is part -- includes the traffic from Myrtle Lane plus the project traffic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. That -- in other words, aligning that -- I'm aligning that circle; correct? Page 19 January 3, 2008 MR. JARVI: Yeah. It's transferred from what is currently the Myrtle Lane, US 41 access -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's the -- MR. JARVI: -- Broward. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. It's not as significant as I thought it might be. MR. JARVI: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it's fine, but I was wondering about the extent of the deduction whether -- and I presumed that Nick Casalanguida and his staff may have qualified that information more effectively. I have no problem and, you know, it's good that the realignment of the road and there is a benefit, you know, there is a reduction that is potential. MR. JARVI: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just so it's an accurate and a fair deduction because that's, what, a TCMA area, that area? 41 is TCMA or TCME? MR. JARVI: No. I don't think it extends that far southeast. It's north to Rattlesnake. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I know this segment is impacted as that, if I'm not mistaken, but that will be more qualified. I think you've answered my question. And, sir, that was it. Thank you. MR. JARVI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A couple things quick. One thing is you referenced you're going to be building an office building, but I'm not seeing that many office uses permitted. It looks like physicians, dentists, chiropractors, the managers of the PUD. And I guess agents for laundry means you could have a company in there that owns a chain of laundries or something. But is that something you want to put in more uses for offices? Page 20 January 3, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had advice from Realtors in the area and they believe that those were probably the uses we could attract. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Those would be the only uses you want? Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the second thing is, you know, we had a lot of conversation in the past couple years over mixed use and the need for bringing residential into these kind of developments. We've had residential in this development. We're throwing it out. Has anybody studied or tried to -- to me this looks like a great site for a mixed-use project. Even bringing the road through it, you know, to me gives it more credentials for that. But here we're throwing away units when we, believe it or not, I think still need affordable housing so... MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't disagree with your statement that we need affordable housing. We just didn't believe that this site was going to make a go of it as a mixed-use site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Even though the back triangle and -- and when you look at the way the commercial comes down, it's coming down a pretty clear line. The residential in the prior PUD kind of had residential where I think it belongs. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what you end up having, Mr. Schiffer, is with all the changes in the code and the need to do preserves now. Remember 1981 when the original PUD was done, the rules were very different. To fit it -- to fit it on everything we have to do on-site we've got to now do, you know, about three-quarter's of an acre of native preservation. We're doing almost an acre. So we lose that and that's where the preserve actually is going to be the buffer from -- from our adjacent residential neighbors. We just -- we frankly can't fit it all if we were to include the 45 units. That -- that old master plan won't work under today's rules. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you build the old master Page 21 January 3, 2008 plan? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under today's rules? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. No. I mean from -- with the old PUD? That's expired. That's long gone. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. That's a sunset PUD. We're -- that's why we're going through one of the -- what we're going through right now is the process we're going through. But, no, we couldn't -- we couldn't -- we couldn't build that today. If we could, I think we would and there was a market for it, we would have done it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, you do have good height in the site and everything. I mean, you could mix everything in I think, but anyway you're not doing it anyway so. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We just don't think it's feasible on this-- on this piece of property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thanks. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Any questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have one follow-up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There was an issue in there, one of them that I missed and I apologize, was fast food. Fast food, what -- what fast food is contemplated there? I mean, does that work out with that community area? I'm trying to understand why you want to put fast food in there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- I always hesitate to mention names because we don't have anybody specifically associated that. But, you know, just down the road you've already got, I believe it is a Burger King and a McDonald's. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: More than likely they would not be one of the potential users of that site. But, you know, there's -- there's others out there, like, a Checkers or similar to that type of -- of Page 22 January 3, 2008 restaurant. And that's what we've contemplated about a 2,000 square foot restaurant of that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, of course, that connotes in one's mind what type of project this is going to end up being if that's the case. Because what -- what -- what something looks like, what it's known for and what you might see in your mind' eye. I just wonder is that a critical factor in this as well? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me ask you. We've -- we've gone through this a couple of times and -- and what -- what -- the -- the problem you have is is Starbucks considered fast food? We've had this debate before. As a matter of fact I think we had the same discussion for -- for the Lely out-parcel that we came through and there wasn't a concern about allowing fast food to stay there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We run into the issue of, you know, is a Quiznos, is a Subway, you know, are those fast food or not? And in-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The distinction in the boutique approach that Stock was going to take was that any fast food would be housed within their structures and be complimentary to the structures as opposed to a stand alone or a facade that is garish. Okay. My concern is that it needs -- if it's going to be fast food, if it's going to be stand alone, there are -- there are organizations that are well understood in our society as being acceptable. I'm not trying to change the world. I'm trying to see ifthere's a proper fit. We're talking about some retail and then two story of office. And then I see this shining out. And I'm just wondering what kind of a -- what kind of a development are we creating here? Do they really have a plan for this or is this let's just build something and try like the devil to lease it? And I'm concerned in an area where we already have the potential for lease holds to fail because of a declining economy. And, yes, we're talking about the future, not today. But today is also representative of the future. Events are cyclical. I just want to see Page 23 January 3, 2008 that if we're going to put a development in an area such as that, we'd like to have the best we could have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is the fast food reference you're finding? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I found it in here. It was-- maybe it was in his -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at Exhibit A, the permitted uses and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you looking in their PUD or CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking in the PUD that's been given to the Planning Commission to review. But No. 14 it says, Eating places except caterers, and industrial and institutional food service establishments, dinner theaters, drive-in restaurants and restaurants with drive-through facilities. So that means they can't have those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe I misread it and all of what I said may be silly then and I apologize ifthat's the case. But it -- let me just -- what number was that, sir? Oh, No. 14. COMMISSIONER CARON: Number 14. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 14. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know I saw it. You know what, I might have seen it in another area of the other section, but I know I saw fast food. So if it's not permitable, so if you're saying to me that we're not going to have that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 14 seems to say that. Ms. Caron did you -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to say maybe Mr. Murray was looking at the information from the neighborhood information meeting -- Page 24 January 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That may -- that's probably where it was. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- where it stated that fast foot was anticipated, but it looks like according to the list that's been provided here and the exceptions that fast food would not be allowed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you for helping me on that because I was particularly concerned with what we were doing there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This has been a very good discussion because Mr. Nadeau just pointed out to me that the intent was on the list of exceptions was to only apply to caterers and industrial and institutional food service establishments. Dinner theaters, stop, and then the other uses as far as drive-in restaurants and restaurants with drive-through facilities were intended to be allowed uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not what it says. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I realize that now. And in looking at that, I read it your way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now that brings in a whole array of things. Because fast food drive-through has a huge intensity upon traffic as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It certainly does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stacking and all kinds of things that may not have been evaluated with this project. If your intent was to include that rather than exclude it, we may be looking at a new traffic impact statement and some re-evaluation by staff. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Mr. Jarvi can answer that question, but -- but my understanding is the shopping center category anticipates fast food restaurants being part of the shopping center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't even got into that problem yet, but we're going to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- I understand. But I'm just -- from a traffic analysis standpoint, it does include that use. Page 25 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would also need staffs review of that as well. I'm a little disappointed that this has been reviewed. How many -- how long has this been in the system? MR. YOV ANOVICH: About a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you haven't -- this -- now at this meeting you guys discovered that an exception now needs to be an inclusion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just think about it. It said -- if I hadn't posed the question, we would have been all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you had not asked the question, they wouldn't have gotten it is what it would have resulted in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They wouldn't have based on 14; right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, they would have put it in and we would have been arguing about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, also in 1 you're excluding drive-throughs for banks too so this seems to be a drive-through-Iess project up till now. Banks aren't going to like that. Every project I'm designing -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not disagreeing with you. I -- I thought that one was pretty clear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Every project I -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can see here on the listing of the excepts, but that one to me seemed pretty clear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In every project I'm designing, the banks will come in only if they can get the drive-through so... MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number I, I think you want to be careful with too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. We're back to now you're Page 26 January 3, 2008 telling us that you want to include fast foods. Mr. Murray's point was that that was something from his perspective was undesirable for this location. Is that where you were going with it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As well as intensity and that's what the question was. Whether or not we have an actual good number, set of numbers for this as well. And, yeah, I don't know. I'm worried about people coming in developing it, flipping it, and not knowing what they want to put there and creating a community area that is not -- that's an important part for this. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. And -- and what I -- the reality of the development world today is you're not going to go in and build it and hope somebody will come. Okay. I think that we've learned some lessons here recently about spec-ing space out. One, I don't think you can get lending for it, conventional lending for it. And so you're going to build when you're -- you have leased-up space. And you're going to go build it. You will have some vacant space, yes, but you're not just going to build it and hope you fill it. And -- and I don't think that this analysis has been applied to any other project. I mean, are we supposed to come with you with a completely leased-out project in order to get property rezoned? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Y ovanovich, not to be disputatious with you but, quite frankly, I just learned that Mr. McCabe's property back has said no. No condolences, now said no. So the fact that you have prospective leases is good, desirable, good business plan. But the concern I have is what kind of a project are we building? We're not putting residences in there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine. But we want two stories over commercial of office. And we're talking about a fast food restaurant. Are we talking about what? I'm trying to understand what's going to be there for the next 25 years. And it's a community need that needs to be addressed. That's all I'm trying to represent. Page 27 January 3, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And what I'm trying to understand and I'm not trying to be argumentative with you. We've had this discussion. Is a Starbucks fast food? I don't think of it as fast food, but others apparently do because -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's expensive food or maybe it's not good. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But no. What I'm suggesting and I don't -- and a Crispers, is that fast food? I mean, you go in. I mean, I don't know. I mean, there were days when, you know, the fast food restaurants didn't have drive-throughs. You know, is -- is that type of -- I don't know. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm just trying to say we're not allowed to put names of -- of -- of companies in here as examples of what we can and can't have. Maybe that would be more beneficial so we can probably get on -- give each other some assurances here. But I tried that one other time and I was told by the County Attorney's Office you can't do that. So I want to -- I want to satisfy you that this is going to be a nice project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I thank you for this. And I'm not trying to be myself argumentative. I just want to -- let's then relate to Mr. Jarvi's statistical information and see whether or not fast foods since it wasn't included here, but I did obviously pick it up. And thanks to Commissioner Caron she made me remember where. So obviously it was intended all along. So let's see if whether or not the numbers were -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not like we didn't tell the neighbors that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far. Mr. Murray and many of us keep referring to fast food. We're talking some -- maybe something different than your exception in 14. Your exception is for drive-in -- through or drive-through facilities. Are you saying fast food and drive-through are the same thing? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It has been -- I think people interpret it Page 28 January 3, 2008 that way. I think -- and that's why we've run into this issue on the project that was on Vanderbilt Beach Road near -- and I'm blanking on the -- the name of the DiVosta project. We're going through and doing a comp plan amendment and that came up was, you know, they clearly didn't want the historically understood fast food which was your hamburger places. They had no objections to a Starbucks that has evolved to include drive-throughs. And the question became now that it includes a drive-through, did it kick it over to what it's historically been -- historically been interpreted to mean fast food. And that's -- that's what -- no, we don't mean -- we don't mean a McDonald's and we don't mean a Wendy's. And we don't mean a Burger King. But we may want to have a Starbucks. And if it's got a drive-through facility, is that going to be a problem for the neighbors? Is that going to be a not-a-nice project? I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what I was getting at, Richard, is we've got your No. 14. It excepts out certain -- certain things. What is it -- what it is excepting out are facilities with drive-throughs just as commercial bank with drive-throughs are prohibited. Now, if we took out the drive-through portion of it, how fast they cook the food isn't a -- isn't a criteria. So maybe it's not fast food we're objecting to. Maybe it's the drive-through segment of the eating establishment that we're objecting to. And if we focus on that, maybe we can get a resolution quicker. Because I don't know how fast you have to cook your food to be fast food, but I'm sure restaurants around here can cook as fast as anybody else. So maybe it's -- it may not be fast food we're objecting to. It's the drive-in, drive-through location on this site as tight as the site is. And in relation to what Myrtle Woods opens up to across that intersection. I think it's the entrance to the high school or thereabouts. You've got a good potential to have a lot of traffic going in and out of there if there's a drive-through in there. And that could further complicate the use of the public going through that property. So if you were to leave 14 like it was, except Page 29 January 3, 2008 out the drive-through portions of it and we don't have the discussion on fast food because we don't know how to define it, that might resolve the issue. Is that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me --let me -- and I -- and I hear what you're saying and I think you're right. Okay. So perhaps we can -- we can probably leave the list the way you have it. Okay. I think that will address that concern, but I do -- you know, Mr. Schiffer brings up a point that, frankly, I didn't catch because I read the language the way it is. Number A-I is an error. Okay. We should-- in order to get a bank there, that was just flat out an error. I didn't catch it. It needs to -- we need to for a bank be able to have drive-through facilities for the bank. I don't think that would be an issue for anybody, but we need to have a commercial bank with drive-through facilities. So if we can make that correction and leave 14 the way it is because I think it addresses Commissioner Murray's concern about having drive-through restaurants I think would work if that's acceptable to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- I think a bank drive-through is harmless. I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer's right. I don't know why you took it out in the first place. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't either, but I read it and I just didn't catch it. I thought that was something we had -- we decided we wanted to do but that was a mistake. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's a good resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, let's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well-- Page 30 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's -- your transportation commitment to -- for public access from Myrtle through to the Broward light -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that needs to go in the PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It needs to go into the development commitments, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: As well as the retail first floor only. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Into the PUD also should be the installation of the pipe? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, with reimbursement to us within 180 days. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Okay. I'd just like to-- we've spent a lot of time talking about this old sunseted PUD and what was allowed in that and what wasn't, but I don't think that that should be open for discussion at all because you -- your clients allowed that to sunset. So if you want to talk about a relationship to your current zoning, that current zoning is not the CPUD. It's what it was before that before which is C-2. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, I don't think that's the legally correct answer. Sunsetting, as I explained to my clients, and I'm not-- I'm not Catholic so I don't mean to offend anybody by saying this, it's purgatory. You're not -- you're not in heaven and your not in the other place. You -- you -- you have your zoning. You haven't lost your zoning. You just can't use it. You have to then go back through another analysis to determine if you can move forward. So you're kind of on a hold. You haven't lost it. You don't revert back to C-2. Because, frankly, we would -- that would have been great. Because if we'd have gotten back to C-2 what was back in 1974, because this Page 31 January 3, 2008 property was always commercial. The entire thing was commercial until we did a PUD and made part of it residential. And then the comp plan in '89 came through and -- and changed all the commercial. But so I mean if you look from a historical standpoint, even the -- the odd-shaped notch was commercial at one time. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I don't think we're asking for anything that unusual because it was always contemplated -- not always, but it was contemplated at one time that commercial be on that back piece. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I don't think you're asking for anything unusual at all. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. But we don't get to go back to the C-2 under the sunsetting analysis. We're in purgatory. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't -- I don't know another way -- another analogy that fits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Most of mine have been checked off here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, let's go back to the Exhibit A, eating places. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a little project in North Naples called Pebblebrook. I'm not sure if you're familiar with it or not. They have a problem there because eating places was allowed in their PUD and it had a residential component nearby. And even though certain things did occur to try to salvage the detriment to the neighborhood that an eating place with outside entertainment and noise would happen, it didn't seem to follow through that way. We kind of want to make sure that doesn't happen again. So we got two choices here. We can suggest that the language that was established and submitted with a couple other PUDs be added Page 32 January 3, 2008 to this one as kind of a notice to the BCC that there's an issue here and maybe they need to either accept the language or modify it to a point where we can have some control over wherein how close you put facilities that are, let's say, incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood or we can figure out a way to control it here at this meeting by limiting where eating places can go and how close in to the property they can go and whether or not they can have outside amplified music or noise and entertainment or seating. Got any suggestions? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I certainly understand and have read the papers. I think prohibiting -- prohibiting outdoor entertainment, whether amplified or not, should be probably added to address that particular concern. I think another -- and I haven't talked about this with my client, but another way to address it is is to prohibit -- I don't think we should prohibit outdoor seating altogether. Because I think, you know, that's a nice -- a nice, you know, part of different restaurants. I mean, we do have nice weather. Why not eat outside? But I think you should say it should have to -- the seating must be for dining services, not just for sitting and waiting to get drinks. Ifwe can some -- what I'd like to say is you could serve alcohol along with the meal, but you can't just serve alcohol out there. You know what -- you know what I'm trying to say? We need to craft language. And I think that would also address the concern and distinguish it from -- from a different establishment. And -- and I understand your concern and make sure it doesn't happen here, but it's kind of -- kind of tough to be compared with one bad -- one -- one bad situation, but we need to address it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I think what I've suggested will hopefully address that by prohibiting any entertainment out there and prohibiting, quote, bar service only in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather we reword what you Page 33 January 3, 2008 suggest a little bit better. We prohibit outside entertainment, music, speakers or amplified sound in any manner, period. And that way if someone has a table and they have a loud speaker out back that says, Table 14 is ready to be seated and they say that eleven or twelve o'clock at night, it doesn't get everybody jumping out of their seats in their homes so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --I would prefer amplified sound. And if we did that it would take care of the whole matter. Does that work for anybody else? Okay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It doesn't -- may I say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do recall as you've referenced it now, it may not be directly pertinent, but I remember now to that-- the GMP that we're going to be looking at references mixed uses and exception to that. But -- but I'm -- I'm certainly in favor of what you just declared of what we should do. I was thinking about that for the future. This is a mixed use intent; right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With no residential, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With no residential I understand. But residential can't be within, say, 2,500 feet. Okay. In any event, I completely agree with the chair that that should be included. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Now-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- a point just --I'm going to ask your attorney a question if it's appropriate. Because we're going to have this provision in here that says basically no outdoor entertainment, no amplified noise and that becomes our rule. And now you adopt an LDC provision that says you can't have any of this stuff, outdoor seating -- and I'm not saying you will or you won't -- but let's just say you adopt something that says no outdoor seating within 1,500 feet of a residential development. Am I now stuck with that provision or am Id Page 34 January 3, 2008 -- have I just gotten a deviation from a prospective code? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not offering a deviation here because you've not asked for one and we don't have one -- right. So I don't get -- I don't know how you could be exempt from a future code that you haven't asked for a deviation from. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just want to know how it's going to be interpreted to us if that prospective regulation is adopted. Have I lost my outdoor seating somehow? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if you have input on that, you might want to come to the meeting next Wednesday and voice your concern and maybe we can work that out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But unless the county attorney has another suggestion, I think that would be the best course of action. MR. KLATZKOW: That's all clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifwe go to Table 1 on B-2, you have minimum yards and it says internal, front, rear and side. What are your proposed setbacks from US 4I? Or for that matter I don't know if it's called Myrtle Lane, whatever that road is to the north here -- to the west of your property that you're part of or contiguous to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: By these distances? It should be internal and external? Well, hold on one second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those distances, Mr. Strain, are actually from the property boundary which would be the frontage of Myrtle Lane, 41. The other areas that are actually adjacent to -- if you look to the east, I believe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- so that should be -- that should be property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't you just take out the word "internal" and just leave it. I mean, that's a new way of calling it Page 35 January 3, 2008 out. We don't use it that often. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, take that word out and then you drop down to your first asterisk. Parcels with two frontages may reduce one front yard by ten feet. So now you're saying that the building on the corner of Myrtle and 41, either it can be ten feet from Myrtle or ten feet from 41 ? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would be reduced by ten feet. So if you had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It says parcel with two frontages may reduce from front yard, okay, by ten feet. So that means you go to 15 feet. So you have 25-foot frontage on Myrtle and 15-foot frontage on US 41 ? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or vice versa, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark -- okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I mean it's -- usually when you got two fronts, I mean, it's -- it's tough to push the building back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might be -- this is a commercial piece so you've got -- and you happen to have more land. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to point out that 50 percent of the building height, the maximum building height is 50 feet. So it's a lot. It's 25 feet. If you're saying not less than 25 feet, that's what you would be at with a 50-foot building. So a 40-foot building is 25 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSION SCHIFFER: A 30-feet building is 25 feet. A 20-foot building is 25 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, I didn't read it that way. Fifty percent of seventy-five feet is not twenty-five feet. Page 36 January 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But he can't go -- oh, you're taking -- but it's the building height not the actual building height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't say that. It says building height. I would take the worst-case scenario, most stringent applies. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be 50 percent of75 feet. And you're -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then he's going to be able to be greater than 25 feet in that other zone, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think it has always been applied to the zoned height when you're talking about setbacks. If we need to clarify that, that would be a new interpretation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know why it's always been applied; but you know what, this is the first time it hasn't been -- it's been questioned. So now maybe we better define it because it could be applied the way I just suggested if it's not properly defined so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hear what you're saying. It was -- it's-- I -- I appreciate the discussion. You're right. But it was under the category of maximum building height zoned. And the asterisks apply to maximum building height zoned. So I would have interpreted that's how you would measure it. You would jump in at the 75 feet. But if there's any question, I agree. Let's make sure it's clear. Because I don't want to have someone say well, you know, Mr. Y ovanovich, you should have used the 75 feet and not the 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I make a comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would definitely think we should make it the zoned height. Again, the actual height was just to remove a slang term that was -- looked embarrassing to the county. That didn't work. But the -- the actual height is something just to give people some sort of faith as to how tall this building actually would Page 37 January 3, 2008 be. Zoned height is what everybody's working with for heights. All the building codes are working with that same dimension so -- and like Richard said, it's under the zone category so... MR. YOV ANOVICH: Be we can -- I think under the minimum yard section we probably should say 50 percent of the zoned building height, but not less than 25 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I don't -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- you're right because we're going to be at least 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it would be easier just to make it 25 feet because the answer when you do the math is always going to come out to 25 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I think he's saying is if you were to build it to 50 feet, you'd be 25 feet and you can't be less than 25 feet. So it's going to be 25 feet. So that's a good point. Why don't you just drop all that 50 percent language in the front and just leave it 25 feet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: With the asterisk that says if you have two fronts you can reduce one of them by 10 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what the asterisk says. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Sold. I hear you. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's what they're asking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. I just wanted to make sure that the asterisk -- so we're talking the same language, we would be -- we are talking 25 feet with an asterisk would be the revision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is not your setback on Myrtle Woods because that's a very small neighborhood street. At 15 feet that is more palatable, but to have 15 feet on 41 might be a Page 38 January 3, 2008 stretch. So I'm wondering if not -- if the only time the ten-foot would apply, the ten-foot reduction would apply is along Myrtle Woods, the asterisk? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm looking at my professional planner to see what -- what his thought is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now he'd probably like to rewrite the whole thing, but -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, why would you ever want to be 15 feet off that property line? I mean, your buffer -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, either one. I mean, first of all, you don't want to be 15 feet off of 41. You know, the traffic, you wouldn't -- you don't want that kind of exposure. So kill the asterisk. You're going to have parking between the building and the roadways anyway. You're never going to have a problem. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So the asterisk's going away? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think you should kill the asterisk. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The asterisk is going away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmidt. Yes, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: For the record I just want to make sure where we are here. We're just -- now we're saying under principle use, under that column it's 25-foot and no 50 percent of building height? I want to make sure that the petitioner agrees to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me walk through what we've got so far. Under minimum yards the word "internal" is going to be struck. MR. SCHMIDT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the first designation where it says front under principles uses, the language of all the 50 percent Page 39 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm talking about this one. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and the access commitments were not in there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- but I want to make sure they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want you re-reading all three pages, but if you want read -- read just the ones that we're talking about here, that's fine. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you'll indulge me for a minute I can probably get through this pretty quick and then just enter it as an exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll be able to read it and then I'll put it on the viewer if it's okay. The developer shall dedicate a 50-foot drainage and utility easement to the county as approximately shown in the master plan within the earlier of 60 days of written request of the county or at submittal of site development plan. The dedication shall be at no cost to the county and the developer shall provide all appropriate sketches and legal descriptions. At the county's request the developer shall install drainage and utility facilities in the drainage and utility easement as part of the site construction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Slow down. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The county shall not be responsible for restoration costs of private facilities within the easement should maintenance of the public utility and drainage facilities be required in the future. The county shall reimburse the developer within 180 days of completion of the installation of these facilities. The developer shall provide a public access easement from Myrtle Lane to the signalized intersection of US 41 and Broward Page 46 January 3,2008 Street as approximately shown in the master plan. The public access easement shall not count as road right-of-way for setback and buffer requirements. The exact location and design shall be approved by the transportation division at the time of site development plan application reVIew. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a public access easement would serve your purposes and you have enough control by that language to make sure it's designed in a manner to protect the public? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. We do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have no problem with it then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll put it on the viewer for the record and I'll enter it as an exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have a comment? Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, you said that it wouldn't count as road right-of-way for measurement. What if we just took the word "road" out of it and just said right-of-way. Because there are, like, for example, easements and things like that that you have to measure from to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Typically community development even public easement counts for setback purposes as road right-of-way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So we just want to make sure we're clear that it does not count for those setback purposes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my only concern is the word "road." I mean we don't want it to count for any kind of right-of-way. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We could -- we could take the word "road" out if that's your pleasure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich is tall. He's the lawyer. Page 47 January 3, 2008 reference and the asterisk is struck and it just says 25 feet. MR. SCHMIDT: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Front setback is 25 feet, period. And that's -- those are the changes so far. Mr. Schiffer then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, would it ever be a problem -- would you ever break this up into smaller subdivisions where somebody might interpret those yards to meet -- you know, to be at that level? For example, let's say you broke it up into three lots. Would you have trouble in the future with staff, them holding you to those yard requirements? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's why it's important to us that the public access be referred to as public access and not have to meet setbacks from that public access. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because that would create the yard. Right, Nick? That could create now a 25-foot setback from that public access. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the definition of setback would cause you to measure from that. So I think that's something you got to really make clear. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And that's why I brought it up early and we need to write that language. Oh, Nick's got the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: As I understand it then the 25 feet is the only thing that will remain as far as the front yard setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For principle uses, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What about the rear and the side, do they remain as in -- in here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think there's any -- no concern over those. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. Page 40 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next one down, minimum distance between structures principle uses, none. Can you tell me how you get a fire truck through no distance between buildings? Are these going to be one continuous building with separate fee simple or condominium lots underneath or internal walls to internal wall or something like that? MR. NADEAU: For the record, Dwight Nadeau, R W A and planning manager. The -- the intent of the development was to have separate parcels. The design was to have three structures. One would be on one out-parcel. One would be on the other out-parcel. And then there would be a large major anchor or a commercial operation. The -- the parking was going to provide for the separations. Just because we have to function. We've got to provide 20 feet around the buildings for fire access. That none really wouldn't apply. It's not a functional standard, but if you're going to put a kiosk or something next to one of the structures, you wouldn't want to have it maybe 15 feet away or so. But I -- I could live with 15 feet between structures if that's what you'd like, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like something there only because none makes it hard to understand what you're trying to do, so 15 feet would work fine. MR. NADEAU: Very good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, if you could-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- if you're concerned about fire access, 20 feet would be the number you want. Anything less than 20 feet would not be considered accessible by the fire department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then how do they get between all the houses that we allow in the PUDs with five foot on each side? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they're not counting that as frontage. I mean, in a fire with Bruce Willis in action, they'll get Page 41 January 3, 2008 through it. But -- but in terms of counting it for frontage and exposure, it wouldn't count. And actually, Dwight, if you had a building with no distance between them, it would be part of the same building. So there wouldn't be two buildings to begin with unless there is a fire -- separate fire wall. MR. NADEAU: All right. With 15, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm fine with that. I mean, I -- if the fire department's got a problem, they can deal with you when you come in for review. They -- they -- they deal with people all the time anyway so. As we move further down, maximum gross leasable area, 61,000 square feet. Maximum gross leasable area, now that means every square foot you can lease out is the only number that's counted for the 61,000 which is really a net number. So how big can this shopping center really be? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to ask one question here. I read it and I think what Mr. Nadeau is just telling me is that's the gross floor area, 61,000 square feet. Ifwe lose area to other uses that we can't lease it out, I interpret what you said to be net leasable area versus gross leasable area. Now, if we needed to see 61,000 square feet, we can just say 61,000 square feet so there's no confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just drop that last line because you've already defined it. And now we have to go back to A-I. Because now that I know GLSF is referring to gross leasable square footage, you really want to say like we have in other PUDs, the maximum square foot of the building will be 61,000 feet. It doesn't matter how you get there whether you lease it or not. It's 61,000 square feet so... MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. Page 42 January 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The gross area of a building, at least in -- of all the codes I know, would include, like, a covered walkway and everything. In other words area that's covered would count. So if you do this nice colonnade around the front of the building, you're taking away from that 61,000 feet when you should be rewarded, not punished for that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can we say 61,000 air conditioned space? Is that -- does that address your -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or enclosed -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- enclosed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- some words like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but then let's take Outback Restaurant. They got seating outdoors. That seating is integral part of their operation. It creates a additional stacking of people which means there's more traffic, more intensity on the site. But now you're saying you wouldn't have counted that based on Mr. Schiffer's comments. And I say it should be counted. It's 61,000 square foot of building area, period. I don't care what you use it for. I don't care if you lease it out. If you can be more efficient in the way you build a building and get more leasable area out of that 61,000 squeet (sic) -- square feet, more power to you. But if you want 75,000 or 100,000 square feet, then just like actual height versus zoned height, say it. Tell us the truth. Tell us what you want. But you've applied for 61,000. And I think that's what you ought to be getting for buildable area, period. Now, I'm -- that's where I'm at. Brad, if -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean the concern is then it would be to their advantage to take away a covered walkway around the face of the building. We have some standards that'll require that, but the point is that if they're not using it for seating in your Outback example, why should that reduce the building to provide? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I mean this is a planning board. I understand your architectural concerns. I simply -- if they want to do Page 43 January 3, 2008 it. If they want 61,000 square feet, that's what they're asking for. That's what the building footprint that's square on that property that is buildable better not be more than 61,000 square feet. I don't think the planning sector needs to get into whether or not that's air conditioned, leasable or whatever. It's building. Let the review of the architects and everybody else decide how to use that space up most efficiently, but I don't know if that's something we need to get into. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'm not sure the public would benefit by stripping away covered walkways and stuff like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then they wouldn't use it and the applicant would lose. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then the question arises if they, for instance, if they're contemplating a car dealership, none of those architectural features would necessarily apply. So we don't know what they ultimately will have. I think what Mark is indicating is that at least we can fix a point and everybody knows that point and they can go from there. I appreciate what you're saying, but I do think we -- we don't know what they're going to do. I'm not sure that they do. So as long as we can establish that one criterion and fix it, then we can go from there. Wouldn't you see that as being reasonable? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. My buildings can't exceed 61,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that what we just said? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Ifhe's happy, I'm not going to waste time arguing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So from staffs perspective, whoever's making notes on this, on page A-I that reference to GLSF has to be struck and it's just GS, gross square footage, GSF for the building is -- now will be 61,000 square feet. And there's really no reason to have the last line on Table 1 then because it's already Page 44 January 3, 2008 restated previously in the document so... MR. NADEAU: Stricken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if that's clear enough for the staffs purposes to correct this PUD? I see a lot of heads nodding yes so we'll go with that. Now we can possibly go on from the table. On your Exhibit C, master plan, I notice and you did it on the previous exhibit with the arrow showing the way the public's going to come into the property and out again. And I heard you say you'll make that the developer commitment. What is your developer commitment that you allow the public? Well, under what instrument are you going to allow that to happen? And under whose regulations does the safety of that roadway that's internal to your site be regulated enough so that if we say, yes, public, we approve this for your use, we're not going to be getting a lawsuit back to the county that says you approved this for a use, but you didn't -- didn't build it pursuant to county regulations. Therefore, you inordinately you have allowed the public to enter something that is damaging to them. And I'm looking to Mr. Casalanguida to probably answer that problem because I don't know an instrument we have that will allow that to happen and still protect the public. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Excuse me. For the record, Nick Casalanguida with transportation. I have all the commitments written down and looked it over really quick with Jeff. And if you want me to read those into the record including the drainage commitments and it would address also your public access easement commitments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got the commitments already here. We've got -- COMMISSIONER CARON: They're not in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got three pages of commitments. They start Exhibit F, listed developer commitments. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the drainage commitments -- Page 45 January 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the absence of an easement, there would be invitees on the property if I'm not mistaken, anybody that comes across the property. So the easement establishes a road or a right-of-way. Which? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not a road or a right-of-way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not a road or a right-of-way. What does it establish? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Public access through the property. In other words, right now they have access on 41 and Myrtle Lane. What we don't want them to do is put a gate up on Myrtle Lane and say no one can use Myrtle Lane. The intent you have to -- when we get into that exhibit in the record I'll show you in the diagram. That's upside down. Myrtle Lane right now is a tremendous weaving hazard for the county. Right now you come out, you take a right. You want to make a U-turn and go the other way. You're cutting across traffic. What we've asked them to do and they've worked with us on is to relocate that to make Myrtle Lane only an entrance only. And the county will take it upon itself to make it an in only and that way reducing the conflict that's there right now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's very laudable. I'm not questioning that at all. My -- my -- was just maybe even perhaps a curiosity in one sense. Just trying to figure out what kind of an animal it is. Because when they have to ensure, you know, do they ensure it? Is the county liable? I mean, the chairman brought up a part that I thought was very interesting. We're -- we're suggesting people use that. And the property owner is agreeing that that's the right thing to do. But it's not a road and it's not a right-of-way. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It happens all the time throughout the county when you interconnection these, and they're just granted for Page 48 January 3, 2008 public purposes, emergency vehicles with no responsibility for maintenance. They take care of it. It's their drive aisle. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that different than a loop road that we designate? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it's a loop road, then the county assumes responsibility for maintenance. It becomes county road right-of-way. This becomes the developer's property with public access rights. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I'm trying to remember Wolf Road. There was a loop road there. And I thought that was going to be -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Public road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- that was a public road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next issue's going to take some time. So why don't we take a 15-minute break for the court reporter. We'll be back here at five after ten. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everyone, if you'll take your seats, we'd like to resume the meeting. Okay. We are still trying to get through the applicant's portion of this and we left off still in the PUD. And I've got a question, Exhibit F., Mr. Yovanovich, page F-2, utilities, D. Why are you giving away the property for a well field easement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why are we giving it away? Because the county has requested additional well sites in order to provide the public with a public water supply. And we were able to put it in a location that we can agree to and we've agreed to give it to utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you getting impact fee credits for 't? I . MR. YOV ANOVICH: My assumption is that the county's not Page 49 January 3, 2008 interested in giving us impact fee credits for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you feel you could have successfully got through the process, if you didn't provide this, in the same time frame that you got through it already? I shouldn't say that because it's probably taken you awhile. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me -- let me ask you, am I successfully through the process right now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think where I'm going, Richard, is I-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand where you're going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- he's coming through. The county takes them away, takes them out of properties. They offer no impact fee credits for them. We have a huge amount of impact fees that are paid by developments. I have no problem making developers stand to the plate and do everything they got to do, but what's fair is fair. And I don't believe we should be taking additional properties without compensation when we have impact fees as well. So that one concerns me, but I also have a greater concern. Do you know what it was told to you to be for? I know what it says. Is that for your -- is this going to service your site only? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, no. Oh, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. It's not just for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I need to see Mr. Weeks if! could since he's here. I had a question of David Weeks on December 13th that has yet to be answered. And it pertains to an item similar to this. David, good morning. MR. WEEKS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you remember the question I asked you on December 13th bye-mail? MR. WEEKS: I do. And for the record David Weeks, comprehensive planning manager, comprehensive planning department. Page 50 January 3, 2008 Staff has looked into your inquiry which was whether or not the potable water well fields were allowed within the coastal high hazard area. And we've searched. Our department has searched. Conservation and coastal management element, the future land use element and potable subelement as being those that have any relevance to the issue at hand and we are not able to find any language, any policy, any provision that we read that says they're not allowed. So we believe that a potable water well field is allowed in the coastal high hazard area. Excuse me. We also looked at the capital improvement element. If I may go on briefly a little bit further, in sum what those elements provide for is that the county is either allowed to provide or in some cases is mandated to provide public infrastructure of all types: roads, water, sewer, et cetera, to serve the public. And specifically either the county is mandated to provide those or other private utilities are allowed to provide for that infrastructure. But one way or the other, the infrastructure to serve -- to serve development in the coastal high hazard area is required. We have level-of-service standards that have been adopted in the capital improvement element and in certain sub-elements and those must be maintained. There are generally some limitations on development in the coastal high hazard area or perhaps instead of limitations I should say encouragement such as reducing the residential density in the coastal high hazard area, but there's not a prohibition on that. This -- the county is allowed to, of course, allow existing zoned property to be developed in the coastal high hazard area including residential and is not prohibited from approving new residential development in the coastal high hazard area. However, the county does have GMP, Growth Management Plan, a limitation on residential density for new zoning within a portion of the coastal high hazard area where the subject site is located. The urban coastal fringe is limited to four units per acre with the only Page 51 January 3, 2008 exception being for affordable housing. But, in short, the GMP provides that infrastructure must be provided to serve development within the coastal high hazard area. And we do not find any -- any provision that says you cannot provide the infrastructure within the coastal high hazard area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with your analysis, but as we've heard and as I think the record will show, this use is not exclusively for the coastal high hazard area. This is infrastructure being utilized to service areas outside the coastal hazard area. And if Objective 3 of the FLUE Policy 3.1, both of those refer to, first of all, replacement of maintenance for those items within the coastal high hazard area. It doesn't say new is allowed. Objective 3 says, Needed to support new development pursuant to Policy 1.1 which is basically new development pursuant to the AUIR process. So I can't see where there's any reference or allowance in the GMP to place infrastructure in a coastal high hazard area so that the infrastructure can support areas outside the coastal hazard area. That certainly seems contrary to the best intent of the use of public funds. You've addressed everything but that part of it so... MR. WEEKS: What that suggests to me is that -- that the county then by reading it, I believe the way you are, would prohibit the county from placing any infrastructure within the coastal high hazard area that is going to serve any property outside of coastal high hazard area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the way I was reading it, yes. That's the way it seems to me. Is that -- have you looked at that aspect of this? MR. WEEKS: I had not specifically looked at those -- that objective for policy that you referenced. I was looking more in the conservation and coastal management element because it speaks specifically to coastal high hazard area. And that's where it talks about efforts to reduce the impact that might occur to storm events Page 52 January 3, 2008 within the coastal high hazard area. For example, flood proofing of infrastructure, elevating above the flood plain, things of this, mitigation measures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David-- MR. WEEKS: Once again no prohibition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- would it be fair to ask you to look at that issue before this goes to the BCC? Would you have time to do that? Because I sent you excerpts from the CCME and the CIE. CIE refers back to the CCME. The CCME says limitation of public expenditures that subsidized development in high hazard coastal areas. That's one of the objectives. Then if you go into the CIE, you find other references to infrastructure improvements. And some of them to me seem to -- it says, Needed to support new development to the extent permitted in the future land use element. I keep referring it -- to me it seems to keep referring back to that development in the coastal high hazard. MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It seems really silly to expend funds, capital taxpayer's money to build infrastructure in a coastal high hazard that we know is a bad area to begin with anyway. And we have all the restrictions we can imagine to build there to see it damaged because of flooding when we could be placing it inland where it belongs. So that's why under common sense it just doesn't seem that that would be the place to put elements for infrastructure that serve outside that area. So if you could look at that before the BCC meeting, I would appreciate it. MR. WEEKS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the meantime as far as this -- but thank you, David. That's all I had on that issue. As far as my concerns on this project go, unless there's going to be a payment for either the land or impact fee credits for these well sites or some policy established that provides for a discussion of this Page 53 January 3, 2008 kind of extraction or exaction, however you want to word it, through a public process like impact fees are discussed and like other things are discussed, this is -- I'm very concerned about this chunk of land being contributed by the developer. So I'm -- my sense is to ask that it not be included in our recommendation to move forward. Does anybody have any thoughts on that from the Planning Commission? MR. GRAMATGES: May I address the commissioners, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead, Phil. MR. GRAMATGES: Phil Gramatges, public utilities . . engmeenng. Let me first show the location of this well in reference to the proposed Southeast Regional Water Treatment Plant. And this Southeast Regional Water Treatment Plan is supposed to serve the area surrounding it which is, of course, in the high hazard area. So, indeed, this well will be supplying water not only to areas that may be outside of that -- that high hazard area, but it certainly will be supplying road water for those areas that you're referring to. Furthermore, we need to realize that we have to pay for these wells out of funds that will eventually have to be paid by the rate payers and the impact fee payers. Ifwe were to pay for this at this point in time, they would eventually have to pay for that at a later time. We cannot take wells only that are going to supply the specific area where the well is located because not all developments are within areas that we can put a well. So we are really finding -- finding ourselves between a rock and a hard place. Ifwe do not get these wells now, they are going to be a lot more expensive in the future. In fact, we may not even be able to get them in the future. Furthermore, if we do not get these wells whenever we can get these wells, we certainly will never get them. It -- it would be a problem for us if we didn't do this in this manner. Besides this is going to be a brackish water well because that's going to be a reverse Page 54 January 3, 2008 osmosis plant. So, therefore, it is indeed in a suitable area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Phil, I got no problem with you getting these well sites from the project. I think you should. I think every project that comes through here, if it's a site you can use, by all means. You should be asking for and you should be attaining it. Just like transportation, they look at two things on a site, site-related improvements that a road system that they make the developer pay for and other improvements needed that the developer gets impact fee credits for. The site related needs for this well site on that site, they should be paying for. But if they aren't related to the site, then you should be writing impact fee credits for them. That's-- and if that isn't enough to do it, if your impact fee credits are going to cause a problem for you with rates and all the other thing, then you should turn around and increase your impact fees so that you can take into account the need to buy the well sites for those that are not site related. I just think it's double taxation, but kind of done as a forcing the hand of the developer through the process. I don't think it's aboveboard and I don't like it. And that's where I'm standing unless there's -- it's legitimate in regards to compensation for that taken. And that's where I see it. That's just my opinion on this board so... COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that case, would it be -- would it serve to enter a stipulation when we finalize that would suggest that credits be provided rather than an absolute prohibition on -- on our part? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good suggestion, yeah. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Phil, a question. When you locate a well site, doesn't that affect what's allowed to be developed in -- in the area of the well field or the well site? MR. GRAMA TGES: There are some restrictions, yes. If, indeed,e Page 55 January 3, 2008 you are going to have a pond or lake, it has to be within a certain distance of that well. In all cases we work with the developer to make sure that we've minimized the impact that this has on the developer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean, like, there's a radius in which certain occupation -- activities can occur, fuel storage, stuff like that? MR. GRAMA TGES: That is correct. However, it is more restrictive in wells that are tapping the fresh water aquifer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. GRAMA TGES: This is not a fresh water aquifer well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So by placing a well field in a commercial area like this you are in no way diminishing developable rights of any of the land surrounding? MR. GRAMATGES: I wouldn't say in no way. I would say in a minimal way affecting the -- the ability to develop it, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And what would be an example of one of your minimals? MR. GRAMA TGES: The example I used previously. For example, if they need to use a pond or a lake nearby, they would be restricted to -- to the edge of that -- the water body to be within 50 feet of the well head. If the well head is there before the pond, then it would be more, like, 300 feet. But, like I said, in all cases we work with the developer to make sure that we minimize the impact. In this case, for example, if there was such a case here, we would make sure that they have the pond in place before we put the well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern is not so much this developer, but other people's whose rights may be -- so give me another example. You wouldn't say absolutely that the surrounding properties are being diminished in their potential? MR. GRAMATGES: In this case I don't see that the -- that the properties are being diminished in their potential. Of course, that's not for me to say. It's for the developer to say. Page 56 January 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I'm not worried about this guy. I'm worried about there's other commercial properties within the region. MR. GRAMATGES: We are requesting an easement. Obviously, we're taking land from them. That is something that most developers and owners don't want, but by the same token, they also want potable water. So I mean it's a quid pro quo. You have to get the water. You have to get the well somewhere. And the -- the -- the overall good of the community will be served by having this well here. So, yeah, there will be some impact and I will emphasize minimum impact on the particular development, but I believe that the overall good that this well will provide will more than compensate for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How are the neighboring properties -- again, I'm not worried about this developer. He's aware of it, but there's other properties in that area. Will they be notified of any diminishing use of their land? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, I am not -- no. We don't have any procedures to notify them specifically of any perceived diminish -- diminishment on the use of their property. I don't know how to evaluate that. Like I said, only the owner can evaluate whether this -- this is going to be detrimental. I mean, let me put it this way. Obviously, if I was to put a well in front of a private property between that property and the road, I would have a definite effect on that property. How much, only the owner can determine. We don't do those kind of things, but -- but certainly there is a potential there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if the neighboring site across from Myrtle wanted to put an underground storage, fuel storage or something, wouldn't he have restrictions because of his proximity to that well? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, he would have restrictions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That he does not have now? Page 57 January 3, 2008 MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. -- Ms. Caron then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah. I just wanted to comment that I think that properties on either side of this in-fill piece are already developed. So there's less chance of impact to those sites anyway because they're already developed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Phil, not to take issue with you, but you mentioned before about costs and you were trying to show the implications of it. But it strikes me that you have two components of cost. One would be the acquisition of the property assuming that you were to buy it or it would be deeded to you as a gift or taking, so to speak. Then the other component is, of course, the structure and the well, et cetera. You kind of put those two things together as a cost out. Ifwe didn't do this, we'd have to do that. But don't we look at it as being a two-step process? What I'm trying to do is -- is focus more clearly on the -- on the concept of rightness that if -- if we offer instead of requiring and putting people in a position where they feel that they won't achieve their purpose unless they do something, wouldn't we be better off to state right out that this is an appropriate act. We want to pay you the credits. We want to give you the credits. And you're not in a position probably to have -- but I'm putting this on the record because I think that's an advocation I would make. The County Commission has made it clear they want well sites wherever they can have them. That's fine. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: But I do agree with the chair that we do need to make it right for people and not have them even perceived that they have to jump over more hoops than necessary in order to get their project through. Page 58 January 3, 2008 So that's on the record now and that's my view on it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I think the chair's position on fair -- fairness is valid and worth looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I think we're going to have a suggestion to that effect in the stipulations. Thank you, Phil. MR. GRAMATGES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll just continue where I left off. And we -- now is transportation. And I guess my questions are really more of Nick than your expert so... MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record Nick Casalanguida. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Nick. Thank you again for attending here today. I know you have a busy schedule and it's -- your attention to some of these matters is appreciated. Let me read you -- there's a few notes in this Vanasse & Daylor report that concerned me and I want to get your input on them. On the first page of the trip generation projected traffic portion and I -- it's page 4. It says, The Myrtle Woods commercial development project is estimated to have a 45 percent of pass-by deduction based on ITE formula. And it says, The study conducted by Vanasse & Daylor indicated the pass-by trip deduction derived from ITE better represented Florida characteristics than does the 25 percent pass-by deduction required by Collier County. They provide a nice little report which is going to say what they want it to say. And I'm just wondering why you accepted a TIS that wasn't to county -- we went to a lot of effort to make everything standardized in this county. And now we're back to accepting stories from people as to why it shouldn't be. Where are we at? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Where we're at is this was signed, the methodology was signed on November of2005. It's almost two years old when this project was first submitted. Page 59 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The mic's got to be a little closer I think. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Almost two years old since this project was submitted. So the methodology at that time that was approved by the county was based on ITE and the ITE pass-by rates that were -- you know, current IT books. The county has since then gone to a stricter TIS guidelines and procedures. So when this project comes in for a SDP -- and I had this discussion with Mr. Jarvi -- he'll be doing a lot more significant analysis consistent with the current TIS guidelines. But the methodology meeting is almost over two years old. So some of these projects that you bring this up, good point. That was accepted practice at the time. The project went through. I have a very comfort level that when we get to TIS that the design will meet the minimum standards to today's guidelines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know Mr. Murray had brought up the pass-bys, an issue, earlier when he was speaking. The pass-by then that you will weigh this project on when it comes in for SDP will be the county standard of 25 percent? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The current -- you will have to meet the current guidelines. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- helps out a lot. A long time ago -- and I think it was a project over on 1-75, actually, 951 and Davis -- and we talked about the intensity of the uses that the TIS used. And they always fell back on this shopping center use 820. Yet in the requested amount of uses they had, they could have a variety of uses that had much more intensity than 820. Everybody likes 820 because it's got a low intensity traffic impact. But now, first of all, I don't see where this project could have generated enough traffic to have a problem on that section of US 41 because that section has just been six-Ianed and it's in pretty good shape. But that lends more to my concern. Why didn't they use the most -- the most intense use as you had told me back two or three Page 60 January 3, 2008 years ago was the standard way to look at these things. Instead they used the shopping center category as a catchall. Let me read what their representative said at the TIS or at the neighborhood information meeting. He said, Mr. Nadeau -- Mr. Nadeau said Myrtle Woods would not be a typical shopping center. Yet in their TIS, they're using the shopping center category. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The shopping center category can be middle of the road. When you come in and actually get the submittal from a lot of these applications, you may get one that's slightly more intense, slightly less intense than 820 depending on what they actually submit. Your TIS guidelines do provide you that safety factor that when they submit and they come in with, let's say, a bank and a fast food, that's what we will review, not 820. But at the zoning stage, you find yourself in the predicament of trying to guess what they're going to put in. And even if you had said the highest and best use, if I took a bank and if he was allowed to put in a gas station in there, you get a certain comfort level of what you can and can't apply at the zoning stage. It's difficult for me to say put in the bank and put in a fast food restaurant. Weare doing that more at -- at the stage and we are putting in our methodology minutes that we both sign as the county and the applicant. But until you get to that SDP stage, and trust me, your TIS guidelines do cover you, it's hard to get into mitigation for what they're going to do. And you could be rewriting it when you get to the SDP stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, what bothers me is when you get to the SDP stage, the goose is cooked. Basically they got their zoning and they're in making demands and submittals that by right they have -- got to have some kind of a reaction to because they already got their zoning. It would seem to me that at the zoning stage before they even get there, if they have a use that's too intense, we stop it in its tracks. We don't go getting beyond that point this early Page 61 January 3,2008 and -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're looking at -- you're looking at 10 to 15 percent max that you'll be looking as a deviation or variance from what you see on land use 820 that you looked at. So at the zoning stage, we looked at the relocation of Myrtle Woods. We looked at each project case by case specific and what their mitigation should be. And so if we have an argument and we say, you know, we need you to relocate this road or put in a signalized intersection, we'll fight that fight at zoning. But a lot of the times, and you are covered if you read your TIS guidelines, if they cause a single movement to fail, they cause anything to fail, they have to mitigate for that by the TIS guidelines. So you're -- you're covered at that stage as well too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would have liked to have known how the true impact on the road system would have been with the most intense use. That's all. I think it would have been beneficial from a zoning perspective to understand that. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just want to say that when they're making statements in neighborhood information meetings that they're going to have fast food or that certainly is one of the things that they want, I would think that we'd be looking at it too -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You -- you would but then I -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the more intense. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- I really have to look at fast food in a particular case. For instance, let's say it was a McDonald's. McDonald's has a typically much higher pass-by than other fast food. People will come down the road and they go into McDonald's and they keep going the way they're going. It's a convenience type of fast food. So when we wrote our TS, it was specifically stated if you had a good case for why you should have higher than 25 percent, you Page 62 January 3, 2008 present that case. And you get that at that SDP stage. You don't get that at zoning. So, I mean, for instance, let's say fast food we looked at zoning, I wouldn't give them such a high pass-by rate. I would stick to that -- that low guideline which would probably offset that. But when they came in and they said, all right, we've got a drive-through. It's going to be a fast food restaurant. Okay. Now, I'm seeing that it's a Sonic or a McDonald's. We would increase the pass-by, but the trips could go up as well too. So you're covered to a certain extent. For me to try and really pinpoint what they're building at zoning is difficult. Some of your applications that do come in, they have a site plan. And it frustrates transportation because you're reviewing a site plan at the same time you're reviewing the zoning, but you can get a really good feel for what they're building so you can, you know, commit to doing a TIS consistent with that site plan because we got a real good look at it. If that land use 820 is within 10 percent of a highest and best use, use 820. We'll get you at SDP because we've got a comfort level that even your mitigation that's required, we can absorb that 10 percent in there. You'll -- you've seen some of the applications like Naples Mazda, 3 percent impact yet they're redesigning and rebuilding the whole intersection. And we're giving impact fee credits for the construction, but not for the design and the right-of-way. So we're watching out for it, but we got to be careful because we lose a little bit of credibility with the industry if we start pushing that highest and best use all the time if we're within 10 percent, because it's hard to define what that is. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one more comment before -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and that's you were talking about this TIS having been done in -- in 2005 except that it says here that it's been updated as of June of '07. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And what the board had done Page 63 January 3, 2008 and you also had done when we reviewed the TIS guidelines was, is any application that come in for methodology meeting, those are the rules that they would use going forward so as not to require reanalysis and reanalysis traffic counts. And we were comfortable with what they had done for the 2005 submittal. To make them go through the new guidelines is -- I remember one of the commissioners specifically told me the board is -- whatever you told them when you met with them, that's what you stick to for anything in fairness to the applicant. I said, That's fine. We can handle that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 12 of the TIS there's a right-turn analysis eastbound approach. That poses a question, but doesn't offer a solution I don't believe. And I was wondering if you're aware of that problem and have resolved how to handle it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. I think what we're going to do, if look at the diagram, it's cut off a little bit. We're going to make Myrtle Lane a right in only and make that a continuous right-turn lane to the right in. It's going to be at this intersection as well too. So that right-turn lane will extend through Myrtle Lane and we'll have a continuous right turn lane over there. I'll caution you it is a FDOT governed roadway so they're going to have final say in what that design looks like, but that would be county staffs recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the 185 feet, you're just going to use all of it and not -- and by backing up west of Myrtle Lane, you'll end up actually -- actually taking -- lengthening the right-turn lane to the 375 feet needed? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Nick. That's all I-- does anybody else have anything of Nick? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a thought anyway. While you were explaining it and I think I understand the implications of Page 64 January 3, 2008 what you're saying. But it was striking me when we were talking about the differential 10 percent or whatever the number was, it almost reminded me of a diminimus situation where ultimately as -- as the SDPs come in along that corridor where you're not going to be able to grant somebody what they intended to build. So what I thought the chair was representing and I think you agree with it in principle anyway was that the more -- the more we not constrain but require them to be more clear about the total plan, the better the potential project will be overall. And it's not a question of making your life easier either. It's a matter of really creating a proper plan along the corridor. Because what strikes me a lot of that area there, they're very narrow. They're shallow rather. They don't have a lot of depth to the -- to the -- and I don't know if we're going to end up with a whole lot of small strips or what we're going to do. But it becomes very undesirable to -- and I don't want to keep on going on this, but I'm trying to say that I think it's a better approach to try to be more precise, maybe a bad word there, earlier on than later on. You take a great deal of pride in what you do. Circumstances might change in the future where the person might not be as knowledgeable as you are. MR. CASALANGUIDA: What the good point, to answer that, Commissioner Murray, is we don't bank the zoning trips. So you-- you would never get a false number going into the system. When they do the SDP, those are the trips we put into the network. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Those are fixed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. Those are fixed. So your zoning application is mostly to say, okay, and I'll try and convey this the proper way. You're looking at a five-year window first to see, all right, is this project within 10 percent of the trips that he proposes consistent with five years of what the county roadway network will be like. So you've got a comfort level there. Then you're saying, okay, within 10 percent of what he's proposing is the mitigation and the Page 65 January 3, 2008 site-related improvements that you need, can they be maybe defined in the PUD document now, today. And the answer to both those questions is yes. When they come in for SDP we take those specific trips and we bank them on the system. And we take those specific trips and we do specific analysis consistent with their design. So you're definitely covered. You're not -- you're not under assuming at zoning because you don't apply those trips to the network at zoning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm glad you clarified that for me. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I was -- I was concerned. My thought was that we would have a dribble effect. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. You won't get that effect. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One more question of the applicant. Richard, in the neighborhood informational meeting it was indicated there would be a fence along the south property line. I couldn't see that in the documents. Is that true? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was not at the meeting, but the summary from the staff report said that we would -- we'd be going to do that if the neighbors wanted it I believed is what the summary said. And we'll do that if that's what you think is appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think to say if the neighbors wanted it, then you'd have to go out and get a consensus. Have people agree and then you'd be into a problem, so let's just put the fence in. It's better to have it than not have it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a south property line which would be that -- Page 66 January 3, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where Mr. Nadeau's pointing? Is that where you were referring? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was thinking you'd have it along the south property line like you said which would be up against that tree tops or not -- there's a little residential project, the mixed -- COMMISSIONER CARON: RMF 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, by the RMF 6. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where I'm pointing to right now? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right there; correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: There? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where was the public's concern during the meeting? Does anybody know? Okay. I would -- that's -- if that's what the public indicated. Melissa, are you indicating that that's at the meeting where they were indicating? MS. ZONE: Melissa Zone, principle planner with the department, community development environmental services. The residents were concerned about along with tree tops as well as that RMF 6 so within that area there. They were concerned about possibly having traffic. One of the things that we worked with that-- with the applicant after the neighborhood information meeting was placing the preserves in the back both making it a -- a much denser, same with the detention area. And so how it looks, the arrow itself -- tree tops is north. And the southern portion where the RMF 6 which Ms. Caron pointed out it's more like a -- a southeast area is where the most concern was because that was an area that had free roaming of children. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Melissa, my only concern is that what was stated at the NIM -- MS. ZONE: Right. Page 67 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- meets what the public was told. MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So could you point on the aerial that's there -- MS. ZONE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where this fence was proposed or responded to and expected to be put. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And let me just -- just for the record if you look where the pen point is, the county plans on expanding a ditch there 50 feet south. So, obviously, we could not put a wall right on that property line because it would be dug up by the ditch when the county puts the ditch. Likewise, there's the preserve area here now. The county won't let you put walls in the preserve. So I'm not saying we're not going to put a wall. I just mean the location needs to take into account where the ditch -- the county plans on putting its ditch as well as our preserve area that -- that will be impacted by -- by the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, from a staffs perspective, if we were to stipulate something to the effect that they would add a fence along the property line where staff deems feasible, would that be workable from a staffs perspective? MR. BELLOWS: Well, it leaves a lot to -- to be debated at the time of SDP. I'd like to have a defined location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only reason -- I think Richard's points are well taken. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't put a fence where they're going to dig it up. It's a waste of money and that's not a good thing to do so... MR. BELLOWS: Well, if -- ifat the time of -- if we can get some definitive answers of where this drainage ditch will be, we can figure out where the fence could go prior to the Board of County Page 68 January 3, 2008 Commissioners. In light of that, the stipulation as you proposed would be the best alternative. It just leaves some room for what is feasible or not. And I think that could create a lot of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I don't like the word either. I'm just trying to think of a solution because I don't want to leave it off the table because then nothing could get done. If we need to put something on the table to match what was told to the public, that's the only goal I'm looking for. MR. BELLOWS: I think if prior to the board meeting we can get some definitive location of this drainage ditch, we can figure out where the wall can go in relation to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Prior to -- if we stipulate something that -- that would be prior to the BCC meeting, we'll work it that way. Okay. Ms. -- Ms. Caron then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, in continuing to talk about this wall, it seems to me that -- that up here the southwest corner where the access road is now going to come in, that those homes back there -- it was stated that that's where the children are and that they may want fencing along that area. It's going to be a dry detention area, is that what that white indicates? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Down here? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, other side right up here. Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where I'm pointing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's not marked so I can't tell what it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a lift station kind of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did -- why don't we -- Ms. Caron, are you trying to indicate that the fence from your perspective ought to be along that property line? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think in addition to -- you Page 69 January 3, 2008 know, I am sure that people at tree tops were also talking about a fence along this stretch. I understand that here and -- but I'm concerned about here and here (indicating). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think the way we -- we've suggested is that this -- the location of that fence on those two property lines in -- in relation to where it could actually go so it's not torn down again be worked out between now and the BCC meeting. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And just so we're on the same page. It would probably -- this is our -- this is an existing lift station and this is our buffer. We could put a wall in here. We can't put a wall in the preserve. We could pick it back up here. Now, we may put the wall down on the -- I think this direction is south. We could do it on the southern part of the detention center or we could put it on the northern part of the detention center -- detention area, I'm sorry. That -- that will -- but it will -- it will address both of your concerns to the south as well as to the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: My guess is the -- the area along tree tops along the easement, people will want it as far -- as close to tree tops as possible because it's a ditch. And they -- they're trying to prevent kids from getting in ditches and, you know, that kind of thing. So my guess is it won't work closest to the preserve is all -- is all I'm saying, Rich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the language we worked out with staff prior to going to the BCC would -- as long as we make the recommendation that a fence be placed along the south, east and west property lines where feasible and that location is locked in before the BCC meeting, I think we've got it covered. Does that work for everybody? Okay. Where feasible. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question's simple. What were the neighbors concerned of, the vision of the shopping center or access to it? Page 70 January 3, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Vision. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Because I think you set back all your buildings pretty far. You have preserves between them. So actually I would hate to, you know, make it so people couldn't walk into the shopping center from the back because otherwise they'd have to hop in a car and come around the corner. So if it's vision, I think you've got quite a bit of buffering. I think the area that Donna pointed out up by the treatment or the lift station's smart. But the rest of it's going to be pretty far away. And, you know, an eight-foot fence is going to protect the ground floor windows only anyway. Okay. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll go to the staffs presentation. Ray, do we have public speakers by the way? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. ZONE: Good morning, commissioners. Melissa Zone, principle planner with the department of zoning and land development. As mentioned previously this subject property is within the urban mixed-use district of the -- and the urban coastal fringe subdistrict which is within the coastal high hazard area. And that is identified in the future land use map. The petition before you is here to reestablish the Myrtle Woods PUD Ordinance 81-23 as well as to incorporate one parcel that is 1.3 acre parcel that is currently zoned C-4. And the land uses that are being proposed by the PUD are consistent with the C-4 as zoning district. I have -- staff has -- wants to make for the record there was a Page 71 January 3, 2008 mistake on No.3 of Exhibit -- or No. 13 of Exhibit A in the rezone findings. Again, that would be No. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with the existing zoning. Staff would like, if it's okay with this Planning Commission, that under the findings that part of the second -- of that sentence be removed. And it would be read, The property cannot be developed in accordance with the existing zoning because the CPUD, which is a commercial planned unit development, has sunseted. And there would be a period. This would be corrected and be brought forth to the Board of County Commissioners. I have been taking notes as to what will be added and removed with this PUD document. And I could read what I have so far or I can follow up after the motion is made. And if there are any questions with this board, I'd be happy to address them now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to walk through issues with the staff report and analysis before we get into reading any comments. Mr. Murray, did you have something? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I -- I wanted to say I read your report. And I don't know what my fellow commissioners think, but I thought it was very well laid out, all encompassing. It was a very, very fine document and I wanted to complement you publicly. MS. ZONE: Thank you, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the question just came up. Why do you call the existing one a CPUD? Was it? MS. ZONE: Well, the -- the -- the current one is going to be a commercial planned unit development. The one that was approved in 1981 was a mixed-use development in that it allowed commercial as well as residential. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So when you said like you just said it, the CPUD has sunseted, that's not correct. Page 72 January 3, 2008 MS. ZONE: Well, I can -- you're right. And I will remove the C and just have it as a PUD because at that time that's how they were written. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other question it was testified today that prior to the sunseted PUD that the back triangle was zoned commercial. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you verify that? MS. ZONE: I can. And, in fact, I could put a picture up if you would like from 1970 of our zoning map. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Melissa, orient it with north up, please. MS. ZONE: Okay. The subject property, if you will follow my pencil, would be here to this point, triangle, along there and down. This is Myrtle Lane. And this is from 1970 with our official zoning map. This whole strip was commercial development which is this slashed area. This is residential in the red. This strip along -- along 41 is C-3 and then this was a multi-family residential area. The parcel -- subject parcel I went back as -- to 1959 as that parcel had been in our plat books and created. I didn't get as far back as to when the zoning, but I did go back as far as 1970 that this -- the full parcel and subject parcel has been commercial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. And I'm done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, let's start. Because I'm not like Mr. Murray. I have a lot of problems with the way this staff report was written. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the first thing I want to ask you is when an applicant makes commitments at neighborhood Page 73 January 3, 2008 informational meetings, why can't staff incorporate those into the PUD so that we don't have to sit here and do that job? MS. ZONE: I'm sorry. That was overlooked. And I will be more diligent during our neighborhood information meeting and -- and make sure that those commitments are incorporated in. And when mentioning in the report to the Planning Commission of those commitments, I will call out that they have been incorporated. Very sorry . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, I'm not trying to point out all the things that you personally have done wrong. I'm looking at policies that can be implemented. And I think from Mr. Bellows' viewpoint in his department from now on, if that's done, it'll save this board a lot of time and we should -- we should implement that if that's possible with the county. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. And that will be the topic for our next meeting. MS. ZONE: It's a good policy and -- and it will give assurance to our residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe that this rezone was found to be inconsistent with the comp plan, with the GMP? MS. ZONE: Yes. There's in -- in the commercial or the in-fill commercial infield portion of the Growth Management Plan, Item F of the criteria, how you can take your parcel and make it all commercial, the depth of the property exceeds the adjacent and/or abutting commercial property. There is -- the interpretation has been -- comprehensive planning looks at the whole parcel. I was looking at the -- reducing the commercial area, the development area itself to be less than the adjacent commercial property. In the end, though, staffs interpretation, it is the Board of County Commissioners who have the discretion to determine the depth of the parcel as well as the adjacent parcel on this. And so it took a lot of meetings and discussions and the area, as -- as I had reviewed it, it is Page 74 January 3, 2008 more appropriate for commercial zoning in this area. And if we could limit the commercial development area to be 397 feet including the parking area so that it does not exceed the adjacent commercial parcel, then there was some room for interpretation in the Board of County Commissioners' discretion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. ZONE: David Weeks, of course, as you know is here. And he can further explain for the comprehensive plan, I don't -- department. I don't feel I should be doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And I didn't mean for you to. I understood the reasoning. I just wanted your acknowledgment that it was inconsistent with the GMP. MS. ZONE: Correct. I did not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand the reasons for it. And I understand your analysis. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But now that you've provided that, we can go on. The rezone findings and the findings for the PUD -- MS. ZONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- are important parts of the document. And unfortunately in prior times we've not really dwelled on those a lot because they seemed pretty boiler plate. However, in reading these, I think it's time that maybe we started answering the questions that were asked instead of providing ambiguous statements that may not get to the point of the question. Let's start with page 2 of 5 of Exhibit A, the rezone findings. Question No.5, whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Pro, the request is reasonable because it does not rezone the land use that is in harmony with the surrounding area. I'm not sure that responds to the question. In fact, I don't believe it does. And I'm just wondering could we more succinctly answer the Page 75 January 3, 2008 question? Is the change necessary? Is changing this make it necessary? I think you started to do that in other questions by saying it's a sunseted PUD and it has to be addressed. But I think if you got into more factual statements in that question's answer, it would be more relevant to this project. You started to say that in the findings. The request is reasonable because it does not rezone the land use that is in harmony with the surrounding area. MS. ZONE: It's an incomplete sentence. Sorry, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And I don't think the word harmony is a qualified term either. I would rather we use factual LDC terms so -- MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're precise and accurate in the way these are read in case they ever have to be defended in court -- MS. ZONE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for any particular reason. Number 6, whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The response to the pro was the proposed rezone should not adversely influence living conditions. Then if you turn to page 2 of 3 of Exhibit B it says, This proposed CPUD will not adversely impact the timing or sequence of development that is currently allowed in the area. And I'm just wondering why we don't use more definitive terms instead of should. The question is will it adversely -- adversely influence living conditions. Will it or will it not? And I think with the compatibility analysis that you -- your staff does, you could stand to the plate and say it will not because the compatibility reasons and list the reasons. Whether they're buffers, fences, separations, distances, setbacks. Those are all positive things. And if you put them in this report, I think we'd be better off. We'd have more to stand on. MS. ZONE: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says, The residents within the Page 76 January 3, 2008 community did not object to the Myrtle Woods CPUD. Is that -- is that basically what the outcome of the NIM -- due to the questions that the residents asked? MS. ZONE: The questions the residents asked were concerns. When the applicant addressed them, they thanked them. They -- they -- a few even mentioned that they -- they expected this area to be developed as commercial. They had no problems as long as the buffering along the residential area was there and that it wasn't an open parking lot. And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, now, Melissa, if you were to say that here, The residents didn't object because and list the reasons that the applicant did to offset any concerns that the residents have, that would be a more effective way, I think, to answer the question. MS. ZONE: Would you -- Mr. Strain, would you prefer that in the findings or would you rather have that within the neighborhood information meeting analysis? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you're going to -- if you're going to answer the question properly, you can -- I would suggest -- it says -- the question is whether the proposed change will adversely affect, influence -- adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. I think it would be an opportune time to say that during the public information meeting the neighborhood expressed the following concerns and they were committed to be, you know, repaired, how -- fixed by the applicant, however you want to term that. It would be a great entry into that argument. Then it becomes part of the documents or record and it makes it an even stronger case for why it had to be there. MS. ZONE: And then list it within the findings that it's -- it's -- because most of the things with the living conditions we have to ensure the surrounding development if it be residential, commercial as the community as a whole. The LDC addresses all of those. We have development regulations. They have to meet the open space Page 77 January 3, 2008 requirement, the right-of-way requirements. So, you know, and -- and I shouldn't -- and your suggestion is correct. I should elaborate more on it as opposed to just relying that it would just be in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in your findings it says, The proposed rezone is not changed. It's permitted land use. And has been properly publicized to ensure the surrounding neighbors will be assured that the least amount of adverse impact on the adjacent development has been addressed. Well, publicizing something doesn't assure anything. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just tells the public we're going to change something. So I don't think that's a good conclusion in response to that particular question. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just offering up suggestions. I think that you could use these rezone findings to put the county in a better posture legally for any challenges down the road. And should any citizens have questions, the answers would be more readily available. MS. ZONE: Without question. And updating the findings would probably also behoove us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the next page, No.9, Whether the proposed change would seriously reduce light or air to adjacent areas. Your findings, I'm not sure what -- how your findings relate to the question. Basically it's either will they or will they not. And if they do, are they mitigated. And if you don't need any mitigation because they don't, then you're covered. MS. ZONE: Again, they -- you know, falling on the land development code you have setback requirements. There's height requirements, restrictions on the development in the area that -- that ensure that reducing the light and air around the adjacent areas. That question has always been one that troubles me because that tends to be one that is used mostly in a high dense urban area: Chicago, New Page 78 January 3, 2008 York, San Francisco, LA, where you have these larger cities where you have office buildings that are 100 feet tall and adjacent to a -- could be a brown stone that might be 30 feet or 50 feet. And -- and that is looked upon here. Collier County does their due diligence up front and -- and makes sure that there is open space for the development. There are height limitations within your zoning. There are setbacks. A lot of that has been incorporated into the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 4, No. 11, Whether the proposed change will be a detriment -- deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. I don't believe your -- your -- the response has answered the question in particular to this site. I think it gave a general answer that's used a lot. But, again, I'm only pointing this out to say I think we could make much better use of these questions and answers in the way we layout and respond for the record. Number 12, the findings, proposed rezone does not alter the permitted land uses which meet the terms of the land use designation, the urban mixed-use district on the FLUE. Well, we are taking a piece ofC-4 and changing it to PUD. So we are rezoning. MS. ZONE: We are rezoning it, but we're keeping the land, the permitted uses the same. And the PUD is ensuring to the county that there is a unified development plan, but the zoning itself still follows under the land uses which is C-4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying all the land uses that they've selected are C-4 uses or less? MS. ZONE: Correct. There's new car sales falls under C-4. Banks, I mean, all -- the stuff that are listed that are C-4 or of lesser intensity . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the findings continue. It says, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they were consistent with the GMP. This one isn't. MS. ZONE: They are. With the land uses they are. The part Page 79 January 3, 2008 that's not consistent with the GMP is item F of the depth of the property, but the land uses are consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, uses are consistent, but if you use the land like they want to, it's inconsistent. MS. ZONE: In terms of the depth of the property? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ZONE: Can you please expand on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's an inconsistency with the GMP. Saying it's not land use, then what is it? MS. ZONE: Well, the -- the GMP the depth of the property which our Growth Management Plan gets into more in depth than others in terms of we -- we limit uses or put standards in there that usually are found in the Land Development Code. The GMP Item 4 is also up to the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners in terms of doing the -- or the analysis of the depth of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your conclusion on page 7 of 13 it says, Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes proposed CPUD rezone may not be deemed consistent with the future land use element for the criteria of the office and in-fill commercial subdistrict. So it isn't consistent with the FLUE. MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And No. 13 on page 4 of 5 says, The proposed rezone conforms to the FLUE of the GMP because it will be used in accordance with existing commercial zoning. MS. ZONE: We're talking about the land uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ZONE: And on page 7 we're talking about the GMP and Item F. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page -- No. 14, Whether the change suggested is out of the scale of the needs of the neighborhood of the county. The proposed rezone meets all objective criteria set forth for commercial zoning and conforms to the purpose and intent of the Page 80 January 3, 2008 GMP. Number 15, Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for proposed uses in districts already permitted for such use. The proposed CPUD is consistent with the FLUE because it is in the mixed urban use district. MS. ZONE: Which allows for commercial as well as mixed use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But yet the conclusion says it's inconsistent with the FLUE. MS. ZONE: With Item F which has to do with the depth of the property. And staff needs to disclose that to the Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners as well as to the general public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 16 under findings it says, The rezone is necessary to reinstate Myrtle Woods CPUD which would not then -- which would then not render the property unusable. Well, the property wouldn't be unusable without the rezone. They just wouldn't be able to use it for what they want to. And the rezone is for C-4 which is not part of the Myrtle Woods original PUD; right? MS. ZONE: Yes. There -- the Myrtle Woods had C-4 uses. And in 1981 a lot of the general uses and commercial were higher intense or more intense than what we allow now in the -- so comparmg -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, do you have a piece of property being added to the Myrtle Woods PUD? MS. ZONE: We do which is C-4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I was trying to say. The rezone where it says under findings, The rezone is necessary to reinstate the Myrtle Woods CPUD which is -- which would -- the CPUD Myrtle Woods is not the same Myrtle Woods because you're adding a piece of C-4 to it that's in the middle. Is that -- MS. ZONE: Correct. Page 81 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to get at. MS. ZONE: So it should read that it's reinstating Myrtle Woods as well as incorporating the one parcel that is 1.3 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 17, under findings the third line or second line, Staff has reviewed this petition and found it consistent with all elements of the GMP. Is that -- you still believe that to be true? MS. ZONE: They're inconsistent. They're inconsistent in the depth analysis, but that is left to the Board of County Commissioners. The fact that the development is not encroaching and/or exceeding the adjacent parcel, staff found it to be consistent. Of course, our comprehensive plan department has concern for Item F. And staff as a whole defers this to the Board of County Commissioners who has the discretion to make that determination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the finding for the PUD No. 1 under pro it says, The area is ideal for commercial environments within the urban district. I don't know if that -- the word "ideal" needs to be used by staff. You can just drop that -- that kind of characterization and just say, The area can be used for commercial-- and then put commercial environment or commercial area. I'm not -- I don't know if you need to get into qualifying how good or bad the property is for each use -- MS. ZONE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- since it's a rezone. Under No.3, the proposed rezone is -- conforms to the goal of the objective of the GMP. Again, I offer your conclusion previously that it does not -- it's inconsistent with elements of the GMP, but I understand what -- what you've said. I'm not necessarily in agreement with the way this is restated in these findings. Under the No.5 the adequacy of usable open space in the pro you've got a reference to harmony. Again, I don't know what Page 82 January 3, 2008 harmony is. It's not a defined term. We could use more explicit terms from the LDC we'd be better off. MS. ZONE: Right. Harmony is a standard planning term that's been around long before most of us. And meaning harmony as you're not having a commercial development or you're not having residential and then all ofa sudden next to it is a factory. It's a term that has been used -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, is it a defined term in the LDC? MS. ZONE: They -- it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Harmony's is defined? MS. ZONE: It is in our -- the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Never mind. I'll look it up. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll stand corrected if you say it is, I'll look it up and I'll find it and I'll use it next time. Number 7 on Exhibit B, Transportation Services Division has reviewed this petition to ensure the development will not add adverse impacts to the roadways. I don't know if they ensure anything. They just simply review the petition for adverse impacts. I don't think they've ensured -- they can ensure anything. Nick can't even ensure it until they come in with the uses that they actually want to use on the property . MS. ZONE: Well, as staff looks at it that they make sure that's if the impacts are there that they have comments. They talk about improvements to the right-of-way. And ensuring and is a -- is a standard term that doesn't need to be -- that we could put transportation service has reviewed this and feel that there are no adverse impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, you've responded to everything that I asked about. I was simply trying to make suggestions to make the write-ups I thought a little bit better. I don't care if you change Page 83 January 3, 2008 them or not, but I will be questioning them in the same manner every time they come through this way and we'll take it from there. MS. ZONE: I'll be more than happy to answer any additional questions you might have regarding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of Planning Commission of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Melissa, you were at the neighborhood meeting? MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There was a commitment to limit the buildings to three stories? MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that showing up anywhere in this? MS. ZONE: Well, it -- it limits it. They talked about, you know, the -- the 50 feet and not -- they talked about having an architectural element, but the -- but the zoned height keeping it to the 50 feet which typically is three stories. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I can design a five-story building in 50 feet. MS. ZONE: You're good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just ten-foot floor to floor heights. That's all. Do we want to -- do we want to carry that forward? That's my question I guess. COMMISSIONER CARON: At the neighborhood information meeting it has to be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then on the table I guess we have to add three stories in there. We get to use the asterisk. MS. ZONE: I was going to say, would you like us to add the asterisk to make it limited to three stories? Page 84 January 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If that's what Dwight told them. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have historically used three stories not to exceed 50 feet. Is that okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, I think I asked earlier, do we have any public speakers and the answer was no? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing. And for the Planning Commission -- oh, does the -- before we close the public hearing. I'm sorry. Does the applicant have any rebuttal comments? Any comments at all? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Too open ended. No, we don't have any rebuttal comments. Again, we think that this is a good plan. We do. We disagree with staffs interpretation of the comprehensive plan. We think the board can find this to be consistent with Item F of the criteria as far as the depth of the property. It doesn't say adjacent boundary. It says the depth of the adjacent property. So we think it is consistent. The board can make that finding. We would request that you recommend that they make such finding if you're inclined to move forward with the PUD with all the changes that we have agreed to. And I'll -- if you don't mind, I'll just stand up here to take notes to make sure we catch everything between Dwight and myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you -- from the comments I saw about the inconsistency with the GMP, the way I saw it, I thought staff was indicating it reads right now as inconsistent, but it could be found consistent based on policy by the vote of the Board of County Commissioners. Page 85 January 3, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I agree. I agree that's what they said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I think that would be a consistent interpretation with the comprehensive plan language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any discussion? We'll now close the -- oh, David's back up. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I hope you don't mind me taking initiative to come up and address this point. For the record, again, David Weeks, comprehensive planning department. I'd like to put an exhibit on the visualizer. It's the zoning map you've seen before. In my low-tech graphics in the back of the room I've attempted to identify the depth of the property as staff is interpreting it and that's where the little circle is at. That is where the point of adjacency of where the two properties touch in the -- in the middle of the road, middle of Myrtle Lane. And that's where staff is interpreting that the maximum depth would be allowed. An alternative, which staff does not support, would be to go to the point of the maximum depth of the adjacent commercial zoned property. That's that Lot 24 to the, I think, northwest of the subject site. And that's what that dashed line represents. What is omitted looking at the existing Myrtle Woods PUD is the striped area. Because that area is beyond the depth of the commercial zoning of that Lot 24. My point is that the Criterion F of the office of in-fill commercial subdistrict provides that the board does have flexibility. It's very clear. It's very explicit that the board has the authority on a case-by-case basis to determine what the depth should be of the subject site when property -- when the subject property abuts two properties, one on each side, that are zoned commercial that don't have the same depth. And that is the case here. So the board clearly has the flexibility if they want to look at the depth of the commercial on one side and commercial on the other side and average the two. Or if Page 86 January 3, 2008 they want to draw a line from the deepest point to the shallower point or simply come to the deepest point or to the shallower. I mean, they have a lot of flexibility in there, a lot of discretion. But what they cannot do, according to the criterion, is exceed the depth of either of those adjacent commercial properties. And what I'm attempting to illustrate is that in this case there is a portion of the subject site, the little striped area, that is beyond the depth of the commercial of that Lot 24 to the northwest. So that even -- in my opinion, even if you look at the depth of that Lot 24 and say that's what we're going to recommend to the board that they use their discretion to make the boundary, there's still a portion of the subject site that is beyond that boundary. Now, certainly if it were purely an open-spaced use, I don't think there would be an issue there. An open-space use is allowed anywhere within the urban mixed-use district. But if it's a required component of the commercial development such as parking or water retention serving only a commercial development, and that's all this is, my opinion is that would not be allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. Richard, you're looking -- are you done? We understand David's question I think. And I think it hasn't change the -- maybe the thought that we already had as far as how it came about. So it's -- now it's just a matter of recommendations. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a complicated motion. Boy, you guys are all silent here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not going there, pal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not going there, huh? Page 87 January 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've lot of things listed. I'll watch what you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a problem in the sense I would have liked to have seen the project cleaned up and the documentation to us fixed. I've watched the BCC meetings. And, unfortunately, history has shown that not everything we attempt to clarify here at this meeting gets carried forward necessarily exactly as we intended it to the BCC through no fault of any individuals. It just doesn't seem to happen all the time. I don't know what the time table for this applicant is. I would have felt a lot more comfortable now that we've hashed this thing about if it came back cleaned up, PUD written properly and the rezoned findings Exhibits A and B addressed in a manner more attuned to this project instead of generically. That's my personal thoughts. Although I'm not going to hold up a positive motion if it needs to go forward. But personally I don't -- I'm getting tired of sending things forward that are half baked and then they have to get corrected before they go to the BCC and we don't know what those corrections are. And by the time it gets there we don't even know what it looks like, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, can I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can't fix the staff report stuff, but certainly if there is a motion to approve with certain revisions to the PUD document itself and the exhibits, can we report that back to you at your next meeting? You can then proof it to make sure that we incorporate everything that was in your motion. We could stay on our February 12th BCC agenda. Put us up either first thing on the agenda or last thing, whatever you want to do, but just simply you would have it then to have a chance to proofread it to make sure that everything that was in the CCPC's motion did, in fact, make it in there prior to the February 12th, I believe it is, BCC date. Page 88 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- I would think that would be a help. Does everybody else -- does anybody else have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I could do then is put forth a motion, a recommendation listing the stipulations that we've gone through contingent upon a final reading at our next meeting. MR. YOV ANOVICH: For -- for -- for consistency with the motion, not a whole new -- not a whole new public hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- I agree. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But also before we go that far I got to ask Mr. Bellows. Can this -- the rezone findings and the Exhibits A and B be cleaned up before they come back to us in that amount of time? MR. BELLOWS: For the record Ray Bellows. We wouldn't prepare an entire new staff report. We could do a supplemental staff report just addressing the findings of fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't too concerned about your staff report. I would just like some of the questions that seemed to be either ambiguous or not to the point or confusing clarified. Is that a task that can be done? MR. BELLOWS: And you're talking about the January 17th meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMIDT: What board date is this, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: February 12th. MR. SCHMIDT: I should have no problem. For the record Joe Schmidt. I should have no problem making the February 12th date. My recommendation is that we bring this back with the appropriate changes to the findings and to the PUD findings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And to the PUD document that we're Page 89 January 3, 2008 going to stipulate. MR. SCHMIDT: And the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: So basically we continue the item and bring it back on the 17th. Because you're going to discuss it. It's -- it's got to be in my assessment we'll still need to be advertised then because you're going to review the document and discuss it. So I would just say we continue the item and then bring it back on the 17th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure continuation works. I think what we're trying to do is get a proofing of the document to make sure all the different things we discussed today get incorporated into it before it moves to the BCC. Mr. Klatzkow, would it -- if we're just doing a re-read of it for checking consistency with our motion, is that something that has to -- is that like a full-blown public process with advertising and everything or is there -- MR. KLATZKOW: The purpose of the advertising is to allow the public to get down here to comment. That's not the intent of what you want to do though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. KLATZKOW: You want to ensure that your recommendations for changes actually make it into the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MR. KLA TZKOW: My understanding is you will not be entertaining public comment at that time nor will you be looking at any additional changes to the document. It's just more of a proof as to what you said should be in the document actually gets into that document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only difference being is if there's a -- if the document didn't interpretate (sic) -- interpret our comments correctly, we would then have to debate that -- MR. KLATZKOW: Single issue. Page 90 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that issue. Well, ifthere may be one or two. I'm assuming we can define everything clearly today; but if something doesn't transpire correctly and it has to be debated, we'd still have to have that opportunity to make sure it's right. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I think this is -- actually, I think this is an outstanding suggestion quite frankly. I'd like to see this go through. I don't think you need to advertise it, Joe. MR. SCHMIDT: Ifwe're going to discuss it -- my position is if we're going to discuss this and you're going to then review what was written and discuss what was written which would result -- may result in changes to wording, I don't see how you can approve it today and bring it back and -- and open it again for discussion. If you're asking staff to go ahead and -- and make corrections and amendments and -- and edit and amend the findings of fact, you wish to review those and discuss those again, I believe it has to be continued rather than voted on today. Because you're still going to be reviewing and discussing this in a public forum at a public meeting. And you mayor may not make changes. And to approve it today then open it back up for discussion, I think it may be procedurally create a problem, but I turn to the county attorney on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, Mr. Murray, you had a comment you wanted to make? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was being reactive but then-- you know, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think it should be continued just flat flat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I certainly think we've gone through a lot of stipulations and I think we can settle most of them today. My only concern is that the accuracy of what's said versus what's in print and how it goes to the BCC. I'm trying to find a solution for us to do a proofing of that final document and that was my Page 91 January 3, 2008 only goal. Not to change the world, not to re-spend another three hours on the same document. That certainly was not where I was trying to go. I don't know how to get there with it because I seem to have two sides with totally different opinions. Mr. Murray then Mr. Schiffer. I think you had something. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you do not have a difference of opinion from me. I completely agree that that would be a desirable thing to do. How it's done whether it's continued or we vote on it today, whatever is legitimate is fine for me, but I absolutely agree that we need to be sure that what goes forward is, in fact, the intent of this board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the same page. We're on the same page on that. Mr. Schiffer, did you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Is this a process we could do with e-mail? I mean, somebody could submit to us the-- MR. KLATZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's outside the-- MR. KLATZKOW: This almost should be done sort oflike on a consent agenda where you would bring it back sort of on a consent with the amended PUD there. And if nobody had any comments to it, just went through. And only if you had -- if you saw something was in error would you pull it out and actually even look at it. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, the only other option, you would vote on it today. List your stipulations today. We bring it back. If there are any issues that you want to address, then we would note that and make those changes prior to going before the Board of County Commissioners. That -- that's the only other option that I see to prevent any -- any legal issues or any other issues that create problems in how the document is worded. But, again, that would be nothing more than noting to staff to make the following corrections -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then bring it back. MR. SCHMIDT: -- prior to going to the Board of County Page 92 January 3, 2008 Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we end up continuing it, but only to bring it back for acknowledgment that the corrections were made and letting it move forward and to minimize any discussion to the extent we've had today. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, absolutely. I mean, that's your prerogative as chair. You would just review it for factual presentation. I would like for you to -- so we capture everything go through all the stipulations right now so we can at least-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly will once we get to the point where we know what we're going to do with them. Ms. Caron, did you have -- MR. SCHMIDT: But your concern and the issue I have is the rezone findings Exhibit A and findings of fact are the findings for PUD you would like to have those exhibits changed. To do so would require a continuance. Because basically I would -- I'm going to change these documents and bring them back for your approval before they go to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, first of all, the changes aren't ones that would change the outcome or necessarily the concept or the intent of what was done. MR. SCHMITT: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was simply we could make -- we could position the county better if we answer the questions more factually based on the code and tailored them more specifically rather than using boiler plate. Those questions have been around a long time. And I think each time we come through we just kind of blow them by because they're so boring. But you know what, they could be used to our advantage. And they could be used to the advantage of the public in the future in any debate that occurred. So why don't we use them? MR. SCHMIDT: I agree and I don't argue that. I think though Page 93 January 3, 2008 from the standpoint to do that, it's -- you're asking -- and we -- I have no qualms with what you're asking to go back and make those changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that would be-- Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Mr. Yovanovich, does the continuance -- is that a problem for your client? Will that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do I keep my February 12th BCC date that -- there's a couple of different issues here. I don't -- and maybe I'm reading the situation incorrectly. I -- I believe -- my sense is that we can make the changes to the PUD document. Those are pretty -- they're going to be pretty simple to make. And your concern is, for instance, if we eliminate gas stations, we somehow forget to do that and that version goes to the board with gas stations still in it, you don't want -- you want to get the assurance to make sure we physically strike through gasoline stations so when the board gets their PUD document as part of their executive summary, they have the right version so there's not a confusion as to approving it with -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I hear that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's one of probably 20 issues, yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. But that I think we can take care of easily. Now, your philosophical -- your reaction to the answer staff has to the individual questions I think probably will lead to discussion. And -- and I don't know that that really is going to affect the outcome for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, Richard, I don't -- I see this as just a little bit of a clean up. But I think where the thrust of what I was trying to put across was -- to Ray basically that we have an opportunity to use these questions to better to the advantage of the taxpayers and to the public for defense in future issues. Why don't we take it? As far as this one goes, couldn't do any worse than it is right Page 94 January 3, 2008 now. So any change is an improvement. So if they -- if they're tweaked a little bit by taking out a word or two or changing a word or two, I don't have a problem with that. So I don't know if there would be that much debate. I just want to get past it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I agree. I just -- in response though to Commissioner Caron's response if it's a continuance, it's a full-blown -- it can be a full-blown hearing again. Yes, it can because it's a continued item. Versus whether you take a motion and you're just proofreading the PUD document. So if I had my preference, obviously, you'd just be proofreading the PUD document, not getting into a debate on the staff report or the attachments to it. But, again, whatever -- whatever is in the Planning Commission, what the Planning Commission wants -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tell you what, I'm the only one that really had a problem with the rezone finding Exhibits A and B. Let's not mess with those with the exception of the correction taking out the legal opinion that should never have been there. Let's just concentrate on cleaning up the PUD document and getting it to us by the 17th. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I still complement her for the-- for nothing else than the construction of it. However, your points are well taken. And I did breeze through it. You're right. I did look at it. They seemed plausible, but there are a few that certainly could be taken out. Ideal there are certain words that you pointed out and they are minor, minor changes. And I wouldn't want to hold this thing up. But I did want to ask. You mentioned the consent arrangement for us. Are we within -- within our rights as the Planning Commission, can we have something presented and provided under consent? MR. KLATZKOW: You have the right to create your own rules. To my knowledge you've never really done that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we haven't. MR. KLATZKOW: I think one approach could be because this Page 95 January 3, 2008 is just not going to be for this one PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. MR. KLATZKOW: My sense is this is going to be on a going-forward basis. You want to ensure that your comments get into these PUDs. You can create a rule for yourselves that says these things will come back on the next agenda as a consent item. If nobody has any objection, that's the end of it. It just goes to the next board hearing as it normally would. But if somebody finds something that didn't get in there, then you can pull -- you have the ability it pull it out and do what you need to do with it. So you have the ability to create your own rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But under consent, don't we have to have a unanimous? MR. SCHMIDT: No. My recommendation, and that's up to the chair, which basically put this on the agenda and he calls for a vote. You can call for a vote. Any questions call for a vote. End of story. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I like the-- MR. SCHMIDT: That's almost as good as a consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, Mr. Schiffer and then Mr. Ko I flat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, Mark, one thing that always seems strange is after the meeting's over Ray runs up and you sign off on the PUD which really requires a lot of trust and your signature. So maybe what we're doing here -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want me to read all that before-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. No. But maybe what we can do here is that we can have the vote, have the thing. We have our conditions. And then prior to you signing it, which could be at the next meeting, it's sent out to everybody via e-mail. And essentially you're sitting there saying I'm going to sign this. Does anybody have any concerns with the conditions or does it represent what was done Page 96 January 3, 2008 and we can discuss it. So essentially rather than Ray run up right after this hearing and have you sign that paper, you sign it at the next meeting after we've all reviewed the conditions that were sent in to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might be a lot cleaner, though, to just do it at the meeting. Because a lot of people don't get their e-mails timely. A lot of them may not be able to download large files. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I mean at the meeting, the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But in order for everybody to have a copy of it to review like you suggested bye-mail, they'd have to have that ability. And I can tell you like over Christmas my e-mail was -- because of Comcast which is an atrocious company -- my e-mail was down most of the time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I couldn't even get e-mail, I couldn't even communicate with the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it could be in the agenda packet for the next meeting too. I mean, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I like the idea of the consent agenda. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I think your comments on the findings was very appropriate and very positive. I'd like to keep that in the package. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to get to a point where we can get the package done by the 17th. I don't disagree with you, Mr. Kolflat, but -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Let's not lose the package so it's ineffective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's -- Mr. -- Mr. Schmidt. MR. SCHMIDT: One other alternative. Would you want to take the first five minutes of your special meeting on the 11 th to discuss it? Page 97 January 3, 2008 I -- you can continue it till then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather give the-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Don't even go there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. No. No. Let's just leave it --leave it for the 17th. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And let's just make a decision whether we want a consent agenda and whether or not what we want on that consent agenda. Rewrite of the PUD or rewrite of the PUD and as many of the -- clean up -- as much of the cleanup of the rezone findings that they can provide at that time. MR. KLATZKOW: It -- it's going to be a lot cleaner for notice purposes and everything if you just limit yourself to the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KLA TZKOW: Because all you're doing is ensuring that what you want in that PUD is in that PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's -- Mr. Kolflat or Ms. Caron, if you guys don't object, let's just limit it to the PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do think the future should hold what you brought up is very valid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as a -- how we position this so we'll do it on a -- we'll establish a consent agenda for the Planning Commission. And items that are requiring a final reading by us or a proofing by us for those sections of those documents presented will go on that consent agenda unless they're pulled by someone on this commission. Does that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you as the chairman will sign that document after the consent agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's ready to be signed by that, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that is a matter of future activity we will do that with every -- Page 98 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are some rezones and some applications that might come through that have very little -- yeah. If we find a complicated one or one that has a lot of problems in the clean up, then maybe we need to take a second look at it. That's-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My point would then would be that -- that staff will need to begin to rethink its scheduling so as to facilitate that. Okay. That's my only point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That -- I don't think with the way they schedule them now, we -- most of the cases we have enough time. So Mr. -- I mean, yeah, Mr. Kolflat -- Klatzkow. I'm sorry. You guys -- there's not many Ks and -- people with Ks. I keep getting you mixed up. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. And I would suggest that you actually memorialize this rule if it directs staff or the County Attorney's Office to put something together so the public has notice that this is a procedure of yours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, other than --let me memorialize it, Mr. Klatzkow, would you please put something together so that we can establish -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. I would be happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a consent agenda for the Planning Commission. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. With that I'd like to -- now, Jeff, would we be then in a position now to make a motion for recommendation subject to finalization on a future consent agenda? Is that how it would be -- MR. KLATZKOW: That sets -- that's a viable approach, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I'm looking for a motion for a recommendation for future -- future finalization on a future consent agenda. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. Page 99 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but you have to make the motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I make the motion that we put this aside for the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. No. Mr. Murray -- Mr. Adelstein, that's not where we're going. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll try, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not -- that's not where we're going. Let Brad take a shot at it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward Petition PUDZ-2006-AR-9127 with a recommendation of approval pending confirmation of the stipulations at the next hearing. Is that close? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Subject to a consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That -- that's close. We need a second. Would you -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. The point is this is supposedly a continuation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. No, it's not, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's why I moved it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's not what we -- you'll second it? Okay. Motion is made by Commissioner Schiffer. Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Now, let's work into the stipulations so that we -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Subject to consent, did you add that to your motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, you did? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Okay. Now, as far as the stipulations go, I'll -- I can read off the ones I've written down and we can -- if you guys keep track and throw in whatever by the end. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The retail uses will be limited to Page 100 January 3, 2008 the first floor and the project will be limited to three stories not to exceed 50 feet. There will be a public access through the project to the lighted intersection. And the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Myrtle Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the instrument that enacts that public access will be added as development standards pursuant to the document that Nick Casalanguida read to us and put on record previously. We'll be removing the gas station as a use, the liquor store as a use and the coin operated laundries as a use. The-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait. Dry-cleaning was out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one? COMMISSIONER CARON: Dry-cleaning was out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't write that one. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is that right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I thought just coin operated. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry. No. No. No. Okay. That's fine. Just coin operated -- operated laundries; right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. KLA TZKOW: Drive-through restaurant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The drive-through, that stays as is. The drive-through restaurant stays as is, but we will add in the allowance to have a bank drive-through instead of having it prohibited. The -- there is an exhibit produced by Nick Casalanguida addressing the installation and how the drainage pipe would be put in. That will be accepted and included as part of the development standards. There will be a prohibition against any outside entertainment, music, speakers and other forms of amplified sound. The building height for setback from the streets will be left at 25 feet and the asterisk will be removed along with the 50 percent of building height references will be removed. Page 101 January 3, 2008 There will be a IS-foot minimum separation between buildings. The well site that's being requested by utilities will be given -- will be provided with impact fee credits. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Don't leave your development standards table though yet. All right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because you want to take out asterisk No.1. And you wanted to take out the final maximum gross lease -- leasable area as unnecessary because you'll get to it in -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the word "internal." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The word "internal" gets struck from the minimum yards. COMMISSIONER CARON: Minimum yards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last line of the table gets struck and removed because it refers to lease -- leased space when it's supposed to be gross building area. And the reference on page A-I that has the reference to leasable space gets changed to similar gross building area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about the addition of the fence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm getting to the -- yeah, I hadn't finished yet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I talked about-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While you're on the table, the 50 percent was only removed from the front setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. Front setback only. The fence will be added along the -- either the southeast or west property line or both. And staff will be -- review that before the next read of this for feasibility. Because some of the area will be dug up in the future and there's no sense of putting a fence where it's dug out. And that's the notes that I have. Page 102 January 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the notes I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Did you have that 15 feet as the distance between structures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In No.8. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I had too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anything that was missed? MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, maybe one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: There was some discussion you wanted to avoid another Pebblebrook. One of the issues at Pebblebrook is they have outdoor TVs. Now, the sound is off. But is -- the action of having the outdoor TV s there, that accumulates people who actually make the sound. We don't know if you want to also eliminate outdoor TV s as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would a TV be considered entertainment? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know, but it would be specific-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then absolutely we'll add outdoor TV s to the list of prohibitions with the outside entertainment. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Under permitted uses I just want to make sure that we changed on the track CO to say GSF not GLSF. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That was a reference on page A-I that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. On B-1 of the development -- beginning of development standards, I think we were going to add Page 103 January 3, 2008 commercial condominium as opposed to just condominium so that again just for clarity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where -- where's that? I'm sorry. Oh, B. I thought you said E and I didn't have anything on E. That's what threw me off. Gotcha. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I guess the final is I didn't hear you make note of the well site language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, I did. I said require impact -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- fee credits for the well site. Okay. Now, does staff have any comments? MS. ZONE: There was some discussion under the Exhibit A Table 1, accessory use, No.2 the caretaker's residence. And do you want to remove that or keep that in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Murray brought it up, but I think in discussion it seemed to be pretty harmless in the end -- MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because you may want to have -- it maybe an advantage not a disadvantage to keep the place up. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: One more person getting out of here in a storm event is not going to be that critical. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else from staff? MS. ZONE: Just to make sure I have -- I have everything else that you mentioned. And with the comments that you -- Chairman, you had mentioned to put into the development standards and I want to make -- to clarify it, the comments that Nick read into -- or the language Nick read in for the record. He had talked about putting it under the developer's commitments. My notes show developer's commitments. You mentioned development standards. I'd like to make sure -- Page 104 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I meant commitments. I'm sorry. MS. ZONE: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Thank you for the clarification. Richard -- first of all, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: EAC stipulations, are we fine with those? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't have any objection to them and for once they stuck to environmental issues. COMMISSIONER CARON: And how-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You rascal. COMMISSIONER CARON: How do you want to handle the staff recommendation in terms of numbers of feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The staff recommendation for the number of feet, is that -- would that make it consistent or would that make it consistent if the BCC determines that the policy is -- determines it by policy? MS. ZONE: Staff made the recommendation to limit it so that it did not exceed the adjacent commercial development. And so we included parking and all of that. And it came up with the number 397 that the applicant -- applicant could live with. But, of course, this is a policy decision by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, does the applicant -- is 397 acceptable to you guys? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- honestly I don't want there to be any confusion. Because there will -- there is water management and preserve area beyond that 397. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we just simply say buildings and parking will not exceed 397 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That -- that -- that we can. I just wanted to make sure that didn't prohibit the water management in the preserve area. Page 105 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be the -- No.1 will read the depth of the commercial buildings and parking associated with those buildings shall not exceed 397 feet measured from the property line. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That works, right, Dwight? MR. NADEAU: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa, do you understand that change? We're all set? MS. ZONE: Number 1 would read the depth of the commercial building -- the commercial building development and the parking associated with the development shall not exceed 397 feet measured from the property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. I want to make sure it was right. Okay. MS. ZONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments or changes before I ask -- MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, just one. Just getting back to this comp plan because that's really the -- that's really the tar on this. Is it the planning board's recommendation that with that 300 and whatever foot setback that this would now meet the GMP requirement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that we ought to include that in the motion. I would suggest that as another stipulation that we recommend that the BCC approve the 397 feet as a policy decision for this comp plan -- for this comp plan issue. COMMISSIONER CARON: For this particular-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For this particular property. So if there's no objections, we'll add that to the stipulations too. Richard, do you have any objections to any stipulations that we've read off here today? MR. YOV ANOVICH: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll ask for a vote. Page 106 January 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nor do I by the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to make sure as the motion maker I don't either. And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. Mr. Adelstein, do you have any objection to any of the stipulations added to the motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. With that we'll call for the vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 to O. Well, that was a lot more difficult than I thought it would be. With that I think -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Joe Schmidt wants you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmidt. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification. Procedurally would it be -- meet your approval if we just prepare a supplemental staff report and include so that would just be one page for it in this back as a consent agenda item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: And included in that will not be the entire packet as in front of you. It will only include a final PUD document and a PUD document with a strike-through and underline to indicate where changes have been made based on your direction so you can easily find those. So it would be the two documents. A PUD document strike-through and underlined indicating the changes, a final PUD document for your review and approval. And we'll just have a -- I will call it a summary staff report just forwarding those documents on the next agenda. So you will not get the entire packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. That would be the simplest way to proof it. And I will get together with Sharon and get it set on Page 107 January 3, 2008 the agenda. My suggestion would be we put it first on the agenda because it's -- no sense of having everybody wait around all day for a consent agenda item. Okay? MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get to the speaker, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifby some bad luck it does get pulled, would there be any chance that that could be the first item clarified instead of having to sit and wait all day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. If it's pulled for the consent agenda, we'll move right into it then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next item on our agenda today is old business. MS. ZONE: Excuse me, Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Ms. -- MS. ZONE: Sorry to interrupt. We have an Exhibit E in the PUD document that we wanted to have removed. It says list of deviations. There are none. Staff did not want that exhibit in there. Since they were not requesting it, if it's okay with the board, it's not part of your motion, but staff will ensure if that E would then start with the list of developer's commitments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it wasn't part of our motion. I don't want to go back and revote on it. But to be honest with you, I think it's much better to have it there with the word none. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because then it signifies that everybody knew that there was an opportunity to enter and they weren't. MS. ZONE: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So legally I think you'd want to keep that there. MS. ZONE: Then we'll leave it alone. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 108 January 3, 2008 Yes, Mr. Schiffer. Item #9 OLD BUSINESS - NONE Item # 10 NEW BUSINESS COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are we on new business yet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on old business, but we'll go right on to new business because we don't have any old. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And, you know, Ray, we've had this conversation with the fast food and everything. Could you do some looking in the SIC code and see ifthere's a way that you could break that out where some restaurants are -- essentially meet the intent of that fast food and see if there's some way to do it in there? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if anybody in those restaurants that aren't fast food start to cook their food too fast, tell them they're going to jeopardize the -- we will be moving into fast food then. MR. BELLOWS: I will-- I'll do some research on the SIC codes. I believe they all fall under the general SIC code, but maybe there's a way we could -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Use another code. MR. BELLOWS: -- make that determination more clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- I think it's going to be interesting in how you determine what is fast food and what isn't, but COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it how fast you cook it or how fast it goes through you? Page 109 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the point, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That might be different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other new business? (No response.) Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment? Nobody's left. Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Adelstein. I'll second it. We're all adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:50 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on or as corrected. , as presented TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN 1. FORD, RPR. Page 110