CCPC Minutes 06/27/2008 R
June 27,2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, June 27, 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
Tor Kolflat
Brad Schiffer
Paul Midney
Donna Reed Caron
Lindy Adelstein
Bob Murray
Robert Vigliotti
David Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator
Ray Bellows, Department of Land Development Manager
JeffKlatzkow, County Attorney
Page 1
AGENDA
Revised II
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 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 ]0
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 1,2008, REGULAR MEETING; MAY 15,2008, REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MA Y 13,2008, REGULAR MEETING; MAY 27, 2008, REGULAR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: SV-2008-AR-13059, Stock Development, LLC, represented by Christopher Mitchell of Waldrop
Engineering, is requesting a sign variance to permit an off-premises ground monument sign bearing the
Edison College logo with a total of 54 square feet for both sides. The subject property, consisting of 3.93
acres, is located within the Lely PUD at the southeast corner of the Grand Lely Drive and Rattlesnake
Hammock intersection, in Section 21,. Township 50, Range 26, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Willie Brown) THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
B. Petition: CU-2006-AR-I0805, Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc., represented by Robert Mulhere, ofRWA,
Inc., is requesting conditional use of an earth mine in the Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District. The
subject property, consisting of 967.65 acres, is located % of a mile north of the Immokalee Road (CR-
846) I Oil Well Grade Road intersection, in portions of Section(s) 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, and 22, Township 47
South, Range 28 East, of Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown)
1
C. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-12842, Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP, of HoleMontes
Inc., is requesting a rezone of the easternmost 1000 acre portion of the First Assembly Ministries Education
& Rehabilitation PUD from the Planned Use Development (PUD) zoning district to the Agricultural (A)
zoning district. The subject property is located along the northern side of the extension of The Lord's
Way, in Section 14, Township 50, Range 26, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem)
Companion to PUDA-2007-AR-12043
D. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-I2043, First Assembly of God Naples, Inc., by J. David Mallory, president; and
MDG Fountain Lakes, LLC, William L. Klohn, president of MDG Capital Corporation, managing member;
both of whom are represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, Hole Montes, Inc., are requesting an amendment
from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) zoning district for a 6900 acre project known as the First Assembly Ministries Education and
Rehabilitation MPUD, to allow multi-family units, community facilities and church-related uses. The
subject property is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR 951)
and The Lords Way in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Kay Deselem) Companion to RZ-2008-AR-12842
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-9486, Charles S. Faller, III, of FFT Santa Barbara I, LLC and FFT Santa
Barbara II, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., and Richard D.
Yovanovich, Esq. of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A., requesting a PUD rezone from C-2 and C-4
zoning districts to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) to be known as Freestate CPUD. The
16.800 acre site is proposed to permit 150,000 square feet of commercial development. The subject property
is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard
in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach)
RE-ADVERTISED FROM 5/1108
B. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-11283, Wing South, Inc., represented by Heidi Williams, AICP of Q. Grady
Minor and Associates, P.A., requesting an amendment of tbe ShadowWood Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Ordinance No. 82-49 to increase the number of single family dwelling units from II units to a
maximum of 16 units by deleting all of 10.3 acres from Commercial (Tract D) and adding it to Private Air
Park District (Tract C). 1.98 acres from the Private Air Park District (Tract C) shall be added to Single-
family Residential (Tract B). The additional 5 units would increase the overall maximum number of dwelling
units in the PUD from 569 to 574 units. The subject property is located along the north side of
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, approximately one mile west of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), northeast of
the intersection of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road and Skyway Drive, in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach)
10. OLD BUSINESS
II. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
6/27/08 cepe Agenda/Ray Bellows/sp
2
June 27,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to
the regular meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
That's a little contradiction in terms because our regular meeting is
usually last Thursday, and today it's Friday of the following week.
But it will be our regular meeting. So welcome on June 27, 2008.
If you'll all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2
ROLL CALL
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Roll call by the secretary,
please.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 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: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
Page 2
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
The first thing is addenda to the agenda, and we have our consent
items, A through D. We have two public hearings, one on -- called the
Freestate CPUD and one for the Shadow Wood planned unit
development.
Any there any changes needed by staff or anyone at this time?
(No response.)
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll leave the agenda as it
stands.
Planning Commission absences, that's what I was just trying to
pull out of my book. In July we have a series of meetings that are
coming up. And the sheet that I have, I don't even know if it's the
most recent. I think it is.
Ray, you had sent me a separate sheet so I could discuss July,
and it shows us our first meeting is on Thursday, our regular meeting,
which is on the 3rd of July, we have the 7th -- 17th of July as our
second regular meeting. In between, on the 9th of July, we have an
evening meeting at 5:05 for the Land Development Code. Now that
will be more of a presentations meeting as to what code issues will be
coming up following later in the month or the next month.
Then on the 21 st, we have a special evening meeting for the
Planning Commission for flood and -- flood damage and stormwater
Page 3
June 27, 2008
prevention ordinance that's coming through.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: What time is that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's at 5:00 p.m., 5:05, 5:00 p.m.
Ray, is that a 5:05 meeting or 5:00 meeting, do you know, on the
21 st? Does it need to be -- does it matter?
MR. SCHMITT: Doesn't matter. I don't -- it's not on Ray's
calendar, but we could just -- it will be advertised at five o'clock.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we have a five o'clock
meeting on the 21 st. So for our overall schedules then, we're looking
at the 3rd and the 17th at our regular meetings, and we're looking at
two evening meetings on the 9th and the 21 st.
Are (sic) there anything else, Ray, that you know of during that
month that I've missed?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 21st?
COMMISSIONER CARON: The 30th.
MR. SCHMITT: The 30th. The 30th is an LDC meeting.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Meeting number two.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the schedule I've got that
was prepared, it doesn't have that on it. So yep. Well -- no. I don't
have it on my July meeting, but if it's on -- what time is the one on the
30th, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: 8:30 to 5:00.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8:30 on the 30th. Okay.
Does anybody know if they can't make it to any of those
meetings in July? I hate to ask you for them all at one time, but more
particularly on the 3rd of July first. Is everybody thinking they can be
here on the 3rd of July?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I can't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney won't. Anybody else?
(No response.)
Page 4
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we have a quorum, and I
guess each meeting I'll ask for the following week to make sure we
have a quorum. And I wanted to give you a heads-up today for that.
Item #5
APPROV AL OF MINUTES - MA Y 1, 2008, REGULAR MEETING;
MAY 15, 2008, REGULAR MEETING
Approval of the minutes, May 1st regular meeting. Is there a
motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Adelstein.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Approval of the May 15th regular meetings. Is there a motion to
Page 5
June 27, 2008
approve?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raised hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - MAY 13, 2008, REGULAR MEETING;
MAY 27,2008, REGULAR MEETING
BCC report and recaps, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Board of County Commissioners
heard the Hiwassee PUD amendment, and it was approved 5-0 subject
to the Collier County Planning recommendations, plus they also had
an additional condition to relocate the buffer that was originally
placed east of the sidewalk, and now it's to the western property line
Page 6
June 27, 2008
abutting Kensington.
And there were three other items approved on the summary
agenda. That was the Sterling Oaks rezone and the sign variance for
the collection at Vanderbilt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the chairman's report, I have a
couple of clarifications I want to try to make today. First of all, Joe,
yesterday I know we were discussing the Tamiami Crossings and
trying to fit that into our schedule. At one point we were talking about
distributing the packet on Monday, but did that get pushed off because
of the advertising issue?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. As far as I know, we could not meeting
the advertising, and I'd have to -- I think Rich is here, so we would
have to -- but the intent was -- I thought we were going to try and get
that to you for the July 3rd presentation --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: -- but it appears it will not be able to be
presented to you until the 17th of July.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me explain to the commission
what's going on there. The Tamiami Crossings is that project on U.S.
41 and 951 with the Target that was close to U.S. 41. Through
discussions, apparently the applicant now has come back with two
plans, an alternative plan, so that if the Target is not the lender, the
lessee of the property, that will revert to another plan that moves it
further inside the property, and if the Target is the lessee of the
property, they have a rendering that shows how the facility will
actually look so that it may be more compatible with the intentions of
Page 7
June 27, 2008
everybody involved.
They would like, instead of going -- they went to -- I think they
went before the BCC and asked to be brought -- come back to us for --
MR. SCHMITT: It was a continuance with a request to bring it
back to the Planning Commission. You all approved it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: And what will be coming back to you is
basically nothing more than a review of an option of the master plan.
And so the executive -- or the staff report you'll see is going to be
pretty similar to what you already approved except for there will be an
additional option for a master plan that is -- sets the building back in a
little bit different shape.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that now looks like it's
going to be on the 17th?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other thing I want to
mention about today's meeting, this is our regular meeting that was
supposed to have occurred last Thursday. Due to conflicts in
scheduling of this room, it ended up we're a week and a day late,
which is today.
Well, that's caused some unnecessary hardships in getting the
other schedules for the BCC in line with one of the particular projects
that is coming before us today, and that's the Freestate PUD. And I
asked the applicant if they would mind, upon consensus from this
board, if we heard that first this morning, went through the -- all the
issues we may have, any stipulations we may have, and then tabled a
decision on the project until the stipulations could be written up while
we're discussing the second item, and then come back after the second
item again to make sure everything is as accurate as we want it to be
and need it to be so that we can avoid a two-week delay in the consent
process and just do the consent today, just wrap it up today.
And I normally would think this is out of line, but because we
Page 8
June 27, 2008
had to change our meeting date and delay everything, it's kind of
skewed everything that we were doing for some people in regards to
getting before the BCC on their last meeting in July before they go on
vacation.
So in that regard, with the -- as long as this Planning Commission
doesn't mind, I'd like to proceed with that intent today. Does anybody
have any problems with that?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion to approve by Ms.
Caron. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Adelstein.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion carries.
Item #8
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
With that, we will get into the consent items. We have four
consent items. The process for consent, by the way, is if someone has
Page 9
June 27, 2008
a concern that it doesn't accurately reflect the stipulations that we had
at our prior meeting, then we should -- that person needs to suggest we
remove it for discussion.
So what I'd like to do is first ask ifthere are any that need to be
removed from the consent agenda. Does anybody have any they'd like
to see removed?
And by the way, we did have a clarification handed out on the
Hogan Island Quarry this morning. There was one transportation item
that had gotten mixed up in the number of revisions that were made
but it got corrected today.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if there is no reason to pull it -- and
just so you all know, I have this week compared my notes at various
times with the County Attorney's Office, made sure that at least I,
from the notes I took, it was accurate. I believe they are. So it seems
to work.
So ifthere's -- nobody wants to pull anything off, I'd like to have
a motion for approval of the consent agenda items.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made a motion.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All on those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
Page 10
June 27, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0 for the consent
agenda.
Thank you.
John, see, that was pretty harmless today, wasn't it?
Item #9 A
PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR-9486, CHARLES S. FALLER III, OF
FFT SANTA BARBARA I, LLC AND FFT SANTA BARBARA II,
LLC
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Advertised public hearings. The
first one today is petition PUDZ-2006-AR-9486, Charles S. Faller, III,
of FFT Santa Barbara I, LLC, and FFT Santa Barbara, II, LLC, also
known as the Freestate CPUD at the intersection of Santa Barbara and
Davis Boulevard.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to
be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there disclosures on the part
of the Planning Commission?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one quick thing. Wayne
and I this morning just kind of had a fumbled conversation over a
couple things, essentially the architectural standards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I met with the petitioner.
Page 11
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER CARON: And also talked to staff, excuse
me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I spoke to Mr. Arnold on the
phone regarding this issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I spoke with Mr.
Y ovanovich, Mr. Arnold, the committee of people representing
Falling Waters numerous times, as well as the applicant numerous
times.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And so did 1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so did Mr. Adelstein, okay. Not
with me. He did that on his own.
So I think that's all the disclosures.
And Terri, good morning. I'm sorry I didn't -- you changed your
hairstyle or something. I should have known you weren't blonde like
Cherie, so.
Okay, we'll continue.
Richard, it's all yours.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the
record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today
are Chuck and Albert Faller, who represent the owners; Wayne
Arnold, Mike Delate, and Kent Carlisle from Q. Grady Minor to
answer any questions you may have regarding the project.
As usual, I'll just give a brief overview of the request, and then
Wayne will take you through the master plan and the requested
deviations. And if you'll allow us to do it that way before asking any
questions, I think it may go a little bit quicker.
The parcel is an approximately 16.76-acre parcel at the southwest
corner of David Boulevard and the Santa Barbara extension. The
property is in an activity center, has been in an activity center since
1989 when the comprehensive plan was adopted.
Page 12
June 27, 2008
It's currently zoned C-4 and C-2. The northern five acres is
zoned C-4, and the southern -- the remaining property is zoned C-2.
The request is to rezone the entire property to a CPUD to allow
us for a -- allow for a more unified development and allow for some of
the C-4 use to be allowed -- be constructed on the C-2 parcel.
We met with a committee from Falling Waters that was
appointed by their board to do work with us to craft a PUD document
that was acceptable to the community.
I think we met in person at least three or four times, and we've
had many, many more email and telephone conversations subsequent
to that. We probably spent 20 to 25 hours working with the
community to make sure we came up with a PUD that they could
support and that was acceptable to the property owner.
Like we did in 1999, the community was -- it was a pleasure to
deal with. They were reasonable. We came up with a document that I
think everybody is happy with, and they have a representative here
who can speak on behalf of the community.
They had two primary concerns with the CPUD as it was
originally submitted. The first concern was height. We had requested
a maximum zoned height of 50 feet, and the second issue was buffer
and a distance between structures on the site and their residences in
the area.
We -- and then there were some uses within the PUD that they
specifically asked us to take out, which we took out at their request.
On the height issue, we agreed to go back to the height that is --
currently exists today under the zoning document, which is 35 feet
zoned height. We added a maximum actual height of 45 feet.
So before under the zoning ordinance that exists today, there's
only a reference to the zoned height. There's no maximum actual
height. So we've gone to the height that exists under the current
zomng.
The buffers was another issue that the neighbors had, and we
Page 13
June 27, 2008
spent a lot of time designing an enhanced landscape buffer that's in
your packet. We showed them how it would work from a sight line
perspective and how -- what the views would be from all different
angles from the parcel on Falling Waters.
The buffers we're proposing are greater than the code-required
Land Development Code required buffers and greater than the buffers
that exist today under the existing zoning.
They requested that we -- instead of having the wall in the buffer
adjacent to them, they want the vegetated buffer adjacent to them, and
they requested that we move the wall internal to the project basically
by the drive aisles to serve as a better sound and light attenuation than
it would be if it were closer to the western boundary. We've agreed to
do that. That's one of the deviations, and your staff is agreeable to
that.
We agreed to a no-build zone that's on one of the exhibits in front
of -- before you, which is a greater no-build zone than exists under
today's currently existing zoning on the property.
We have basically what the -- and I haven't seen the letters of
objection, but as they were explained to me, is they wanted the CPUD
to meet the spirit and intent of the existing zoning from a setback and
buffering standpoint, and I think we've exceeded what exists today
under the existing zoning through our enhanced landscape buffer and
the no-build zone as well as where we've located the wall.
We spent -- as I said, we spent a lot of time going over the uses.
We provided them with a spreadsheet of what's allowed today under
the existing zoning, what we're requesting under the new request. We
went through those uses. We deleted the ones that they didn't like.
I just found out today, much to the chagrin of my client, one of
those uses was an automotive repair, like a Goodyear store. They said
they want that out, so they -- our client ended up losing a prospective
tenant for that, so we took that use out.
All the deviations we've requested have been discussed with the
Page 14
June 27, 2008
residents, and they're comfortable with that.
And I'll let Wayne take you through the details. But I think Ray
put up the master plan with the no-build zone and all that other -- all
the other commitments, and you can see how we've separated
ourselves from the western boundary and Falling Waters.
We -- if you can see on there right now, is the well field
easement to the left. That's another one of the deviations for the utility
department for the wall.
And with that, I'll turn it over to Wayne to answer -- to go
through the specifics of the master plan and the specifics of the
deviations.
I think there's only one deviation that we have not reached an
agreement with your staff on, and Wayne will take you through that
deviation and explain why -- why we need that deviation for the CVS
drugstore that's a prospective tenant on the site.
Wayne?
MR. ARNOLD: Oh, you ready?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah.
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold. I was going
to put up an aerial that had our master plan in it just to put everything
in context.
See, the project's highlighted in color in that aerial, and that
shows the relationship we have at the intersection of future Santa
Barbara extension, Davis Boulevard.
The prominent feature on that plan is our preserve area. It's a
little over two-and-a-half acres, and it sort of mirrors the preserve area
that's in Falling Waters. That quickly became a design component of
the project between dealing with the water management district, the
neighbors, and environmental staff.
It was agreed upon that we needed to have a preserve that tried to
approximate the shape of what was there and retain the best vegetation
we had on site. So that allows us to have a good preserve area that's
Page 15
June 27, 2008
also very functional in separating our use from the Falling Waters
residents. I think that's a good -- good visual aid.
The other thing to note, I think, with Falling Waters, there are
several units that do overlook the preserve, so we took a lot of care in
talking about, as Rich said, the building heights and keeping those
down at this 35-foot level. We spent some time doing site-line
studies, et cetera, with them, and I think everyone's comfortable with a
35-feet zoned height, the 45 feet actual height that we now have.
The master plan's fairly specific in this example because we've
delineated -- I call it building footprints, but they're probably more
realistically building envelope areas because there will be some
modification as we go through the process. We've actually submitted
a site development plan for the two northernmost buildings that face
Davis Boulevard. Those buildings are in the currently zoned C-4 area,
and one of those is a CVS drugstore that's at the intersection.
So we are moving ahead with this process. We're soon to obtain
our water management district permit, and hopefully we'll be moving
through this process.
As Rich said, we worked pretty closely with our neighbors on
this project, and I think that with a couple of probably minor
refinements, that we've reached consensus is this plan works for both
them and our developer. So that's a good thing.
And as I spoke with some of you, I mean, we repre -- I mean, we
recognize clearly that we have neighbors and we tried very hard to
bring forward a project that they can, one, live next to and be
comfortable and, two, that they'll also patronize.
And that was something that came out of our meetings. You
know, another project down the road, Kings Lake Shopping Center
that's also on Davis, was used as an example because it is relatively
low in scale and has a complement of uses that can be used by the
nearby residents. So we think we've delivered on what they have
hoped to achieve.
Page 16
June 27, 2008
Just from a land use standpoint, we have the existing Countryside
and its commercial component to the north. To the east is Santa
Barbara extension, and right-of-way was taken for that extension from
us and the adjoining property to the east. That project is in for a
mixed-use planned development called Carmina Reserve. And that
will have a commercial component also in its activity center portion of
the project, and then it will also have a residential component that
wraps in behind it.
So access points have been coordinated with it across the street as
well. To the south, again, is another part of the Falling Waters. And,
again, we have some specific buffering treatments that -- I'm happy to
go through them, and out landscape architect, Carlisle, is here to go
through those if you all have very specific questions about it.
Otherwise, I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about the
details of it, other than probably, as Rich mentioned, the wall
component and how that's going to be carried out.
One of the things that we dealt with on the site was really the
buffer, and that consumed a lot of our conversations because it
evolved, as Rich said, from having a wall in the buffer, six-foot wall
on top of a berm, to taking the wall out of that and making it a softer
buffer with vegetation and a berm, and then we've inserted an
eight-foot wall that would parallel-- and I can point to that on the
master plan. Let me put maybe a closer version of the master plan up
there to point to.
Maybe I'll just point out a couple of features. Primary access
point on Davis Boulevard. We have one access point, and that's at the
far western portion of our site. We have two access points to future
Santa Barbara extension, and those were negotiated as part of a
developer agreement with the county.
We -- in reference to the wall, if you go south from Davis
Boulevard, we agreed to put an eight-foot high wall near our travel
lane and access point, and it extends back and then beyond the dry
Page 17
June 27, 2008
detention area that you see on that plan, so it wraps around the
proposed county well field easement and extends south almost to our
preserve area. And then from that point, a chain link fence will
eventually pick up and go around our preserve area, and then it will
meet another eight-foot high wall that will wrap around and go all the
way back to the Santa Barbara connection out Davis Boulevard.
The one thing that's not in our document that was recently
discussed -- and it's in the letter that you all -- I think most of you
received it from a resident, John Rafuse, who had drafted that -- was a
request for us to take that eight-foot high wall that's near our eastern
boundary, eastern and southern boundary, and bring it back to our
property line at the Santa Barbara right-of-way so that the noise
attenuation wall that's being built by Collier County, as part of the
Santa Barbara improvements, it could touch that wall so that there's
not a gap of about 15 to 18 feet between their wall and our wall.
There's a perceived security issue, and I guess rightly so.
So we don't have an opposition to turning our wall and bringing it
to our property line at that point so that there can be a connection
made. That does pose one issue for us, and that's maintenance of our
berm and buffer on that side.
And I spoke with two residents yesterday, indicating that we
would probably need to breach our eight-foot wall at some point with
some sort of gated locked structure so that we could access our berm
and buffer, because obviously our landscape maintenance people
would have just simply used part of the Santa Barbara right-of-way to
come behind our wall to do maintenance, so we'll need to put some
sort of gated structure somewhere in our wall area so that we can
access our berm and buffer to maintain that properly. So that's one of
our issues.
The other issue that came up from the residents that evolved
fairly recently -- and I have an exhibit that we've presented to them --
and that is some sort of temporary security fencing as we commence
Page 18
June 27, 2008
with Phase 1 construction of our project.
And the issue there was, once we go in and clear a portion of this
site, we move forward and bring people to the site, that now there's
going to be more exposure to their community. Because even though
they're a gated community, they currently don't have a secured permit
or fencing around the entirety of the site.
So we've agreed that as part of our Phase I, we're going to go in
and install all the buffers and portions of this wall that we've referred
to. And then what we've agreed to do -- and I don't know if Jerry
Smith, the resident here, is going to say that he completely agrees
because it's evolving, but we agree that we could put chain link
fencing across a portion of the site. And I have an exhibit that I'll
show you in just a moment that will show how we can do that. But it
would be to bring some temporary fencing across portions of the site
so that it would at least give the appearance that you're not supposed
to be just wandering back through the site to find your way to Falling
Waters. I think it's a valid concern on their part, and hopefully that's
something that we can do without trying to put a perimeter fence
around the entirety of our project prematurely.
The other thing that I wanted to mention with reference to the site
plan was some of the deviations at this point because I think that
they're important. Rich mentioned the well field easement. Right
now your code says that you need to have -- any noncommercial to
residential relationship has to have a solid masonry wall, and what
we've offered is a combination of a solid wall that we've referenced as
the eight-foot wall and a chain link fence that goes around the
preserve area, because the preserve area is quite wide, as you can see.
And then when you look at it in relationship to theirs, it's about
550 feet at its widest point. It narrows down to 70 feet, I think, as our
narrowest point. But we have separation there, and the chain link
fence would be simply back behind our preserve, and that's going to
give them a seamless security type fencing from our perspective
Page 19
June 27,2008
without us having to incur the expense of having an eight-foot high
wall for a quarter of a mile. So that's something that they're in support
of and your staff is also supporting.
The other part of that is that we've asked for a wall height
deviation for that area next to the well field easement because in that
area staff may still request -- we don't know yet, but staff may still
want the county utilities department, when they put in a well
easement, depending on what kind of structure they have on the site,
to put in a wall. And if they do so, there's a berm there and it would
make sense that they would install their wall on the berm, which is
going to now exceed the eight-feet height that commercial projects are
allowed to achieve.
So we've asked for that deviation really, I think, for the benefit of
Falling Waters, but also anticipating that the county may utilize that
site for a well easement.
So those two deviations relate specifically to the fence standards
in your code.
The other deviation that's also been requested is one that came
about in dealing with your transportation staff, and that has to do with
the buffer width on Davis Boulevard, and that is -- currently, because
we're in an activity center, we're required to have a 20-foot wide type
D buffer. This deviation would allow that buffer to be reduced to 10
feet as shown on the exhibit that's in your packet.
I can put that exhibit up if we need to discuss that at this point.
But the point of that was to accommodate a turn lane that the county
now needs for the Santa Barbara extension.
Staff is now supporting that. It doesn't reduce the amount of
landscape material in any way that's in your buffer. It simply allows
that reduction in width without the county incurring the expense of
buying additional right-of-way at this point. So we hope that you can
support that deviation as well.
The -- it's probably prudent to talk about maybe the Falling
Page 20
June 27,2008
Waters security fence issue and put that one on the table more
specifically showing you that exhibit, and then probably I'll go back
and talk about the one deviation that staff is not supporting entirely,
and that was the deviation relating to architectural deviation for
primary facades.
So if I can find my exhibit for the temporary fence.
Okay. This diagram originally was part of our construction
phasing plan that's submitted with our site development plan and our
water management district permit. And what we are proposing to do
__ the large white area there represents our Phase 2 construction area.
That area is not intended to be cleared as part of Phase 1.
So the site, as we move forward with the small retail building
adjacent to Davis Boulevard and the proposed CVS drugstore, we
would leave intact all of the preserve area and all the area that's in the
large white outlined area on that plan.
So what gets cleared is really the area to support the retail
buildings along Davis Boulevard and then a long narrow drive aisle
that goes down to the Santa Barbara extension, and that would give us
access to that future land there and we would be clearing for our lake.
So as a component of that, there would be some exposed areas
both on the southern and eastern side and then on the northern side.
And it's not the easiest to see on here, but maybe I can circle it. Here
and there. Those two areas represent areas where we would extend
some chain link fencing and we could put additional signage on there
in some manner so that it's a deterrent for anybody who's using the site
to just feel like they can wander through our preserve in the uncleared
area.
And I wrote some language that I can either read into the record
or we can talk about certainly. But the concern from the residents in
doing that isn't that that's what we've proposed to do, but that the
fencing material could extend far enough into our uncleared area so
that it didn't appear that you could just walk around the side of this
Page 21
June 27, 2008
fence and then have easy access to their community.
So we've written some language that would require that we
extend it far enough into our uncleared area so that it appears that it's a
continuous fence and that you can't just walk around the end of it.
So I don't know if the Falling Waters representatives are in a
position to support that today or if they need to see the specific
language or they have some other option that they need to discuss, but
that was the last item that we had, I think, remaining on their issues
list that we needed to deal with today.
So that's been our attempt to deal with that issue. And I'm sure
that you'll hear from them whether or not they like this concept or not.
You know, from our perspective, we don't think with the amount
of preserve and vegetation that's going to remain there, that it's going
to be easy for anybody to access. Right now it's an exposed site, and I
can't say that there have been issues. I know that some of the residents
have related that at -- near the future Santa Barbara extension, there's
an area where they've had some problems with people trying to come
into their community.
So if this helps deal with that issue, then -- happy to do so. It
certainly seems like a reasonable request and one that we can achieve
for them.
The other issue that I wanted to talk about related to our request
for deviations -- and we had requested a deviation from meeting the
primary facades standards. And we -- we requested that for the
buildings that either faced the preserve or didn't have publicly visible
areas, and we highlighted the walls in which that deviation would be
applicable on that master plan.
And staff agreed with us that those two buildings that are closest
to the preserve, that side of the building probably didn't need to meet a
primary facades standard. And we're happy that they agreed with that.
It did become problematic for us though on the two buildings
closest to Davis Boulevard because while the areas that face Davis and
Page 22
June 27, 2008
Santa Barbara would be treated as a primary facade, we now have a
situation where the rears of those buildings, we still have servicing
requirements for them, and it is difficult to meet your primary facades
standards.
I think -- we had a lengthy conversation with Bruce McNall
who's doing your architectural reviews presently, and he admits that it
is a challenge for some of these, and they're actually going through an
LDC amendment that's working its way to you that will try to deal
with this issue for these free-standing buildings in a PUD and maybe
relaxing primary facade standards on some of the facades.
What we offered was -- I guess -- I think it was probably pointed
out in my conversation with Ms. Caron that there was no standard.
We asked for the deviation but weren't giving you anything that we
were willing to meet.
So was the question, can we just build a blank stucco wall, put a
service metal door in it and we're finished? And obviously, our client,
Mr. Faller, wants to have an attractive building that he can keep well
leased, and there will be customer parking on that side of the project
as part of really Phase 2 more than Phase 1, but we need to have
something that's attractive.
And some of the things that we talked about that we could do
would be to maybe give ourselves a menu of opportunities to bring
architectural features to that side of the building, and that could --
including, you know, making a commitment that we could put in glass
doorways instead of metal doors, we could put covered entries, we
could put landscape material, or we can bring architectural features
that mirror what's on the front side of the building to the rear of the
building, but it comes down to putting 30 percent of your facades as
glass and -- or putting a covered public entryway.
You only have five options for your primary facade standards,
and I think -- we're hoping that you can support some relief from that.
And I think we can have the conversation and I can show you some of
Page 23
June 27, 2008
the things and why it's important.
Mike Delate has been working with the CVS drugstore, for
instance, and they have some security issues, obviously, as a
pharmacy why they don't want openings and fairly easy access into
the areas where they store their pharmaceutical supplies.
There's also an issue, they need to have medical records that get
disposed of properly and they're also -- they take care of their own
boxing requirements and recycling, and so they can't be shared
commonly. So they have to have some of that immediately adjacent
to the building, and that posed a design problem for us, frankly, that I
don't have all the answers on how we're going to deal with that other
than I've got architectural elevations for the store, and we can look at
those and maybe you can understand why those deviations are
warranted.
I can start with the CVS drugstore, if! can. That's a color
rendering of what's been submitted with your site development plan,
and you can see the two elevations on the top represent the two
facades that face either Davis Boulevard or Santa Barbara, and they
have public entryways and they have glass and they have their arcade
and things that meet all of your code requirements.
And then as you look to the bottom two elevations, you see that
one of those is sort of the southern elevation. The top one there, the
raised highlighting, that's the southern elevation, and the bottom one is
the western elevation. And the western elevation, it's got architectural
details and it's got columns and it's got the little look of an arcade. It's
not really an arcade. That's applied stucco and other relief, and then
you can see the drive-through on the corner of that building.
There's no glazing in this side. It's part storage and part -- part of
their pharmaceutical storage, as I understand it. I don't think it's an
unattractive building.
We have landscape islands on the side of the building that can
have landscaping in them. But again, on this issue, it's the glazing
Page 24
June 27, 2008
requirement that we're going to have difficulty meeting.
And on the other elevation that's the southern elevation, we have
an area that you can see that they wrap the front of what's facing, at
that time a point, Santa Barbara, and then the area that you can see
with the wall is where they have their compaction area and they
dispose of their records there, and that is a secured area, as I
understand it, for that purpose. They can't just share it in common
with the other garbage dumpsters in areas that we have on the site.
And then, of course, as you move further to the west at that point,
we have the drive-through that shows again.
So, I mean, I think we can meet elements of your architectural
standards for primary facades, but can't meet all of them. And in this
case, there's very limited area for even planting landscape on that
southern elevation.
We did talk to Bruce McNall yesterday, and he indicated that one
of our options in lieu of glazing would be to plant -- put a trellis on the
building and have vining materials that could grow on that. That's
something that -- we're looking at that as -- the viability of doing so.
I'm not familiar with what kind of plants might vine on the building or
a trellis. I don't want to create a maintenance issue for the owner, but
certainly we want this to be designed attractively. That's the challenge
for that building.
I apologize. I don't have a color rendering for the building that's
located -- our westernmost building on Davis Boulevard, but that's
designed to be a multi-tenant building, and the primary facade that
faces Davis Boulevard has no problems meeting your code.
What you see in the middle diagram is the back of the building,
and that is the side that's problematic for us because it does have
parking back there, and in the first phase of this, it's primarily going to
be employee-type parking. But as the rest of the site develops over
time, there will be some common parking lot on circulation.
So rightly so, the building needs to be designed attractively, but
Page 25
June 27, 2008
as the primary public entrance is on the north side of the building, the
south side of the building is going to be our service area. And while
we don't have large loading areas and things that we need. We do
need storage for each of those tenant spaces so we don't have plate
glass windows and display windows on that side of the building.
One thing that this doesn't show you, and it's something that I
alluded to, is that we have room to do landscaping adjacent to this
building. We also have the ability to bring architectural features into
play that can wrap around and complement what's on the front side of
the building so that we don't have blank wall areas that are exposed.
So I think we have a solution that can be viable. I don't have
something drawn that you can look at today that says, yes, that's
exactly what we're approving, but hopefully we can write some
language that you can accept and support a deviation from meeting
your primary facades standards.
But those are the two -- two primary facades issues that we're
dealing with that staff did not support. And, again, we're glad they
supported the ones immediately adjacent to the preserve which we
need, but I think we need some relief here, too, or it certainly would
be helpful to have that.
But those are my two issues that I wanted to discuss related to
that. And I think -- happy to discuss any of the other uses. I wasn't
going to go through all the permit uses one by one. As Rich said, that
we've been through this list a number of times with the residents, and
as far as I know, they're supportive of it. I know that I had a brief
conversation with Mr. Strain, and there were some uses that he was
concerned that maybe they weren't aware of the intensity or that these
uses were different than the ordinance 99-19.
I think they're clearly aware that those uses are different than the
99-19 ordinance. I can't speak to -- that every person in the room
understood the nuances of going through these codes. But we did, as
Rich said, prepare a matrix, three-column matrix, to go through what
Page 26
June 27, 2008
was approved under the old code, what's approved under the C-4, C-2,
and then what we were proposing.
And one of the uses that specifically was a question was a
contractor office. They fall under your industrial land use categories
under the SIC code, but the way we've conditioned those contractor
offices, they're really the business arm of what would be a contractor.
Kraft Construction was a good example. They built a class-A office
building on Pine Ridge Road. Gates has built class-A office space for
themselves on U.S. 41. And other builders can also live in a shopping
center environment, but they're still licensed contractor.
We've committed that we'd have no storage or equipment or
anything of that nature on the site. It really is for the business purpose
of having a contractor office there.
So that was one example that we specifically discussed with the
residents, and they were supportive of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You finished, Mr. Arnold?
MR. ARNOLD: I can be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've just been patiently waiting for you
to get done. I think we'll learn more of our questions than we will out
of your presentation.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay, good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't we just go into the
questions.
And Mr. Murray, I think you had a -- Mr. Yovanovich, you want
rebuttal already?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I -- Nick Casalanguida asked me to
clarify something in the PUD document and it's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's going to be a lot that
Nick's got to clarify in the PUD document.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I told him I would because I was
afraid he'd hurt me.
He -- the condition in 2B says, if the Santa Barbara extension is
Page 27
June 27, 2008
completed, we'll pay for the turn lanes. He wants to change that to
say, if the county builds the turn lanes, we'll reimburse the county for
the turn lanes, so we need to clarify that when it comes time to clarify
various items. But I told Nick I would get that on the record, and now
we're ready to answer any questions you may have, and hopefully
they're all for Wayne.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray's been patient, so Bob, go
right ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wayne, you took all your papers
away, so we're going to have to put some back up there.
MR. ARNOLD: I left a few here.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's begin with the rendering
preceding the last one that was there showing the glass.
MR. ARNOLD: Is that the CVS?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would ask you whether or not
anybody had done an evaluation as to the amount of energy consumed
with all of that glass as a result of the heat and so forth; anybody did
anything about that?
MR. ARNOLD: I know we have not. I can't speak to whether or
not the architect may have addressed that, but we have not.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Probably would be considerable,
looking at the rendering as it is. Okay. That question asked and
having been answered, let's go to the issue of the preserve and the rest
of it.
The fencing that you're talking about, is that to intrude into the
preserve or be at the perimeter of the preserve?
MR. ARNOLD: It's at the perimeter. Our -- this project will get
built in probably two phases, but the first phase will be installing some
of the hard wall and landscape buffers, and then Phase 2 will pick up
and build the entirety of -- when -- the chain link fencing that we're
Page 28
June 27, 2008
talking about that wraps around the preserve, it's on our drive aisle
side of it, and it would be on a retaining wall to enhance the height of
that, but it would be wrapping along --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So what I'm trying it get
at is, I would presume that a fence would be considered an accessory
structure at some point.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you have any other
accessory structures intended to be in the preserve?
MR. ARNOLD: No, one of the --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: One of the things that came out--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Stop, stop, because my
question's very simple then.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at page 2 of 15 of
your Exhibit A, permitted uses. And under development standards, I
found it curious, it says B3. No principal structures shall be permitted
within the preserve area.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wondered, do you really need
to say that? Do we commonly put structures in the preserve area?
MR. ARNOLD: No, you don't commonly, but you'll find in
some PUDs that you would have some structures in there, whether it's
a picnic table or some sort of covered shelter or something. One of
the -- one of the things that came out of our various meetings with the
residents is, they didn't want the public back there. They didn't want
employees back there. They wanted the preserve to be the preserve
and, you know, they didn't want that to become an area where we
could improve it and that's where the smokers go to have their breaks
or employees go to have lunch.
They wanted the preserve to be the preserve. That's how they use
Page 29
June 27, 2008
theirs. And we committed that we wouldn't have any uses in it other
than the preserve.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, I thought it was --
MR. ARNOLD: It's an awkward way of saying it, I agree with
you, but that was the easiest way for us to convey to them that we
don't intend to put anything in there other than the preserve.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That was more for PR than it
was for anybody looking at that wondering, scratching their head later
on. Why would you even say it?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think it made it clear that -- to
somebody who might come down the road later, that they couldn't put
a building there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's it for me for the moment.
Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Schiffer and Mr.
Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rich, maybe -- Rich, when
was this declared an activity center?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was an activity center in the original
comprehensive plan that was adopted in 1989.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when did Falling Water
(sic) -- when that was built; do you know?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was built after the 1989 comprehensive
plan.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because my concern is,
the activity center has certain requirements, and I'm wondering how
this project actually achieves those; do you know what I mean? In
other words, the mixed use aspect of it, the connection to the
neighborhood.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, specifically this -- this activity
center would allow this to not -- it would allow it to be basically a
Page 30
June 27, 2008
retail center. You don't have to have residential within the project.
Regarding interconnectivity with Falling Waters, there's no
opportunity really for us to have vehicular interconnection because
they're already built out, and they don't -- they've specifically
requested that there be no pedestrian interconnection as well.
They, from a security standpoint, would like the retail to be
isolated from their residential neighborhood. So that's why you do not
see any -- one, vehicular interconnection can't occur, just physically
not possible to do it; and, two, the pedestrian is not there because the
residents specifically don't want it to be there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there is no -- there's no
sidewalk. For example, we're arguing over a sidewalk in the buffer
yet it doesn't even connect to the west.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There will be a sidewalk in Davis
Boulevard and Santa Barbara, so people will be able to walk to the
project. They'll have to go out their gates to get to those sidewalks
but, yes, there will be sidewalks when those roads are constructed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But your site plan doesn't show
that. I mean, it shows actually a turn lane.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, the deviation for the landscape
buffer is actually to accommodate the sidewalk for Davis Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So when we're asking for that deviation
to go from 20 feet to 10 feet, the 10 feet that the county is going to be
obtaining is for their -- for the sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the turn lane that's
shown right on the property line here probably is incorrect? If you
look at drawings we've been given. And go further west. Go to a
different drawing then.
MR. ARNOLD: What are you trying to see?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The sidewalk for Davis and the turn lane.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess -- I mean, I guess you
Page 3 1
June 27, 2008
can assure me that there will be pedestrian access along Davis
Boulevard into this property --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can assure you that the county's plans
for Davis Boulevard includes a sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. There will be at least
pedestrian access --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- from other developments and
things, too?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because we're paying in lieu of. Because
they're putting the sidewalk in, we're actually paying for it as part of
our obligations.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, you had one thing that
showed -- it was an aerial photograph that showed the residences.
MR. ARNOLD: I've got a couple. Does that one work?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. The concern I
have is -- and it goes kind of back to the Pebblebrook noise concern, is
essentially these residences are going to be close to the ends of
buildings. Theoretically, if an outdoor entertainment thing was put in
there, they would have the same problem. So is there a way that we
could maybe discuss -- there's a lake there. There's some distance
there, but a lake isn't going to help block sound. As a matter of fact,
it's going to reflect sound.
MR. ARNOLD: We did have that discussion with the neighbors
on a couple different occasions and I think that's one of the reasons of
the wall location move, for instance. We have an eight-foot wall that's
now closer to the buildings.
The other thing that we have in the document, it's in under
principal uses, and maybe it also needs to be carried forward to
accessory uses, but under eating places.
Page 32
June 27, 2008
We have language in there that talks about outdoor seating, and it
says it's permitted, but the language says, however, no outdoor
amplified entertainment shall be permitted for any restaurant, music,
or television, and no bar areas with outside seating shall be permitted.
That was the language at the time that I think was deemed acceptable,
I think, on another item that came before the Planning Commission. I
can't say that that's been the latest language that you all have approved
for somebody, but that's what was, at the time, the applicable language
we felt was the guarantee that residents needed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And is Falling Water
two story, by any chance?
MR. ARNOLD: No. Those are two-story buildings.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're two-story, right. So
there is a concern across that lake, okay.
And -- all right. And that would apply to all the buildings on the
site?
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Wayne, the parking
deviation, the reason the architectural standards and all that have that
is to prevent -- or not to prevent, but to lessen the impact of strip
centers. Essentially this is a classic strip center.
The deviation that you're concerned about on the back of the one
building, the reason that was written into the architectural standards is
to prevent blank sides of buildings, which is exactly what you're
doing.
So the problem I'm having with the deviations is the reason
you're giving to do the deviation is the reason the legacy of the
architectural standard is there.
So did you look at other ways to design this site? I mean, this
isn't the only way you could layout this commercial product on the
site. In other words, it's -- all the parking in front of the thing. This is
a classic strip center. Certainly the long building.
Page 33
June 27, 2008
MR. ARNOLD: Well, the large building envelope that's shown
on the southern end of this project, that became a function of, one, the
preserve shape and, two, trying to create some distance between us
and the neighbors at Falling Waters.
And out of the plan evolutions that we had, it was desired that we
not have any more activity behind that building than we needed,
which obviously we need servicing of the building and the tenants that
are in it. But we don't have parking for employees, we don't have
customer parking and entrances. So it's going to be minimal in terms
of what activities occur behind that building and in closer proximity to
the Falling Waters residents.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the preserve, for example,
could have -- I think connected into the other preserve is obviously
desirable. But it could have been less deep and gone across the back
more and even protected the neighbors more, and you could have
designed your buildings not to be long, linear, i.e., strip stores.
MR. ARNOLD: We looked at that option, and your
environmental staff did not support that and -- nor did the water
management district as we went through that process.
The agencies wanted the largest contiguous area. They wanted
the preserve to be connected. They wanted us -- ideally they would
have taken that preserve out to Santa Barbara Boulevard, and that
obviously doesn't work for the site at all.
So this was a compromise to make it as wide as possible, still
give us a reasonable building envelope to deliver commercial viable --
viable commercial project.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. I mean, I'm not
convinced yet, but -- I think that's enough for now, Mark. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. On this aerial here to the
left and to the right of the Falling Waters property, it shows some
preserve area; is that correct?
Page 34
June 27, 2008
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But in our staff report on the
aerial photo they presented to us there, that is shown as not having any
preserve area there. That's on page 5 of the staff report.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think on that aerial, if that's the one
you're referring to, Mr. Kolflat, they've simply just outlined the
property as it exists today. The aerials we're showing you shows our
master plan within it and how it orients to the --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But when you look at the
Falling Waters property there, it shows no preserve up at the bottom
and the top of that illustration; whereas, in your illustration, it shows
the preserve area on their part.
MR. ARNOLD: Right. Their preserve does not extend north
and south of those existing buildings. That's their landscape buffer. If
you drive back there, they've got a berm with some vegetation on it
that they've maintained in those areas. It's not part of the preserve.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So your property line there
would go right up to where their buildings are, not to the preserve area
in their part?
MR. ARNOLD: No. They have a -- I think the county staff
aerial has taken this over maybe a little too as far in terms of the
property line. There is vegetation existing between Falling Waters and
our proj ect today.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So this illustration is in error
compared to the one you showed us?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that it's in error. I think the lines
are heavy enough that they obscure the landscape buffer that's there.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, it differs anyhow?
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: In the original ordinance there, I
thought it was -- 35 feet was the maximum height, building height.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it was, and that's the zoned height.
Page 35
June 27, 2008
This ordinance predated the distinctions between zoned height and
actual height that have -- that have come about since the adoption of
that ordinance. So all references to height at that time were to zoned
height, so we were allowed 35 feet zoned height with no cap on actual
height in 1999. Now we've agreed to stay with the same 35 feet zoned
height and cap the actual height at 45 feet.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But did the original ordinance
show that this was actually a zoned height of 35 feet, or did it -- it's
not designated?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It referenced the height as 35 feet, and
that --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Without designating whether it
was zoned or actual.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, they didn't -- back in 1999, they
didn't distinguish between the two. There was -- we only refer to
zoned height in zoning districts back in 1999.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, the original ordinance
also, as I saw, had a 60-foot buffer on the western side.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It had a retention of native vegetation of
60 feet, yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And you, in essence, are
reducing that to 20 feet now?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: In portions, yes, and in other portions
we're going greater. If you look at -- that's why we have -- and we
met with the neighbors about this, that's why we have the no-building
zone.
We have actually pushed the buildings further away from the
property under the current master plan from what could have been
approved under the 1999 zoning ordinance, and we've enhanced the
landscape buffer over and above what was required in the 1999
ordinance, and that's what we've spent a tremendous amount of time
with -- with the neighborhood on is making sure that the buffer and
Page 36
June 27, 2008
the distances of buildings was appropriate compared to the 1999
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, in your petition here, you
indicate that the zoning will cover C-I to C-5 as far as in all areas.
Have you deleted any of the requirements or indications in C-l and
C-5 that it would allow, or does this include all C-l and C-5?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, I believe our zoning is very
specific as to the number of uses we're requesting. It's listed starting
on page -- it's Exhibit A starting on page 1 of 15. Those are the
specific uses we're requesting on the property.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And you're not requesting any
beyond that, what's listed there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, that's it. That's everything we're
asking for.
I believe what you're referring to is the -- under the -- under the
activity center designation, we would be eligible to request from C-l
to C-5, but we have not requested all of those uses.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right. Now, do I understand
that the level of service in both Santa Barbara and Davis is now D, as
in David?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe those are the adopted level of
service standards, and we're consistent with the adopted level of
service, correct?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: When will be the completion of
this project as far as construction and occupancy?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Phase I is in Site Development
Plan review right now, and that's approximately 26,000 square feet.
And as soon as we can get through the county's review process for the
SDP and -- are we in for building permit? And we're also in for
building permit for that square footage. So hopefully as soon as we
can get through the county process and start the construction.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But now the Davis Boulevard
Page 37
June 27, 2008
construction schedule calls for completion in '012. So your project
will be completed before the Davis construction?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The intersection is -- and turn lanes are
being done now, I believe. And Nick is probably better prepared to
answer that. The intersection of Santa Barbara and future -- future
Santa Barbara extension at Davis Boulevard, of which we're actually
assisting to make that happen quicker because we're providing the turn
lane to the county at no charge.
So that will be -- I think that's being worked on right now.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yep.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because they've -- we've actually even
allowed them to store their material and start working on that without
any written agreement yet, so they're working on the Davis Boulevard
turn lane right now and making that happen.
And I think future Santa Barbara extension is scheduled to start
later this year, because we had proposed constructing a temporary
access for ourselves, and transportation said, there's no need to do that.
We're about to get under construction for Santa Barbara extension.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, the report also indicates
that there's a significant impact of 2.4 percent for Davis Boulevard as
far as this project's concerned, but on the -- on the Santa Barbara, it
indicates a 5.6 percent, I believe, is the difference. I'm a little
confused as to when does something become significant and not
significant. What's the differentiation? You've identified both of
these as being significant impacts.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, those are for purposes -- that's a
calculation, and I think -- is it 2 percent now, Nick? If it's -- if you
have -- if your project contributes more than 2 percent of the traffic
capacity, it's considered a significant impact, and -- versus something
that contributes less than that. It's looked at differently. It doesn't
mean that the project doesn't go forward. It just means it's a significant
impact and you address your -- you address your traffic issues. And
Page 38
June 27, 2008
Nick can answer that in much more detail than I can.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So 2 percent is the breakpoint
between being significant and not significant?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe so. It used to be 3 percent, but I
know they brought it down to 2 percent maybe a year or two ago
through the comp plan.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. That's all the
questions I had, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir. Any other questions from the
Planning Commission? Mr. Vigliotti and Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Rich, there's some new terms
I'm not familiar with. No-build zone and human scale. No-build zone
means?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can't put any buildings in that area.
And that was -- it was -- it was specifically there to give the residents
of Falling Waters further assurance that there would be no buildings
within the area that we had depicted as either water management or
preserve or parking. So it's to let them know that there would be at
least that distance before they would see a structure on our property.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. So that's just
terminology to put them at peace?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I see human scale. What is
human scale?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where is that? Is that in our document?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Smart growth principal.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that in our -- is that in our document?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is this the smart growth
principal? Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. I know it's in the comprehensive
plan, and apparently planners and architects understand that term.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Mr. Vigliotti?
Page 39
June 27, 2008
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I want to go back to
deviation number one, the architectural standards.
In my discussion with Mr. Arnold, I brought it up because the
goal in this county is to avoid strip malls and strip centers of any kind.
One -- and one of the ways we go about that is to use a PUD. But it
seems like everything that we're seeing come before us is just taking
the PUD and plunking a strip center in a PUD not in the spirit or the
intent of avoiding strip centers.
So, Wayne, if we can just go to -- let's start with the CVS
pharmacy.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I thank you for the email on
some proposed language.
The west elevation, your widest elevation here that is going to be
stuck with not much on it here, if you go up to your east elevation, the
windows that are pretty much under the arches, not under the
entryway there, those windows to the left as you look at the visualizer
-- keep going left, left. Okay, one, two, three, right there -- those are
not full windows. They are high windows that allow, internally,
things to be placed on the wall of a retail outlet.
Is there any reason that high windows such as that couldn't be
used on that west elevation to get you your glazing and come closer to
meeting code?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. Rich is talking to our client right
now, who I know has been much closer to discussion with the CVS
people than I have.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I didn't get your email in time to
ask.
MR. ARNOLD: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing you could do is
Page 40
June 27, 2008
something that is common, is you could put fake spandrel glass up
there.
MR. ARNOLD: I don't think putting the artificial glass is a
problem for us. It's more of a problem for your staff. They don't
encourage that at all.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And it's not allowed.
MR. ARNOLD: It would certainly be a viable solution for
giving you some reflection and things that look more like glass,
because so many of these new businesses, to meet their energy codes,
the glass is black. You don't see through it anyway. So I don't
understand the issue with it myself. I'm not the architect, so I don't
know what that issue is, but I do think that's obviously one solution.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Now -- and would you
cover with me here on the CVS, on this west portion, was there a
problem adding vegetation there?
MR. ARNOLD: You know, I think --
COMMISSIONER CARON: In terms of trees, too, and I want to
get away from trellises because I think that is going to place a burden
on your developer that you don't really want to do because trellises
have a tendency to die.
MR. ARNOLD: I'm going to ask Mike Delate to come up. He's
been doing our site development engineering for the site.
MR. DELATE: Good morning. For the record, Mike Delate. I
don't think the graphics -- that the architectural graphics showed it too
clearly, but the actual Site Development Plan that's in for review and
approval right now kind of depict it a little bit better what we're going
to do on that west side there that helps with one of those four options
that Wayne presented. And I'll come over here and show you.
Along the west side of the CVS -- it's hard to see here. But there
is about a five-foot strip that runs about three-quarters of the way
down that side of the building which would allow landscape treatment
and even a trellis, and that was one of the options that we looked at
Page 41
June 27, 2008
but might be a maintenance issue, so we looked at other vegetation.
But I think that one of those four options that Wayne presented to
you, what we would hope to use, including the -- and I'll go over them
just in case you all don't have them. There were four options here, to
choose three of the four, which would be architectural details similar
to that provided for the primary facade of the building, such as stucco
banding or applied architectural features, glass service or access doors,
covered entries for each access door, and then D, which is the
vegetative planting clusters within building foundation planting areas.
And we'd hoped to use that as a more practical approach toward a
long-term solution without a heavy maintenance responsibility that
trellising would provide.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Let's move on to the -- to
the long strip mall building here in Phase 1.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You want the architectural graphic back
up?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, back up. Yeah.
MR. ARNOLD: Oh, it's for that retail building. I'm sorry. I was
thinking the long skinny building.
COMMISSIONER CARON: How long is this building?
MR. ARNOLD: It's about 120 feet.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's a major expanse with not a
lot. Now, you are telling me that on this southern elevation, again,
you've got room to do trees and --
MR. ARNOLD: We do. Right now there's about five feet that's
on the back side of that building. We have some room to even expand
that further if necessary to make an area that we could plant clusters of
palms or something to hide parts of that blank wall if that's part of the
concern.
Again, the issue here was not trying to -- not intentionally trying
to make an unattractive building, but trying to make it functional and
attractive without having to meet all of the primary facade elements.
Page 42
June 27, 2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: And again, I will just suggest, it
seems to me that part of the glazing, while you might not meet all 30
percent of it, could be done by raising those windows. They don't
have to be as they are on your north elevation, ground to ceiling
windows. At least not anything I've read in the code requires that. It
requires a percentage.
So just as -- when we're talking about options and writing these
stipulations in here, I think that's something that should be considered.
Perhaps somebody like Mr. Schiffer would want to weigh in as an
architect, you know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the only weigh-in on
this design is that this is exactly what the code was trying to prevent. I
mean, there are ways to get around it with service walls and other
stuff.
And you're right, Wayne, there was a recent meeting where
people came up with other options to handle these kind of problems.
But the role model that everybody used like -- was the P.F. Chang's. I
don't know if you're familiar with it up on 41 -- is that one of the
nicest facades they have is, in fact, their service facade, and you never
notice it's on the south side on the street. So I mean, approaching a
building like this with that, those concepts, is kind of what the intent
is, not to just do it and ask for a deviation.
MR. ARNOLD: I'm familiar with the building. I'm just not
familiar with whether or not they received any deviation from the
code or if that wall meets the standard. I just don't know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There were parts of the code put
in to meet that. P.F. Chang's came before the code. So, you know--
in other words, that was a role model of, you know, hey, what if we
have a service side. One of these sides has to have service, and we
came with component walls and stuff like that to treat that. And
they're in there somewhere.
MR. ARNOLD: And I know that we can dress the building up
Page 43
June 27, 2008
architecturally so that you don't have blank wall spaces and that it
looks attractive. And as I said, because it's not the public entry side,
we can cover the access doors we have with a covered entry feature
and we can put in the glass doors to put some glass there. It was really
the issue of having to make 30 percent of this wall glass and putting
up some sort of public arcade and things like that that just doesn't
work on that side of the building.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it may not be a public access
side. It is still a public viewing side. It is a public parking side. There
is lots of public intersection with 150 feet worth of building here. So
100 feet worth of building, whatever it is, 120 feet, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This building side though has now an
eight-foot wall, what, 20 feet from its edge?
MR. ARNOLD: No.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No.
MR. ARNOLD: Little further than that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it further than that? Okay. Because
isn't the wall going to be going to the inside of the property?
MR. ARNOLD: The wall actually hugs the wellfield easement
and the drive aisle to the west.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. It doesn't hug.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was thinking -- yeah, I was thinking of
that one. You're right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, one thing is, is that
the reason these requirements are there are for the people who are --
look at all the parking that's behind this building. It's a freestanding
building.
I would argue that the other long guy is the primary building on
site. I mean, I think in my conversation with staff, they consider that a
freestanding building. But the intent was, there is a main building on
the site, which is the big boy here. The back of that is not a primary
Page 44
June 27, 2008
facade. The fact that it's freestanding -- every building in Collier is
freestanding. Once you have landscape buffers around the perimeter,
you have freestanding buildings.
So to me that's the primary building. These other three are
freestanding, and I, personally, would treat it that way. I know staff is
holding your feet to the fire on the back side of that, which doesn't
make sense to me either.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, it's safe to ask for the deviation and
hopefully you grant it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but maybe there's a modification
to it that works, and that is the deviation be granted for the long main
primary building and the other three, deviation isn't granted, and that
goes to the board and then the board can make a decision from there.
That could be an option that could come out of the stipulation on
this so--
,
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have any more you
wanted to bring up?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Not right now. We can go forward
now, if you want to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have--
COMMISSIONER CARON: I see you with your SIC code book
open. Do you want to start now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just looking at the time. We'll
take part of the time to get into it, then we'll take a break at 10, but I
don't know if we'll finish.
Anybody else have any questions before I start on -- why don't
we go to Exhibit A and start there. In the 178 letters that we received
from the residents that live in Falling Waters or wherever, some of the
-- or the primary emphasis of those letters seemed to be a concern over
increased impacts that this PUD has over the '99 approval. And so --
Ray, do we have any public speakers registered?
Page 45
June 27, 2008
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifmembers of the public intend
to speak on this matter, they need to give Ray a slip that you can get
outside on the table, and he'll allow you to speak. And I do ask that if
you do speak and you are someone who believes the intensity of this
new PUD is greater than the intensity in 1999, please be specific to
tell us where you think that intensity has increased.
Now, I'm going to go through some examples that I have been
told by the applicant they went over with all the people in Falling
Waters, and if they have and it's still the consensus that it's not a
problem for the neighbors, then maybe it's not a problem for this
board. But at least I want to get them on the table.
And if we start with number 1, Al -- and I don't know where you
guys are going to put your -- the Disneyland subdistrict that you're
planning to put there, but 7996, which is in between 7993 and 7999, is
amusement parks. It includes amusement centers and parks,
amusement parks, kiddy parks, theme parks, amusement.
I don't think this property is a good place to put that kind of stuff.
I don't know why you'd want that. Did the residents think that was
okay when you were talking with them?
MR. ARNOLD: I can't recall, Mark, specifically if we discussed
that as one option. I'm certain we're not putting in an amusement park
here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then you don't mind if we take
out 7996 as an opportunity?
MR. ARNOLD: Let me read through all these.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to go through a lot of these
numbers so --
MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question was, do you still want to
leave 7996 in your list of uses in AI?
MR. ARNOLD: I think we can delete it. If it's the consensus of
Page 46
June 27, 2008
the Planning Commission, we can delete it out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you think you can delete it, then I'll
make a stipulation at the end, and if the board agrees with it, fine.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll agree with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they don't -- Mr. Murray agrees with
it, okay.
Let's talk about 7993. Coin-operated amusement devices.
Amusement device parlors, coin operated; amusement machines, coin
operated; arcades; amusement; gambling establishment; gambling
machines; jukeboxes; mechanical games; music distribution systems;
pinball machines; slot machines; and video game arcades.
Are you planning to put those uses in there and did you inform
the residents that that was one of the uses you were asking for?
MR. ARNOLD: It was in the list of items that we reviewed with
the owners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, these uses, too, are more
extreme than you originally asked for, and that's why I'm trying to
understand why you believe they're necessary for your operation.
MR. ARNOLD: I think for purposes of this project, if you look
at, especially the larger building, it's probably going to be divided up
into multi tenants. And I don't know if you visit shopping centers like
I do around town, they evolve and need some flexibility to bring in
uses.
You know, my kids use one of the facilities that's up at the
former site of the First Baptist Church. There's a game store there and
they sell games and the kids play video games, and kids spend an hour
there sometimes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, I understand what they're used
for. I'm just pointing out these things when the residents speak, if any
speak. Or if they hear things they object to, it'd be interesting to see
where their position is on it.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark?
Page 47
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Could you identify the item that
you're talking about, Exhibit A; would you discuss it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, it's Exhibit A, item AI.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bowling alleys are also a use that you'd
be granted as a permitted use. Did you intend to put bowling alleys
there and were the residents aware that could be a possibility?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we have a lease for a bowling alley
at this time, but it is a use that we think could be viable. But, again, if
it's an issue for the Planning Commission, then we'll certainly listen to
your recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is an activity center and this
project was being put forth as one that was going to be more or less a
commercial retail/office center. Some of these uses go way beyond
that in -- as far as their intensity.
I'm trying to understand the residents' concern about the
increased intensity that this PUD was offering over the '99 PUD, that's
why I decided to look at it under this regard.
I did my own spreadsheet, I collated all the numbers and sorted
them and then compared the new numbers to the old, and I found a
series of new numbers that you were asking for that were different
than the previous one and raised the concern that we may have
additional intensity as a result.
If the neighborhood that's going to be mostly affected by that
doesn't have a problem, then so be it, but I wanted to find that out
today by making sure they knew what these numbers meant.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: When we sat down with the committee --
and we dealt with the committee, okay -- we gave them a spreadsheet
that shows what was allowed under the '99 ordinance, what's allowed
under C-4, and what we're requesting in our PUD so they could see
the categories of uses.
Page 48
June 27,2008
We also brought the SIC code book with us, and we -- the
categories that they had concerns about we talked about in detail.
Their primary concern when we met with the committee was they
didn't want any outdoor noisemaking activities. That's why they
wanted the automotive out for fear of hearing, you know, whatever
those air guns are that take tires off and -- so they wanted that use out.
Indoor uses the committee was not concerned about. It was just
the noise and as well as the buffer and the site line and what were they
going to see from their site or what were they going to hear from their
site was the committee's concern.
Can I say we went through every SIC code and every sub-use in
that SIC code? We did not. We provided that information to them.
We brought the SIC code book to discuss any and all that we thought
they wanted -- that they wanted to discuss.
And Jerry can, you know, speak for the committee, but our sense
was it was really the external noisemakers they were concerned about,
not the internal noisemakers.
But Mr. Strain, I can't tell you we specifically said or discussed
one of the potential uses as a bowling alley. I don't remember
discussing that specific use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the problem, I think, that
occurs a lot of times in talking to civic groups or homeowners
associations in relationship to the language that's discussed at these
meetings is sometimes the understanding of what the written or this
language means.
And if you look at number one, Al groups, and it says, 7991 --
7911, I'm sorry. Then there's a dash and it says, 7941. So now
reading that from a zoning perspective, that means all the uses
accompanying number 7991 and any number in between 7941.
Now, I don't know how they read that, and I don't know why, if!
was them and I was concerned about wanting indoor uses only, why I
would accept number 7941, which is athletic field operations. I don't
Page 49
June 27,2008
think they intend to have an -- or you intend to have an athletic field
on that property. But that's one of the things you could come in and
ask for.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure, I understand that. But let me just
tell you how the meeting went. We went to them and explained just
like you did that these are a range of activities, and these numbers
reference multiple uses within that, and we brought the book and we
showed them the book, and we said, please understand that this list is
probably literally hundreds of uses referenced by these numbers. If
there's any category that you have any concern about, let's go through
what those numbers are, and they did on automotive. Automotive
specifically was one that was an issue for them.
So we tried to give them as much information and give them the
opportunity to ask as many questions about the specifics that they
might have. So I -- are we going to put an athletic field there? No. I
mean, if you want to take athletic field out, we can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- but Richard, I don't want to sit
here for the next two or three hours and rewrite all the SIC codes,
because that's about what you're suggesting.
What I'd rather do, since something you just said may fix a lot of
them, is that you're willing to stipulate that there will be no principal
uses used exterior to the buildings. Everything will be an interior use
with the exception of the drive-throughs that are utilized for like a
pharmacy or a bank.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or outdoor seating for a restaurant
consistent with the limitations we have in here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I have no problem with that
because that will wipe out a lot of the concerns, but --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're really going to make me ask? Is
that okay? And the gas station is okay. The fueling stations are
obviously outdoor. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
Page 50
June 27, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't want to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you've got specifics in mind, I
want to get them on the table now and I don't want you to have to fight
with staff later on saying it's interpreted differently.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know we're going to come back, so why
-- can we put that on the -- let us think about that?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Oh, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll be tabling this meeting until we
hear the second one after a while.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to come back in 15 minutes,
so when you take your break we could --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, too. You can come back
then; that's fine, but that will --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand what you're saying.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on the fact that you're going to
come back with some language to address outdoor uses, I'll forego
some of my concerns on that particular item.
A4, you have automotive repair, and you told me -- I think you
said you're going to drop one of the groups now as a result of your
discussion with the residents this morning?
MR. ARNOLD: Those categories that are there, Mr. Strain, the
7514 and 15, for instance, related to automobile leasing and rental.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know that.
MR. ARNOLD: Then the 7542 is a carwash.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that. What one is it you're
going to be dropping then that was automotive in regard to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's already out.
MR. ARNOLD: Rich was alluding to -- that was one that we
conceded after we met with the residents on uses they thought were
problematic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But prior to this meeting?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, it was an example of a code that was
Page 51
June 27, 2008
in there that no longer appears in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The automotive, number four,
7542 is the general category for carwashes. Now, I see you have in
parentheses accessory to convenience store. And I'm from -- Ray, I
guess I would have to ask from a staffs perspective, does that mean
it's a lO-bay carwash with a stop and go? How do you get at
accessory -- where's the limitation to avoid a carwash at that site or is
there --
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the term accessory to a convenience
store means the size of the facility to be -- the primary use would be
the convenience store. So the -- typically the carwash is a one-bay
type of accessory facility; however, you're correct, the LDC isn't
specific as to how big an accessory carwash can be. But generally
speaking, if the primary sales of the business is the convenience, then
that would be the accessory component to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand the word generally
speaking and I understand though how things get screwed up when we
leave these meetings and we have different interpretations, and I
understand we may have an owner now who fully intends to do and
comply with what he's saying, but if he sells the property in bits and
pieces, who knows what that means for the public.
So Richard --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the carwash idea, number four, would
you provide some language suggesting a limitation to the side size of
that carwash --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so it doesn't outsize the accessory?
A9, depository institution 6011,6099. These are generally
regarded as large fleet operations that the federal government uses to
bring in large facilities for who knows what. I can read them to you.
Federal reserve bank, central reserve depository institutions, central
Page 52
June 27, 2008
liquidity facilities, federal home loan banks.
Now, I don't -- I understand you want a bank. I don't know -- but
I don't believe this is necessarily the category for banks.
Wayne, do you know of a type of bank that you're proposing that
isn't as intensive as what the federal government would look at as a
depository institution?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think part of what we were requesting,
the entire group of the depository and non-depository institutions
because, frankly, I'm not sure where the closest central liquidity
facility is. That's under 6019 category. I don't even really know what
that is. I don't know that it's an innocuous use. You're saying that it's
more of an institutional-type use. I'm not familiar with that type of
facility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6512 is bank buildings. 6399 is bank
deposit insurances. There's a whole pile of banks. But you get into
the federal reserve banks when you get into 6011.
Only thing I'm concerned about there is large fleet operations
with dozens of vehicles being moved in and out for banking
operations. I don't think that's your intent. It's not like a UPS facility
or something like that.
MR. ARNOLD: That's certainly not our intent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you look and see ifthere's a
facility -- a number that specifies what you want to do versus what
that provides?
MR. ARNOLD: I think the difficulty that we have in trying to
limit some of those is because some of these categories are so broad,
and some of the terminology I'm not even familiar with. Most of
them, they're all internal, and a standard bank's going to have your
typical drive-through, et cetera.
Some of these commercial banks, you know, a national
commercial bank versus a state commercial bank, I really don't know
the distinction between them. But from a functional standpoint,
Page 53
June 27, 2008
they're probably about the same.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, you're okay with everything
-- 6021 through 6099? It's 6011 and 6019 that seem to be giving you
some concern?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So should we just change that to 6021 to
6099? You know, I'm like Wayne. I'm just afraid that, you know,
some financial institution that we all think fits into those categories
that is in every shopping center somehow finds its way as to really be
classified as 6011, and I've now somehow eliminated uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the other shopping centers have
found a way around it because if you look in our code, 6011 through
6099 is only -- is restricted to industrial zoned areas. So there is -- got
to be another category that works for banks, because we have banks
on every corner of the county.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would agree with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, let's take a break to
10:15, and then we'll resume when we get back.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, we're back on.
Everybody, if you could please take your seats, we'll resume the
meeting.
As we left before, we'll -- Richard was entertaining us with the
definitions of the SIC code, so we'll just continue from there.
And, Richard, where we left off on A9, group 6011 will now be
6021 to 6099. Is that what you were believing would work for you?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. And we all in this room believe
that that takes care of the financial institutions that we historically find
in Collier County, so we should be okay with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On number 10 --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ten.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- do you have any problem eliminating
Page 54
June 27, 2008
the use called a sports bar?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 10, do you have any problem
eliminating sports bars?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that a defined term?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it is by the way it's
advertised.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think, Mr. Strain, that unlike other
establishments, that didn't have these restrictions in them, that this
restriction should address the concerns of the neighbors as far as
amplified music and sound and bar area. I would hate to get into the
details of what is or is not a sports bar and -- if that really matters, if
the other restrictions take care of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I certainly want to get into the
details of whatever it needs to make sure we don't have another
Pebblebrook. And to get into that detail, maybe I can ask the county
attorney if he's got some suggestions.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. If you want to get rid of the
Pebblebrook, no sports bars; otherwise, this is all subject to
interpretation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard -- yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does that mean you couldn't
have a completely enclosed interior sports bar?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Restaurant?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean -- right. But a
sports bar serves food. It is a restaurant, I think, in some aspects.
MR. KLATZKOW: But the problem they're having in
Pebblebrook is at 1 :30, 2:00 a.m., people are still there with
motorcycles and whatever. It's more than just the outside. It's the fact
that it's more than just a restaurant. It's a bar. And so that 1 :00, 1:30,
2:00, there's still a lot of noise on the outside of people just hanging
around. So it's more than just the outdoor element of it.
Page 55
June 27,2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you think the word sports
is the problem?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I know what a sports bar is. And the
problem is -- that you have in Pebblebrook is that you've got
somebody saying, I'm not a bar, I'm a restaurant, but 11 :00, 11 :30,
12:00, 12:30, 1 :00, it's a bar, and that's the only business I'm aware of
that has that dual -- dual use to it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they're serving liquor with
a 4COP license?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They would have to have that to
be your creature, but -- so you -- what if it was a rock and roll bar? I
mean, the same problem then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we can maybe solve it by
taking out 5813 and putting a prohibition for sports bar so the intent is
clear. Ifthe applicant wants to fight that later on, if it ever had to be, I
think the intent of this board then at least goes forward to the BCC.
5813 is drinking places, alcoholic beverages.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it has to be an accessory to the
restaurant. It can't be a stand-alone bar.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 5813 allows stand-alone bars.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And there's the, however, cocktail
lounges and similar uses only permitted in conjunction with the
restaurant use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you can leave that at 5812. Why
do you need 5813? Because 5813 is a stand-alone, beer garden, beer
parlors, beer taverns, beer, wine, liquor sales for on-site consumption,
bottle clubs, cabarets, cocktail lounges, discotheque, drinking places,
night clubs, saloons, tap rooms, taverns and wine bars.
Unless Falling Waters says they want all that next door to them, I
don't think it's a good idea.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we -- honestly, we specifically
Page 56
June 27, 2008
discussed the outdoor dining with the committee, and this language
regarding the amplification and no TV s and no music was okay with
them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I met with the committee, and I
didn't get into these issues with them, and they certainly didn't seem
like the group of people that'd be hanging out in saloons and beer
taverns, but maybe I was mistaken. We'll see as time goes on.
But I'm -- as far as I'm concerned, Richard, 5812 gives you what
you need. This panel had recommended 5813 be removed from the
Pebblebrook PUD, and I don't see why you wouldn't want to do the
same thing here.
The relationship to the residential next door is almost identical.
Why do we want to build another case for ourselves to fight later on?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: As long as it's clear that we can have a
restaurant that serves alcohol, that's what we intended, but we have
historically put both to address the concern about, within the
restaurant, you had an area that was a bar area where people would
have a few drinks while they waited for their table.
So I don't want to have any -- I don't want where people start
fractioning off the building to say, well, you can't have that aspect of
the restaurant because you didn't specifically ask for the cocktail
lounge.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the concern. I'm just telling how
you how it has been applied, and I want to make sure I don't get
trapped into something.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eating places, 5812. Establishments
primarily engaged in the retail sale of prepared food and drinks for on
premises or immediate consumption.
Ray, does staff customarily allow regular restaurants to serves
alcoholic beverages?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
Page 57
June 27, 2008
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: In stand-alone portion of the restaurant
where you don't have your actual seated table. Is that -- if that's -- I
just want to -- that's what I'm concerned about, Mr. Strain. It has
nothing --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, every restaurant I've ever walked
into that I can recall, except for just some of your -- I mean, every
other -- I shouldn't say every restaurant. Most restaurants I've seen
have waiting bars and they have a regular bar atmosphere, and if -- I
can't see that as a non-accessory use.
MR. SCHMITT: Give you some examples. Chili's, Applebee's,
Outback, those are all under 5812.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Ijust want to make sure we clarify. But in the
example like Foxboros, which is a -- there's no outdoor seating, but
that's kind of known as a sports bar. That's over in the Sabal Bay
Plaza.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know where it is.
MR. SCHMITT: That's kind of a sports bar, but it's not --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Big AI's, same thing?
MR. BELLOWS: That's another one.
MR. SCHMITT: That's another one. So there's no outdoor
seating area and there's no outdoor bar, so it's -- but I want to make
sure if we say sports bar -- I mean, you could almost say -- what's one
over there at --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--
MR. SCHMITT: I mean, people show up on Sunday to watch a
football game, it becomes the hangout to watch a football game, do we
not allow it? What's the one over there at Santa Barbara? I'm trying
to think -- Beef O'Brady's, thank you. Beef O'Brady's is a restaurant,
but it's kind of a hangout for Sunday afternoon football games. That's
kind of a sports bar, but is it a sports bar?
Page 58
June 27, 2008
So I want to make sure we define what -- I think what we want to
do is eliminate what's exactly here, and that says no outdoor bar areas
and prohibit that element. You can have outdoor seating, but no
outdoor bar with areas with outdoor seating shall be permitted, which
is specifically stated.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, we don't disagree with what
you're saying, we just want to make sure --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- we don't get trapped.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray, you had a
comment.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, as long as he's just said that,
because I was going to suggest, if he's not happy with that, maybe we
ought to resort to stipulating hours of operation so as to ensure that it
remains a restaurant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if they take out the more
objectionable drinking places category, that would certainly help a lot.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's true.
MR. SCHMITT: 5813 is the one we eliminated up in
Pebblebrook.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Now we're going to go a step
farther with the additional language that's here and the caveat that
there be no sports bars.
You move down to A14, food stores, not to exceed 60,000 square
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are we really saying no sports bars?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm suggesting that. Is that--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought it was just taking out the bar.
MR. SCHMITT: I'm trying to define, how am I going to enforce
that? Because there's no definition for a sports bar.
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, that's nothing. They advertise
themselves as sports bars. I mean, we all know that they're sports
Page 59
June 27, 2008
bars. I would just -- well, come on, Rich. I mean, I've got this
litigation in Pebblebrook where they're saying, well, we're not a sports
bar, but every advertisement I see is with Bucs and women with beer.
I mean, that's what they're advertising, and come and watch our sports.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you know, I understand that, but I
don't think you come up with a regulation -- if you perceive that you
have one bad apple, you don't say that --
MR. KLATZKOW: But they're not the only bad apple. We've
got another one in this town. It's a growing problem because, quite
frankly, sports bars, which didn't exist 15,20 years ago when these
codes were being put on, are becoming ubiquitous now.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I can only tell you in my neighbor
there's Big AI's, and I go to Big AI's, and you're now telling me that --
and I take my children there. It's a fine place. You know, it's not a
bad place.
Are you telling me now that Big AI's could no longer be -- if we
wanted to bring a Big AI's to this center, Big AI's can't be there
because they have TV s that show football games and baseball games
and they serve full meals and it's not a raucous crowd and -- but all of
a sudden because it's a, quote, sports bar, you can't have Big AI's in
this shopping center?
I mean, I think we're going way too far to address an issue when I
think the regulations we're proposing take care of that because it does
not allow outdoor bar areas or outdoor amplified music or outdoor
TV s. Everything's internal. It's a restaurant that has, you know --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think it's a bad idea
because if you do this, by definition, Sam Snead's is a sports bar. It's
sports themed and it has TVs. So, you know, you're going to really
get in trouble with a word, unless you define that word.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. In order for me to enforce it,
I'm going to have to define that.
Page 60
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when we get to stipulations, we'll
kind of have to decide what to do with it. I'm more concerned that we
don't have a repeat of Pebblebrook.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At Pebblebrook we said no 5813. We
made it clear in our discussions that the only drinking that should be
allowed is that would be served at a table at a restaurant; however,
when it got actually built, it was permitted as a restaurant, which
almost is secondary, and primarily as a place to hang out at night and
make a lot of noise, and the neighbors up there, rightfully so, are
going crazy. I don't blame them. It's wrong. It should never have
happened.
I don't want to see that happening here. I'm just wondering,
because of our experiences with Pebblebrook, what have we learned?
And then maybe Ray or Joe, if! they came in and wanted a Stevie
Tomato's at this site under 5812, would they be given a permit for a
Stevie Tomato's knowing what we know today?
MR. SCHMITT: They would. What I would have to eliminate
on that -- what I would eliminate is the outdoor bar and the outdoor --
outdoor bar, outdoor seating. They would -- naturally down here you
can have outdoor seating, but we want to eliminate the outdoor bar
and the outdoor bar area.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the amplified sound.
That's the problem.
MR. SCHMITT: Amplified sound.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've been to Stevie Tomato's,
and, you know, to be honest -- they showed a tape one time on the
commission meeting, you hear this guy yelling. I went there. I think
that same guy was there. So I think this whole thing could be solved
with a hit on that guy.
MR. SCHMITT: And you're going to find when we deal with the
noise ordinance, which you're going to see here probably in July --
Page 61
June 27, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think that, Mark, this really
closes down on the outdoor seating.
MR. SCHMITT: It's very difficult --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't --
MR. SCHMITT: -- to legislate against sound.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, both of you, you can't talk at
once. Mr. Schiffer, why don't you go ahead and finish what you're
saymg.
Sorry, Terri.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm really comfortable
with the way number 10 is written, if we killed 5813, that that would
really prevent the Stevie Tomato's thing. I mean, there may be more
to it that Jeffs alluding to about motorcycles at two o'clock in the
morning, but I think that the intent of preventing a Stevie Tomato's
outdoor sports bar distraction would be number 10.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, did you have something?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I think under what's transpired
in the community, or recently, that we ought to err on the side of
caution rather than liberalism, as far as -- and if we make it a little too
tight I think that's a better approach at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the more language we have, that
helps defend the public. I don't see what it hurts. If the applicant
doesn't like it, then they don't -- hopefully won't trigger that language.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When a new disease is
discovered or determined or mutation of something, society has to
change its behaviors and constrain. And I would say to you that while
we all would like to think about the freedoms that the people would
enjoy at the bar, they come, they drink, they pleasure, they leave.
Night after night after night the residents would have to live with that.
That's a compelling case for taking a stringent position on it.
Page 62
June 27, 2008
I would say to you, if we would stipulate that there would be a
sports bar fully enclosed and sound attenuated, if that's plausible and
possible to state, I could support that, but I certainly can't support what
has been made clear an un -- I'm sorry -- an unacceptable --
unacceptable condition, so -- unacceptable condition, re, the Stevie
Tomato's. They've set the standard for what we don't want.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. I think, in order to deal with that, it
would be outdoor bar, outdoor serving area. I mean, we could have --
if you want to eliminate that or you would have outdoor seating, but
you would eliminate, specifically as an accessory use, no outdoor bar.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But Joe, I saw that there was a
concern that there was -- they put shutters or windows up or some
other thing, and people have been opening them up. So that changes
that. And then the motorcycle issue is another one.
MR. SCHMITT: But I could -- again, I'm not disagreeing with
you, but I want to point out that I could have motorcycles if it was an
ice cream shop there on Sunday afternoon.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're not likely to have the ice
cream shop serving ice cream to motorcycle people at 11 and 12
o'clock at night.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on and we'll certainly
have a stip -- Richard, I would suggest that when you come back to us
after the next case, maybe if you have language that would work and
tighten this up, we might be better hearing it than trying to suggest
something on our own.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, that's what I ask. I don't care
what you propose. I just need the language so I can enforce it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe we'll get there before the
day's over, hopefully.
Number 14, food stores. Now, this one mimics a little bit on
Page 63
June 27, 2008
number four up above, which talks about 7542 carwashes accessory to
convenience store. This time it looks like food stores not to exceed
60,000 square feet for any single business entity. And I notice the
parenthetical ends there, but I can't see where that one begins.
And are you now saying the carwashes can be accessory to a
60000-square-foot convenience store? I've never heard of a
convenience store that big. Are you looking for a 60000-square- foot
food store?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what's the -- what's the deal with
the carwashes in there for?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Now, I'm assuming it's like the
Albertson's?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I can tell you. There's two reasons, if!
can jump in, Rich. Part of the reason is you don't have a defined term,
convenience store, anywhere in your code. It's considered food store.
That's why it also appears under the same category as a typical
grocery store.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, 60,000 square feet puts
you out of the C-3 category and into a C-4 or higher category because
C-3 is limited to less than 5,000 square feet.
If the residents don't have a problem with that, fine, but I want to
make sure they understand that.
Moving down to number 18, home furnishings and furnishings
groups, 5712 to 5736. Basically furniture stores. C-3 is limited to less
than 5,000 square feet. What you have here is unlimited. It would go
to a larger size. Anything above 5,000 is not C-3. It's a C-4 use.
Again, I'm only putting it out for the record.
If any residents have any concerns and they speak, I want -- if
there's objections to it, we need to talk about it.
Motion picture -- number 24, motion pictures and video rentals.
Same thing applies. It's limited to 5,000 square feet in C-3. You go
Page 64
June 27, 2008
above that and you're in a different category of zoning.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe all of those uses you just
discussed were conditional uses in the C-3 categories. So if you
wanted to go above, you didn't have to rezone to a higher category.
You could have gone through the conditional use process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, a conditional use is -- still, it's not
principal uses in C-3, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I understand that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your personal services, 7212,
garment pressing. Those are truck routes for laundry and
dry-cleaning, valet apparel service, press shops for garments. It's a
heavier use that we don't normally have in C-3. I can tell you where
it's usually found, if that helps. But do you really need 7212?
Because you have dry-cleaning already allowed on that site.
7212 is a C-4 use, one that you didn't have before. I'm not sure --
it's going to create more traffic than necessary.
MR. ARNOLD: Where would you consider to be a typical
dry-cleaning store, which category, Mark? Because I don't--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7215, which is the next one.
MR. ARNOLD: Under coin-operated laundry?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, it says, coin-operated
laundries and dry-cleaning. That's what that is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But it says coin-operated dry-cleaning,
and our concern was that, really, if you looked at agents retail
laundries and dry-cleaners under 7212, was where you would find
dry-cleaner where you drop off and pick it up.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Pick it up.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Like Platinum and Fresh whatever --
Fashion Fresh, you know. That's what we -- we thought that that's
what 7212 really was is the dropoff and the pickup, and I'm sure they
do some pressing there as well, you know, when the stuff comes back.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Touch up.
Page 65
June 27, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. That's where we were coming
from.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought 7215 gave you that, but I
understand your argument, so I'll erase that one. That's what's nice
about writing in pencil.
Under accessory uses, B 1. You're asking for outdoor dining,
drive-through facilities. First of all, in canopies. Canopies, they aren't
a use, so that needs to come off. That's a structure.
And the outdoor dining isn't conditioned here where it is under
the principal use. I think we have the same problems if we leave it
unconditioned as we did --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can move it. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in number 10 under AI0. Do you
have any problem doing that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we don't have any problem adding
the same conditions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any problem dropping
canopies?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think so, but the category was uses
and structures, so I hope it's not going to create problems if we come
in and we want to put a canopy on one of the buildings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's a building code issue
that you have to deal with, not necessarily a use issue. That's why I
brought it up.
Well, we're -- we now can go beyond the uses. I hope that will
make you happy.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have one question, and I
asked this of Wayne when I was there. Did we find out why we need
temporary sewage treatment facilities?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That can come out. We thought it was
Page 66
June 27, 2008
going to be related to the construction trailer, but we really --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Then it's not open--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- but we really have a holding tank and
everything.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All right. I just wanted to
make sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's that pop up, and what number?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Number four, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number B4, okay. So you're going to
omit B4.
On Exhibit B, your development standards table -- I've never
seen one of these that didn't create a question. Minimum tract
boundary yards. Where are the tracts?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be if we had--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've not seen wording like this in a
development standards table before, and that's why I was wondering
where you're going with this.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be, if we were to plat this
project and create individual lots, then you would have tract
boundaries. If we don't, then there are no tract boundaries. So then
we'd just deal with the external yard requirements.
But this is really for the internal, if we decided to plat this
project, sell off a parcel, that would create the tract, and these would
be these setbacks from those tract boundaries.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the -- you could -- this will
give you the ability to split it up, subdivide it and sell it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, we could do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: More reasons these SIC codes need to
be real tight.
You move down to your actual height, you have a number five.
On the bottom it says, no microwave or other towers may protrude
above the maximum actual height. I'm not objecting to that point, but
Page 67
June 27, 2008
isn't that part of the definition of actual height?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think it is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, our understanding was it wasn't
part of the definition of height and we wanted to make it clear that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, having worked
on that definition pretty hard, to try to get rid of -- and here I go. I
have to use it -- tippy-top, is that there was nothing above that.
In other words, the definition exempts all the things that were
exempted from the normal building height definitions or the zone
building height. So, theoretically, I can't think of -- and that was a note
I had, too, Mark, that there's nothing that could go above actual height.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and that's how I looked at it.
And I did check the definition and I did -- my reading of the definition
already included those. Now, I don't mind you restating it, but I just
wanted to understand why it was there. I understand now what your
reasoning is. Doesn't hurt to leave it, I guess, but -- on your master
plan --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one question before you
leave B.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing that's starting to
happen is we get these site plans that show all these buildings pushed
back, and then when the PUD goes in, sometimes the buildings get
pushed up against the street. So the 25- foot Santa Barbara and the
25-foot Davis setback, I wonder -- you're going through a PUD, so
supposedly this was creative stuff, so you don't need that 25 feet.
So, for example, up at Mercado, Capital Grill is right up on the
highway, up at Wiggins and 41, two buildings came not quite 25 feet,
but there's nothing that could have stopped them. So do you have a
problem changing that back to -- if you look at your site plan, your
Page 68
June 27, 2008
drive aisle is at least 60 feet, so I can't see why you'd object to 60.
Other than that, a building 25 feet off of a major road is too close
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know if! want to cut it that close,
to be quite honest with you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, the sad thing is
that people show us site plans like this that show nothing that close,
and then, you know, that lower building -- and I know you're pretty far
along in the process so we can get some comfort, but the big building,
you could put that building up very close. Twenty-five feet alongside
a major road is pretty tight.
But just a matter -- you know, at least one lane of parking. I
mean, you want to do a strip store, so you want to put as much parking
in front of it as you can, so I don't see where this is an issue except for
a future owner might --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did you ask for 60 feet?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I was just -- if you look at
a drive aisle, that's 60 feet. So nowhere are you tighter than that. If
you had a plan that had a lot of mixed uses and stuff like that and part
of the building was up 25 feet, I'd have no problem with it, but letting
this guy loose --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what he's trying to do is tie
you to your master plan.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm not saying we don't want to be
tied to it, but I mean, if, for whatever reason, staff says we've got to
move the building 10 feet closer to the street to fit everything we've
got to fit, you know, that, to me, is insubstantial, and now all of a
sudden if I've got this 60- foot requirement, I wouldn't be able to do
that. I'm just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why wouldn't you -- couldn't we
say something like, no less than 25 feet -- or 60 feet, but no less than
25 feet, but the 60 feet stays unless required by a government agency.
Page 69
June 27, 2008
I mean, I don't know how you massage the language to come out that
way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And why would staff push the
building closer?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm saying. They'd
have to have a reason to do it, and so if it's lacking that reason, it's 60
feet. Is that --
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, there's a -- because this master
plan has shown the footprints and tracts. If the petitioner at the -- in
the future would want to relocate the building closer to the road, it's
my opinion that because it's shown on this master plan, it would
require a change to the master plan of what we call PDI, which
requires Planning Commission approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we're covered. Mr. Schiffer, that--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if we're covered, we're
covered. I mean, did Mercado show Capital Grill 25 feet off the
property line?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't recall.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think what you're seeing is an evolution
with staff to require almost a detailed site plan at the rezone stage.
And so I can't tell you that it's been uniformly applied in the past. And
all I'm asking for is that we -- if we -- if we're going to hold this
property owner to this standard, hold all the others to the same
standard.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As long as Ray says it's covered
in note one, I'm happy, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move on with the
questions.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
Page 70
June 27, 2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- before you go on, and that is--
and my concern is obviously this very long building here.
If that were to have parking underneath that building, then it
would go up beyond the 45 feet, and I think that that's not what the
neighbors want. So I just want a footnote.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think it can. I think that -- and I
know what your concern is. That definition applies to zoned height. It
doesn't apply to the actual height definition.
So theoretically, yes, you can -- you can have your zoned height
go up by putting parking underneath because you wouldn't count the
parking underneath in the calculation of zone, but it doesn't --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Affect the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- it doesn't also move up the actual.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next is Exhibit F, number one,
how much were you paid for the wellsite easement?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I can't tell you we were --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's got to be a public record, so
why don't you just tell me. How much were you paid for the wellsite
easement?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I could tell you we were not paid for it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How many -- how much impact
fee credits were you received from that wellfield easement?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I could tell you zero.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you using the water from
that wellfield easement directly on your property?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No way.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not that I know of.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This goes back to what we've
had a long continuing problem of what our, in my consideration,
illegal exactions from projects that shouldn't be. What's fair is fair.
This isn't fair.
Page 71
June 27,2008
So I'm going to recommend that Exhibit F, lA be stricken from
this PUD, until such time that the county changes its rules to make
these things applicable to everybody fairly and not extracted through a
permit process.
Anybody have any objection? Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I -- I mean, in the prior
design, this was all preserve. So essentially the loser in this case is
trees, some preserve area. So -- and in the county, the county did
discuss that they have sites within this area. This would be part of that
network.
So, Mark, what is the problem? Is the problem that they're not
getting benefit from it, or is the problem -- I mean, good citizens give
things away every day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, good citizens give things
away because they're -- they do it out of the goodness of their heart, I
hope. This isn't the case.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So is there any evidence that
somebody would recommend anything but a positive review based on
the fact that you would not give them that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there? I mean, in other words
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't understand your question. I'm
sorry .
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the point -- you're giving
the impression that if they didn't give them this, that there would be a
negative review.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you'll get nobody to admit that
because the repercussions later on down the road are more severe, so
that's not going to happen.
Out of practical purposes, why are we taking things that we
should be paying for? Why are we taking things that we should be
Page 72
June 27, 2008
giving impact fee credits for? And if we allow one demand to be
made on one project, what's going to stop it from being made on --
continuously unregulated?
I have no problem with that well -- that area being a wellfield. I
have no problem at all. I think if it's for the benefit of the community,
that's great. Let the impact fee credits occur, let the property be paid
for, let it be taken under a normal process like that instead of
negotiated behind the scenes, and then all of a sudden it appears on the
master plan. That isn't fair for anybody. The public shouldn't be
dealing with it that way and neither should the back room of county
county (sic), so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I kind of agreed with that
in some sites, but in this case this whole area along the side there was
all preserve at one time. I mean, prior --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Part of it was actually water
management.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or water management. But the
point is that giving them that turf is not in any way affecting the way
they're developing this site.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually it did.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How would it affect it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had to bring in some additional fill to
the site to make up for the loss in the water management system. So
there were -- it's okay. I mean, we knew that going in.
And I think, Mr. Strain, what has happened -- well, I'll let Phil
speak. But most recently what's been going through the Planning
Commission -- and remember this started a while back -- is the board
has included, and I think you all have included it in your
recommendation, that we be paid fair market value for the area that's
being conveyed to the county and have left -- I think left that in but
have added the condition that the county pay fair market value, and
then we talked about what's fair market value later as to that area.
Page 73
June 27,2008
And that's been -- that's kind of been what's been going through
lately at not only your level, but at the board level. As long as there
was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem leaving it in under a
condition it's paid for, but that's where my issue is.
And I have -- Mr. Garcia (sic), did you need something?
MR. GRAMATGES: May I address the board, please?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, sir.
MR. GRAMATGES: I'm Phil Gramatges. I'm the interim
Director of Engineering for Public Utilities.
I'd like to show you something here, if! may, sir. This here
depicts the location of this well. I realize it is an eye chart. But the
square, the red square in the lower left-hand corner, shows the location
of this development. And the well is that dot in the northwest corner
of that location.
There is another red dot outside. There's several along the way.
In other words, this well would be part of a field, the wellfield, that we
consider necessary as a reliability field to the field that you see on the
-- almost on the right-hand side of this map.
Let me see if I can -- if I can use -- yeah, there. On the
right-hand side here is a wellfield that is already in existence, although
not yet in operation as being completed that feeds the south county
water -- water plant.
We need to have wells that are available for the future. These
wells don't last forever. None of them do. And we need to have
reliability wells. And we try very hard to try to acquire wells at
minimum cost because obviously if we pay for them, every user of the
system would end up paying for these wells.
And this will constitute a wellfield that we would put in service
in order to feed the plant.
Now, furthermore, the board has said -- and I don't remember
exactly when, but relatively recently, that they felt that it was
Page 74
June 27, 2008
necessary for us to pay something for the use of these wells. Well,
that's the instruction of the board and we're willing to do that.
The negotiations we had with this developer happened before this
was said by the board. Now, we're willing to talk to the developers
and we're willing to work something that is workable in order to try to
get what we need in order to be able to supply the users of the system.
It is, after all, a public health issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Gramatges, I appreciate that. That's
exactly where we've just been trying to go. So I've got no problem.
We'll certainly -- I will ask the stipulation be added that a fair market
value or impact credit be established for this site, and then when you
get before the BCC, you can hopefully have it worked out by then.
Thank you, sir.
MR. GRAMATGES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit F, 2 double A's. One is
supposed to be a B. And if you get to B, that's the transportation's part
of it. And that means we get to talk to Nick.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I don't see a double A.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on page 7 of 15, if you look at 2,
under transportation it says 2A, Santa Barbara, then it says, 2A,
certificates of occupancy.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it says B.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mine says 2B.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I got a different version. I have
revision 18. What revision do you guys have?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Eighteen.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Eighteen.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good Lord.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have an A.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want me to put it on the
overhead if you doubt my word? Don't want to certify it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Never would -- never would doubt your
Page 75
June 27, 2008
word.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we know how many revisions now
we're dealing with now out here?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Revision 18.
MR. SCHMITT: Revision 18, mine shows two A's. A and A.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you got two A's on yours as well?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So do I, Mark. I think it says a
free-standing version that has the B. But again, it goes back to the
problem of people not dating --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Dating things correctly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The PUD references that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's corrected, that was my only point.
If you'll let Nick have the mike, we can go on with --
MR. SCHMITT: We'll make the needed corrections because the
next paragraph, B will be the C, and C will be the D so it will flow
properly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. No, it was a -- I just wanted to
make sure it was typo'd for the record correctly, so -- hi, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. For the record, Nick
Casalanguida, Transportation Services.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under one, you talk about, the
developer may construct a temporary access, and all improvements
within the Santa Barbara right-of-way will be subject to review and
approval of transportation. To what standard would number one have
to be built to; driveway standards, rural standards, what type of
standards?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It could be a driveway standard if it's a
temporary access.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then that brings up my
question in number two. The last line, the developer shall be eligible
Page 76
June 27, 2008
to receive road impact fee credits equal to the cost of the construction
of two lanes of travel lanes for the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension.
What I want to make sure is that you're only giving them a credit
for the cost that is usable on the future extension of Santa Barbara,
because if it's a driveway most of it won't be usable. You might just
have the fill as the only thing that's usable.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that read in a manner that's going
to give you that outcome?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, Mr. Strain -- I don't mean to
help Nick, but --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Terrible thing.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- number one is temporary. We have
another option --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- which is we actually build two lanes of
the future Santa Barbara. That's the only time we get composition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Number one is just the driveway. It's a
throw-away. We get nothing for it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then, Nick, under the last
sentence under number two, or the last separate paragraph, it says,
upon completion of either of the options referenced in this subsection,
the developer shall be issued CO's for the remainder of the project.
Now, I know Richard would like that and so would the applicant,
but really what you mean, he shall be allowed to apply for CO's.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, that was looking -- oh, no, no.
The -- well, I guess so. I mean, I guess what you're saying, Mr. Strain,
is once we finish building the building, we've got to pass the building
inspection to get the CO; is that -- is that what you're saying?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. The transportation doesn't dictate
when you get issued CO's unless they're taking over Joe's department
Page 77
June 27, 2008
completely now. I mean, you're stealing all of his employees, so I just
was wondering what the next move is.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, they're leaving on their
own.
MR. SCHMITT: Thanks, Nick.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me make a note of this
particular "leave it on your own" comment so we get it right here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is part of the record. Now, how do I
work that into B?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under C in mine but D in everybody
else's, the last two -- last three words can be struck.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Attention Laurie?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Laurie may not be there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, that doesn't --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, not that I'm saying she's
imminently going to leave, but you never know how people change
positions in the county.
MR. BELLOWS: She may go to CDES.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Under 3, environmental.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, if I could just correct, I
want to reiterate what Mr. Y ovanovich said with B, that if the county
builds any turn lanes that would service this project, the county will be
reimbursed within 120 days.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I have that as one of the
stipulations made earlier.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Now you can tell your mom we were nice to you today, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I will tell her that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Environmental,3C.
Richard, did you guys -- I read your EIS. Why did you do an EIS?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mike? Somebody, help me.
Page 78
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, isn't it required for you to do an
EIS?
MR. ARNOLD: On this particular site it was. We had wetland
impacts and we were also of a certain size that required it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you do that for free?
MR. ARNOLD: My client didn't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I mean. You paid -- it was
paid for. It was costly?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I read the EIS and it said there were no
species observed on site. And so I'm wondering, why do we have all
these plans that are being required, especially the Florida Black Bear
Management Plan and things like that. What does that -- how is that
derived out of the EIS as a need for this site? And if you have to do
these plans, is someone being charged for those or are you doing those
gratis, for free for your client?
MR. ARNOLD: Those plans are not gratis. And I'm not going
to answer for Mike Myers, but I think some of that comes out of other
agency permitting requirements as we go through South Florida and
the Army Corps of Engineers. There are certain elements that are
required. And the county staff, I think, is accepting copies of those,
too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the South Florida agency would
require, even though you don't have any species determined to be on
site, would require a Big Cypress Squirrel Survey and a Black Bear
Survey Protection Plan or Management Plan and a Big Cypress
Squirrel Protective Plan.
MR. MYERS: Good morning. For the record, my name's Mike
Myers with Passarella & Associates.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Were you sworn in?
MR. MYERS: No, I wasn't. I wasn't sworn in.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
Page 79
June 27, 2008
MR. MYERS: Regarding the fox squirrel, that would be a
requirement in the South Florida Water Management District as well
as a Collier County requirement. The Florida Black Bear
Management Plan was prepared in response to a county request.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you just said fox squirrel. I don't
see that one on there. Is that also the Big Cypress squirrel?
MR. MYERS: Yeah, Big Cypress fox squirrel, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the Big Cypress Squirrel
Protective (sic) Plan and the Big Cypress Squirrel Survey would have
been required by the federal agency or state agency as well?
MR. MYERS: Just state.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just state.
MR. MYERS: And county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the Florida Black Bear
Management Plan is required by Collier County?
MR. MYERS: That was required by -- that was a request of the
county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And do you know what the basis for the
request was?
MR. MYERS: No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why they didn't ask for a
Manatee Protection Plan?
MR. MYERS: I'll let the county respond to that. No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm a little puzzled that if they can just
ask for plans without reasons why we would want to incur the cost of
that. And I'm not trying to help a developer save money, but it goes
back to what is fair for all, and I don't see the fairness in this ifthere's
no reason for it.
So, I mean, I'm going to recommend --
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, as the staff report notes, that
was a recommendation out of the EAC, I think in your staff report, 16
of 18. You certainly can omit that, but I have to send forward to you
Page 80
June 27, 2008
what the -- one of your advisory councils sent forward, and that came
out of the EAC. I'm not sure--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem if they had a
reason for it.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if we go to the cost and expense of
providing an EIS and the EIS is clean in that regard and doesn't even
mention the black bear, where does it come into play?
MR. SCHMITT: I cannot answer that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Mason, did you want to contribute?
MS. MASON: Yes. Good morning. For the record, Susan
Mason with Environmental Services Review Section.
The reason the Black Bear Management Plan is required is that
this area of the county -- at a previous meeting I did supply a map, but
this is the primary range of the black bear, which is a threatened
species. It's listed by the Florida Wildlife Commission, and that was
why it's required.
It's really a minor kind of plan that would be in addition to the
Fox Squirrel Management plan. Both of these items are required by
previous technical assistance from the state agencies for properties
similar in nature.
And I did a little bit of research, too, because I know there was
some concern expressed about how much bear-resistant trash
containers can run, and that was in case of an affordable housing
program. But I was at the FWC website, and they have bear-resistant
plans that you can purchase the materials and do it yourself for 125 to
$150 and at least 12 commercial vendors available.
So apparently if money becomes a concern, it can be done
relatively quickly. And most -- and many of the architectural
requirements for securing your trash fulfill some of that as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ms. Mason, I assume then that
Page 81
June 27, 2008
Falling Waters, they're subject to a bear management program?
MS. MASON: If they did not do one when they were in
previously, they would now, yes. Everybody should be in the areas of
the plan. I'm not familiar with their approved management plans. That
was done years ago by other staff and other agencies.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we can expect that if they
don't have that plan and their garbage cans are not secure, by securing
those up above and making certain the bears can't get at them, the
bears will be visiting Falling Waters more often. It would be a
reasonable conclusion.
I'm being facetious, but I'm being facetious on purpose because it
seems such an unlikely condition. Do we have telemetry on the bears'
movements in that area?
MS. MASON: I know there is bear movements in that area. I do
not have any telemetry with me, no. That would be available from the
FWC.
I know this really didn't become an issue at the EAC. I don't
know if it's normal. Like on occasion we'll have members of those
agencies come and speak to the Environmental Advisory Council as
needed and as new regulations come in.
I could always ask and see if one of them would be willing to
come and speak with you a little bit about the requirements for the
management plans. They're really put in place to decrease conflicts
between humans and the animals in the area. And the less we
encourage bears to associate people with food, the better off we all
will be.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I completely agree with that.
Have we done any study yet on a coyote plan?
MS. MASON: I have not heard anything about coyotes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because my surmise is that they
will become more of a problem than the bears. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ms. Mason.
Page 82
June 27, 2008
Move on to 4A on page 9, and this was pointed out by a letter
from one of the residents that the second paragraph, the reference to a
10- foot to 20- foot clear trunk contradicts with the -- one of the maps
attached to the document where it was 12-foot to 22-foot clear trunk.
Do you have any problem with that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Nope.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Make that change.
And you know what, Richard, I think I have exhausted my
questions at this point. I do have staff questions, but you are not staff.
You haven't been for quite a few years.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet you're glad of that. Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But you never forget your roots.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the
applicant before we go to staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have a staff report. Thank
you all.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land
Development Review.
And staff is recommending approval of this PUD, and we have
several stipulations that we'd like to read into the record. And the first
stipulation of approval is, if the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension is
completed prior to the application for CO within this CPUD, then
payment in lieu of construction shall be required for all turning lanes
serving this project.
The second stipulation of approval is that the petitioner must pay
in lieu for a turn -- any turn lanes being constructed as part of the
Davis Boulevard improvements within 120 days of the final adoption
of this PUD, and the payments shall be made to the Collier County
Transportation Department.
Page 83
June 27, 2008
Third condition is, the side of the eight-foot-high perimeter wall
shall be planted with landscaping, and that would consist of a
single-row hedge.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These are all stipulations that you
included in the recommendations in your staff report; are they not?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We get the staff report, and it's
public record.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We -- I think we've probably read all
those.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we move on to any changes
to those that you may have or other elements of your staff report.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be more productive.
MS. GUNDLACH: And at some point I'd like to respond to--
the only point in the applicant's presentation that we do not agree with
is the deviation number one, which addresses the architectural facades.
But please proceed with your questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wanted to make sure you're done
with -- if your presentation was just a re-reading of the
recommendations, then we're okay with that. I think we all have read
them.
And Mr. Murray has a question, but I have one about what you
just said. If we were to stipulate that the facade deviation were only to
be applicable to the primary building, which is that mass -- that longer
building, but the others still have to meet our architectural criteria,
how does that rest with staff?
MS. GUNDLACH: Actually -- could you restate that again?
Page 84
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's four buildings shown on the
master plan. The main long building is a -- one of the most
problematic to do the facade on the rear and probably the most useless
because it's up against a wall and a long, deep preserve. So if that one
had the deviation applicable to it so they wouldn't have to do that
facade in the rear of that building but it was still required on the other
smaller buildings, is that an acceptable position or a compromised
position that would sit better with staff?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, that would definitely sit better with
staff, with one clarification. My understanding is that the Falling
Waters residents do want the primary facade treatment from the
second level above on -- for example, like, say, for building C.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not -- yeah. The three
buildings, they would be applicable all the way around, as the code
reads, however that is. And building C, you're saying they've
requested that from the second story up to apply, but not --
MS. GUNDLACH: Right, but not for the first story.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll have to ask the
applicant where they stand with that and go from there.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any -- Bob, I think you had questions?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Just for clarification on
that issue of deviation associated with the wall. They had talked about
putting the wall inside on their property and the extra landscaping, and
that's perfectly acceptable, correct?
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, that was the reason for -- in my staff
recommendation. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a blank wall
facing towards the Freestate Development.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good.
MS. GUNDLACH: And that's where the hedge comes in.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want -- I'm more --
MS. GUNDLACH: Soften that.
Page 85
June 27, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- really getting that answer out
for the public than anything else.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I would also like to bring
you to the rezone findings, and I have one item that I would just ask
you to consider. On page 2 of 4.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Item nine where you
respond and you say, has been determined to not seriously reduce.
Can we find a better word than seriously? Because it makes it a little
bit more -- a little more difficult to understand what that means.
MS. GUNDLACH: Of course we can.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. That would be
my only issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Mr.
Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, the -- in the Growth
Management Plan we have -- in the FLUE we have a definition of
mixed-use activity centers and what they should be. Are you
comfortable that this really meets that? I mean, my concern is that in
the county now, especially with the price of gas and stuff like that, we
really should start paying attention to these activity centers better, and
I'm not sure that this development meets the intent of it. Are you
comfortable with it?
MS. GUNDLACH: I'm comfortable with it because, first of all,
comprehensive planning is comfortable with it, and they are the
authority on this section on the Growth Management Plan consistency
review. And also, I am familiar with the mixed-use activity criteria.
And being mixed-use is optional.
They do -- one of their options is just being purely commercial
and retail. So they are consistent with that portion of the GMP.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, one concern I had --
Page 86
June 27, 2008
who does the -- there's some quotes in the review of the GMP. Who
does those paragraphs?
MS. GUNDLACH: That would be our comprehensive planner
reviewer, and those quotes are right out of the GMP. If it's in quotes,
it's directly out of the GMP.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's a problem. Would
you do me a favor though and go back and look at that, because
they're really not. What they did is they mixed different parts of the
GMP within the quotes.
For example, even on page 5, the double dot line, there's no break
in there. So they're kind of stirring the quotes. And actually one of
the things they did that bothers me the most, on page 6 up at the top,
there's a paragraph that's in quotes, but that paragraph doesn't really
exist in there. It's made up of a bunch of parts of other paragraphs in
the GMP.
But it says that -- let me find the free -- the commercial uses --
the residential uses should be located above the commercial uses, and
it says that they're allowed, but it also says what's not in this quote is
that they're encouraged.
So -- but we're doing nothing -- I mean, what are we doing
different here than a strip center? I mean, compared to the 1960, we're
developing, what's the difference here? And this is supposed to be
done in the PUD. The code thinks the PUD is a creative use instead of
conventional zoning.
But is there anything here that conventional zoning wouldn't
achieve?
MS. GUNDLACH: That's a good question.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The master plan
associated with the PUD provides some unique ways of dealing with
the arrangements of the buildings and the preserve area protections a
little bit more than you would get under standard zoning.
We also have the ability to deal with architectural design
Page 87
June 27, 2008
treatments a little differently through the PUD process.
This project is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It doesn't
require residential units to be part of mixed-use projects. But we look
at the overall activity center and the uses surrounding it as the intent of
the activity center six being met with this project, and in staffs
opinion, it is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Ray, one thing is, that
you're right, this does allow adjustment to the architectural standards.
Unfortunately, they're requesting reduction of the architectural
standards that they wouldn't be able to get in conventional.
MR. BELLOWS: One of the benefits we're getting though is the
issues dealing with access, right-of-way issues, wellfields issues,
unified plan of development.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's it. I mean, again,
let me make a statement. I don't think -- I think it is underutilizing this
site, which the intent of these activity centers, which are going to
become more and more important in the future, is not being met here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, Brad, the -- where you're going--
and you've done this before and I'm trying to understand it -- you want
to see more development on this site, more -- you want to see a mix of
residential, which means they'd have to go higher with the units or
what? What is it you're trying to get to?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'm trying to get --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it doesn't seem to be the -- it
doesn't seem to be the intention of the neighborhood that that's where
they want to go, and I can't blame them.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I honestly don't think the
neighbors would be happy with what I think it's saying in the activity
center. I'll agree with that.
But why did we have these activity centers and why did we go
through this process? It's before my time. And we developed this
way to start to control sprawl and do things, yet we're not paying
Page 88
June 27, 2008
attention to it. These smart growth principles, community character
plan, all these things happened yet none of it's ever reflected in these
projects.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's kind oflike putting airports in. If
you put an airport in before the neighborhood gets there, it's a lot
better than trying to put one in afterwards, and I think that may be a
better way to look at the activity center concept and the way you are
thinking it should apply.
If this activity center came in and wanted to go higher with
residential and all that and it didn't have the existing neighborhood,
there might not be as much of an objection for it. But rightfully so,
the neighborhood that went in there now has a right to voice their
concern and have an outcome that's more predictable for them or more
amiable, compatible for them, and I think the compatibility aspects
kick in higher under these kind of conditions than it does in a clean
palette, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree with that. Remember the
first question I asked was for Richard, when did the activity centers
come in, and that was important to me for that exact same concept.
The activity center was there when they bought their units, when they
bought their houses. The activity center came first.
The other thing is that I really agree that the neighbors have to be
satisfied. I don't want to put that down, but it's also a piece of the
county. It's a piece of the surrounding area. It's a piece of the ability
for everybody else in that area to access these commercial areas.
But there's nothing we're going to do today on that. I'm just --
that was a statement not really needing an answer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Referring to this overhead
that's on the screen right now, do you -- were you here when I asked
the question of the developer relative to the preserve area shown on
the Falling Waters property?
Page 89
June 27, 2008
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I was here. It's important to note that
the aerial photos that you see in the staff report, the property lines
shown on the aerial in there are not precise.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So you agree with their
response as correct?
MS. GUNDLACH: And their response was?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Their response was that this is --
more accurately reflects a division line or the boundary?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. It's definitely not --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: There is preserve area on both
ends there on Falling Waters?
MS. GUNDLACH: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think she means preserve, but
there is vegetation on both ends of Falling Waters.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. That's what I
meant.
One other question. Is it not a policy that we attempt to -- it's a
request that we try to urge interconnection between the adjoining
developments?
MS. GUNDLACH: We do.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Transportation. Was that
encouragement rendered in this petition?
MS. GUNDLACH: At the neighborhood information meeting,
the Falling Waters residents specifically stated that they did not want
an interconnect.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So the staff would encourage
that but the residents did not want it; is that correct?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of
staff?
(No response.)
Page 90
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And --.okay, thank you. What I'm going
to try to do is wrap up with the public comment, go through the
stipulation list, we'll break for lunch. After lunch we'll come back and
go through the Shadow Wood, and then we'll go through the consent
of the stipulations on this particular item and be finished with it for
today.
So we'll probably take lunch as soon as we're done with the
public and the stipulations. And, Richard, you wanted to say
something before the public speaks?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I just want to -- before they speak,
just to kind of -- since we were on the topic of the architectural
deviation and what staff was recommending. I believe the only -- only
place of disagreement was the two smaller buildings fronting Davis
and Santa Barbara, not the building with the letter C on it and not that
one that Ray's pointing to, was the only -- they were supporting the
deviation for the building with the C and the -- call it the
diamond-shape building. I just want to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My understanding is that the deviation
would only apply to the first floor on the back of building C.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the first floor on the back of where
Ray still has the arrow. That's what staff was saying was acceptable to
staff. I just wanted to clarify that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that where staffs coming from?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You have to use the mike; I'm
sorry, Nancy.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. It's shown in the -- on the master plan
in red. Ray, can you move that little white arrow so they can see? It's
just those two facades directly facing the preserve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First floor only?
MS. GUNDLACH: First floor only.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's all I want.
Page 91
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we understand it and
we'll certainly be discussing it.
Okay. Ray, you want to call the -- how many public speakers do
we have?
MR. BELLOWS: We have one speaker. Jerry Smith.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Smith, you're welcome
to use either microphone, sir.
MR. SMITH: Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Jerry Smith. I reside at 2329 Hidden Lake Drive,
Apartment 1. I am President of the Water Crest of Falling Waters
Condominium Association and a member of the board of directors of
the Falling Waters Master Association. I have also been a member of
the committee that was established by the board of directors to meet
with Freestate CPUD developer representatives and to present the
concerns to the community about this project to the developer.
I speak today as the representative of that committee. I had
hoped to be able to speak for the board of directors, but the details in
the negotiations with the developer were not completed in time for the
last meeting of the board of directors, thus there's no official response
from the board of directors.
Those that I have spoken with are generally supportive of the
negotiations that have taken place, but it's not an official board
position.
I'd like to briefly review the history of the relationship between
Falling Waters condominium community and the parcel of land that is
subject to this hearing. At the time that the Falling Waters
Condominium community was planned and units close to the Freestate
property were first constructed, the Freestate parcel was zoned E,
residential estates.
The Falling Waters Condominium community was planned,
built, and units sold with the full expectation that the neighbors to the
east of Cascades of Falling Waters and north of Water Crest of Falling
Page 92
June 27, 2008
Waters would be residents.
In 1998, the owners of what is now the Freestate property sought
a zoning change to commercial use. After negotiations between the
falling Waters Condominium community and the developer, Collier
County Board of Commissioners adopted on February 23, 1999,
ordinance 99-19 that established C-4 zoning on approximately five
acres on the north end of the property facing Davis and C-2 on the
remammg.
In recognition of the fact that the Falling Waters community had
expected a residential neighbor, and that the change to commercial use
could greatly alter the character of the neighborhood, the Board of
County Commissioners added several restrictions to the zoning and
the ordinance that was adopted. Specifically, a maximum height
restriction of 35 feet was imposed on all buildings, a 125-foot setback
from the south and west property lines was imposed, and a 60- foot
wide vegetation buffer with berm and masonry wall located
approximately 48 feet from the property line would be required. The
list of permitted uses was also pared down.
The Board of County Commissioners recognized that our
residents should not have to see, hear, or smell the commercial
operations that would be built. Zoning maps were changed, and the
two properties that are now the subject of the Freestate CPUD
application were footnote as being modified by the conditions of
ordinance 99-19.
In 2005/2006, the properties in question were sold. New owner
began developing plans for a CPUD. The first neighborhood
information meeting was held in October, 2007, and it was apparent
that the plans for the CPUD as then presented ignored all of99-19,
and instead would follow the minimum requirements for buffers and
setbacks that the county -- current county codes would allow. Possible
uses were expanded, building heights were increased.
Naturally this did not set well with our residents, and the master
Page 93
June 27, 2008
board of directors was asked to meet with the developer and express
our concerns.
The board established a committee consisting of two board
members and three residents of Falling Waters. One of the members,
John Rafuse, an AlA registered architect, had been instrumental in the
negotiations that led to the adoption of 99-19 and was the principal
speaker for the community at the Board of County Commissioners'
hearing on that ordinance.
The committee and representatives of the owner met several
times over recent months and have reached agreement on most of the
issues and concerns that have been addressed.
I would like, on behalf of the committee, to thank Mr.
Yovanovich, legal counsel, and Mr. Arnold ofQ. Grady Minor and
Associates, and their staffs for meeting and working closely with the
committee and providing the documents for our review.
We feel that these negotiations have led to agreements in
principal that are close to the spirit and intent of ordinance 99-19,
allowing for changes and/or restrictions that have been imposed by
various other agencies in the intervening years.
John Rafuse has written the committee response to the latest
documents and exhibits that were provided for our view. He has
addressed areas where the committee feels that the documents and
exhibits fall short of addressing our concerns.
I would like to read his response at this time, since he's out of
state and unable to appear.
Falling Waters CPUD Development Review Committee response
to the developer submissions for Collier County Planning Commission
hearing scheduled for June 27, 2008.
The committee finds as follows: That we, in recognition of the
fact that we are not experts in the technical terminology, i.e. language,
as, quote, any other use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing list of permitted principle uses as determined by the BZA
Page 94
June 27, 2008
through the process outlined in the LDC, end quote.
B, legal implementation, that fact that the follow-on steps of SDP
approval and building permits are not public processes and could
result in substantial changes to what we have seen and agreed upon or,
C, any other specifics of the Collier County zoning ordinance
practices and implementation conditionally recommend support for
the approval of the submitted Freestate CPUD with the following
caveats:
That our recommendation is based on CPUD Exhibits A to H
submission we have in hand, version 18, and accompanying
documents, the county staff report, Freestate ordinance proposed
rezone findings, PUD findings, environmental impact statement,
traffic impact statement, and application for public viewing and PUD
rezone;
That our recommendation is based primarily on the
representations of Exhibit G with accompanying Exhibits GIA, G2B,
and G3C, our interpretation of them, which is in the spirit of ordinance
99-19, the minimum distance to the nearest structure to be built will be
125 feet;
That a landscape buffer will be installed and kept up by the
developer which will, when mature, substantially block the view of
the buildings, excluding some architectural rooftop elements that may
appear above the tops of some trees;
That there will be an effective minimum overall buffer area width
of 60 feet when detention zones and lakes are included, except at the
preserve area, which is wider, and along the south driveway, which is
somewhat narrower;
That no structures, principal or accessory, trails or other
appurtenances, will be built within the no-build zone and preserve
area;
That the actual eventual approved SDP and follow-on building
permits will substantially be the same as the Exhibit C master plan,
Page 95
June 27, 2008
including the type, size, number, and locations of the four buildings
shown, and including the type, size, and location of other site
elements, including buffers, landscaping, water and dry detention
zones, wall fencing, parking, and circulation;
That no activities will be allowed in the CPUD that would be
detrimental to the quality of life for the Falling Waters residents,
which refers to the inclusion of technical language, allowing, quote,
any other use which is comparable, unquote;
That Collier County recognizes the fact that a de facto activity
center, as defined by county standards and not appearing on the FLUE
or in the GMP already exists within two road miles of this CPUD, and
that they commit to limiting the development in the proposed area of
this CPUD in light of that fact according to the GMP, see staff report,
page 6;
That the integrity of the perimeter security, an issue raised in the
neighborhood information meeting in the fall of 2007, be resolved by
enjoining the developer and the county to connect their respective
walls at the southeast corner of the development, specifically that the
developer condition his proposed wall an additional 20 feet south to
the property line at the southeast corner of his property, and the
county continue their proposed sound attenuation wall an additional
25 feet north and west to meet the developer wall at the property line
at the Falling Waters property;
And further, that the developer be required to provide and
maintain a full site construction perimeter security fence extending
from the limit of the Phase 1 wall south around the preserve area,
south to the south buffer area, east to the property line, which will
remain in place until the Phase 2 wall is completed. This temporary
fence should remain no longer than one year until the wall is
completed as shown on the master plan;
That all of the above represents the detailed specifics of the
concern of more than 780 plus/minus Falling Waters residents as
Page 96
June 27, 2008
expressed by the letters that were sent to the county asking that the
county adhere to the standards of ordinance 99-19 as noted on page 18
of the staff reports composed by this date by John Rafuse, member of
the committee.
Expanding on this letter, I would like to note that several of the
items that he mentioned have been addressed here in the meeting. I
think the developer proposal on the fence does adequately address our
concerns, not quite what we had hoped to have as far as full perimeter
fencing, but I think it's -- what they're proposing is workable.
I'd like to note that a major -- point of major concern to the
committee and the community is the plan to develop the property in
two phases. Although Phase 1 includes all of the buffers, the required
lake and dry detention areas that make up the entire west and south
sides of the property, a large part of the wall between the property and
Falling Waters will not be constructed until the end of Phase 2. There
are no assurances that Phase 2 will ever be built, and thus, no
assurances that the wall separating Freestate and Falling Waters will
ever be built.
Since Falling Waters is a gated community, this wall is important
for the security of the community. The single row of cocoplums on
four- foot centers does little to stop people from walking from the
developed parts of the Freestate properties onto the Falling Waters
property. That is why the committee seeks a commitment from the
developer that the entire wall, as described in the submitted exhibits,
will be built as a part of Phase 1, and the temporary fencing be
provided.
The request that the south wall, which ends at the east property
line be modified by turning south along the property line, a distance of
20 feet to the southeast corner of the property, would close a gap that
would otherwise negate much of the security gains that a wall
provides.
In summary, our committee feels that these changes or
Page 97
June 27, 2008
stipulations need to be made so that the spirit and intent of ordinance
99-19 will be carried through into this project and that our community
will be able to join the committee in our conditional support.
Thank you for allowing me to present this information for your
consideration.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Some comments I'd like
to ask, or following up on your discussion. You said your place is a
gated community. Do you have perimeter walls around your entire
gated community now?
MR. SMITH: We have fencing around a good portion of it and
pretty high berms with vegetation on the areas that are not -- with the
one exception of the Freestate side on the south end of the Freestate,
there really isn't a berm in that area because it's very heavily wooded
on the other side of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not the developer of the Falling
Waters PUD, are you?
MR. SMITH: No, that -- the developer is --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hubschman, 1--
MR. SMITH: Pretty well -- yeah. He was the original. Sold it
off to BaysWater, but--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand all the history. I probably
know it, after 30 years in this county, better than most.
MR. SMITH: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think that if the developer
wanted to provide security and gating in perimeter walls for that
community, he could have paid for that and done so, but it looks like
what he did is sold you all homes and relied upon your neighbors to
put security up for your benefit.
And I don't mind that happening and I don't mind the developer
agreeing to do such things to be a good neighbor, but I do think the
developer's gone much further than most that I've seen in regards to
providing those elements to your community.
Page 98
June 27, 2008
F or that reason, I'm not seeing a need why the fen -- why the
entire wall should be done with a Phase 1. That becomes an economic
issue that -- I think they've gone quite a ways to provide more than
most would in this case.
And in regards -- and Mr. Murray, let me finish my line of
reasoning, then I'll come to you next.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just letting you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your item number F, no activities be
allowed that will be detrimental to the quality of life of Falling
Waters. We have -- that's an ambiguous statement, one that is not the
responsibility of the county.
If you have concerns in that regard about anything going up
there, you need to express them today and you need to express them to
the BCC and be specific. Other than that, doesn't -- that just doesn't
work.
G, you want to recognize the fact -- you want the county to
recognize the fact that there's a de facto activity center as defined by
county standards. The county has no obligation to do so. That's
outside the parameters of this PUD.
I'm not sure where you all are going with some of these things,
but I think they're far beyond what was here today to be discussed.
The item H2, wanting the county to extend their wall. If you
want the county to extend their wall, that's not a requirement of this
developer. You need to do that privately with your Board of County
Commissioners and things like that.
MR. SMITH: Yes, I realize that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other items on here that I think can
be done by the developer for the most part have been done. I think
their option to put in that security fence as they've offered is far
beyond something that should be expected of them, and I think that's a
good thing for them to do it.
I really don't see the need for the wall in the Phase 1 being
Page 99
June 27, 2008
completed all the way to the south. I think that's asking more than is
reasonable in this case. So I just wanted to be straight with you.
That's where I'm coming from, and Mr. Murray may now have some
comments.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I'd just like to reflect on
something. You indicated that your original zoning of this project was
E, the estates, and you anticipated residential.
My guess is, if a residential were going to go in there, they would
not be putting up a wall to benefit you.
MR. SMITH: No, and it probably--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it would fall to your
organization or your community to do that.
MR. SMITH: But if those were a half a dozen homes, you know,
residential estates along there --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that would have been your
determined compromise, but that's not what you're saying. You
thought you were -- you felt that you are -- or feel that you are in an
enclosed or gated community, and that's not a reality. So I think I
agree with the chairman, that these are very good benefits you're
deriving.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other thing, too, sir, is the
activity center, although when you moved in it was Estates zoned next
to you, the GMP sets what the zoning can go for in the future. And as
the various attorneys have testified before, if it's in the GMP, you have
a right to ask for the zoning change. This has been an activity center, I
think, we heard testimony, since the GMP, and that was in 1989.
So even before you moved in, had anyone buying in your facility
gone to the county and asked to see their future Growth Management
Plan, they would have seen that this was always to be an activity
center.
So I understand your concern, and I've seen too many changes in
the last 30 years that I really dislike, but some of them we're stuck
Page 100
June 27, 2008
with because they were here long before we may have been. And so
some of that is the reason you see what you're seeing today.
But I do thank you for your time today and especially for your
cooperation -- working with compromises to the developer to the
extent you have, because I honestly think your organization has
gained some benefits in this PUD that is far beyond others who have
tried the same for other projects. So I think you did a very good job.
Thank you, sir.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, I think we'll -- we need
to -- we're not going to close the public hearing because we're going to
table everything until we come back today, but we need to walk
through the stipulations that will be part of a motion so they could be
done while we're at lunch, and when we get back, we can finish this
one up, if that's okay with the rest of the panel.
I've tried to make careful notes. I've got 13 items that I'd like us
all to discuss so that we can provide clear direction so we know how
this should come out, and if the board doesn't mind, I'll just move
forward then.
The first one is that there will be a -- that the masonry wall that is
shown on the master plan will be extended to the east property line
and to a future connection point should that south Santa Barbara sound
wall be extended up to the property. Does anybody have any problems
with that?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a statement. The way they
show it, Mark, I mean, wouldn't it be the best for them just to continue
that wall on that angle till it hits the property line, then run it along the
property line?
Essentially, it's a shorter distance for the developer, but it's --
there's no reason to cut off all of the amenities of the landscape for this
project.
Page 10 1
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you do have to have buffers on
both sides of the wall, I believe, so you do need some room on the
back side, don't you?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes. We have landscaping on both sides of that
wall. One of the reasons, Mr. Schiffer, that -- I think, Mr. Chairman,
you may have misspoken. It is on our eastern boundary, but really
they want the turn to be to the south so that it can abut their wall that
will run parallel to Santa Barbara Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: So -- and with that, we would need to be able to
maintain some sort of gated access to our landscape buffer somewhere
along that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think the point is, you know,
something needs to be addressed in the documents you're going to
clean up to bring back to us.
Everybody in agreement that that item can be addressed? They'll
bring that back to us for clarification today?
Number two, Phase 1 will include the buffers. And then
temporary fencing for security purposes is as shown to us earlier.
You'll put that into language. Anybody got a problem?
Put it this way, I'll keep reading these. If someone has a concern,
speak up. How's that?
Number three, the applicant will pay for or reimburse the county
for the Santa Barbara turn lanes.
Number four, omit 7996 and AI, which is a use, a SIC code, and
there was a -- I have a note here that we'll add a general note that __
about the outside uses. The uses that are contemplated in the SIC
code uses do not include any outdoor uses with the exception that the
developer's going to come back and supply us with a list of those after
-- with the language changes he's making.
Under A9, they'll go from -- 6011 will be omitted and it will start
at 6021 and go through 6099.
Page 102
June 27,2008
Item six, under AlO, they'll omit number 5813. And we had a
long discussion about the idea of no sports bars. I think, while the
language is hard to define, it provides an opportunity to make an
argument, if needed, in the future. I don't see what it hurts because
staff doesn't have a definition for it, so I'm not sure how it hurts at this
point. But it certainly would help to defend the residents if they had a
problem and somebody was advertising themselves as a sports bar,
then there's no -- it's not ambiguous any longer. They are a sports bar,
and they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
So under that premise, I'm in favor of leaving in the language, no
sports bars, and then we also omit item 5813.
What are the consensus of this board on that issue? I know it was
a hot issue.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm against it because I
think, again, by that definition, Sam Snead's, which is a pretty passive
place, would be in there. And what you're relying on is they're going
to get a permit, they're going to build it, and then you're going to
check the newspaper for their ads to see what they are. It's a little late
then.
So I don't see -- you know, we have no outdoor television, which
is the important thing, because even with the sound off, somebody
could shout, you know, with a touchdown or something. So the
definition they have in there totally eliminates, I think, what would be
a Stevie Tomato's condition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm for including it. I want to
reiterate again that I think caution is the best road in this case.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I have a problem with
the term sports bar. It's not defined anywhere. It's a little ambiguous.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comment? Mr.
Page 103
June 27,2008
Midney, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm with Brad on this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just -- if we can't realize a good
language that way, then I think we ought to talk about enclosing it.
I know that CDES wants to be able to do their job. Fully
enclosed, sound attenuated, if that's where we have to go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then let's take it one step at a
time. The discussion right now is whether we include the -- an
omission of any sports bars as part of the language in 810. Why don't
we take a straw vote on that, and then if that -- if that doesn't work or
-- to resolve itself, then we can go into a second discussion.
Okay. All those in favor of adding language that omits the -- that
includes an omission for sports bars, please signify by raising your
hand.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Omission for -- what do you
mean?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Omitting sports bar as an allowed use
on that category.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So it would be disallowed?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disallowed. Disallowed sports bars.
Adding language that says sports bars are not allowed on that AlO
category. I don't really care how you all vote, just say yes or no. How
many are in favor of disallowing it? Two? That means it fails, so
sports bars will be allowed.
Are there any other discussion on this matter? We're going to
omit 5813, and we're not going to add any language.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, we're -- and we're keeping
this language?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that language, yeah, but we're not
adding any new language. Okay. That's how it will have to be.
Number seven, B 1, add the conditions for the outdoor seating
Page 104
June 27, 2008
there that are also in AI0 and dropping the reference to canopies.
Number eight --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, there is some
requirements in the architectural standards for canopies, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Canopies aren't a use. They're a
building. Why we have a building --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you're saying that
that wouldn't cause a conflict ever?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's not a use titled canopy.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under B4 -- we would just omit B4.
Under deviation number two, we would modify that that it would only
apply to the two southernmost buildings and only the first floor.
Number 10, Exhibit F, item lA, omit that unless it's -- unless
they're paid a fair market value or compensated for the impact fee
credits.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The wellfield?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the wellfield, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 11, Exhibit F, 2B, add the
change to the CO language where the road system had the language
that it said it shall be CO'd. They can apply for a CO. That was a
note there.
Number 12, under Exhibit F, C -- 3C2, omit the Black Bear Plan,
Management Plan requirement.
Number 13, the 10-foot reference to the clear trunk of the trees in
4A goes to 12 feet.
Page 105
June 27, 2008
And those are the notes that I had. Does anybody else have any
notes that they need to add to this? Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would -- no. I'd like to revisit
the issue of the no language, no additional language so that I'm clear
on what I'm agreeing to.
The reference here would mean that sports bars as they are
presently interpreted or had been interpreted would be acceptable if
we agree to that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since sports bars aren't defined, I
can't tell you if they'd be acceptable. What I'm trying to tell you is it
stays like it is. If staff would interpret a restaurant's use as they
always have and if it ends up being a sports bar, so be it. It's just --
there's nothing --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I can't support that. I've got to
have something.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It could be any kind of --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's next to people.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Y ovanovich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. I think we're so focused on the
word sports bar. What ifit was some other type of bar? That's the
issue. It's not the issue of how you advertise yourself. You're basically
saying you want it to be a restaurant, and if it somehow becomes a
bar, you want to be able to shut the bar down, whether it's a sports bar
or just a regular neighborhood bar that has no TV s in it. I mean, not
every bar is a sports bar. I think that's the issue, is, what is this thing?
Is it a restaurant or is it a bar?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To engage you then, a restaurant
generally concludes its business, unless it's an area such as 5th Avenue
South where they -- where they have a whole bunch of them -- I
would think that if it's a restaurant, those people are going to serve up
until a certain hour. You may have some people linger, but certainly
not 11, 12 o'clock at night, not if it's a real restaurant.
Page 106
June 27, 2008
So should we not have some hours then? Maybe that's where we
should go, hours of operation, like they do in the city. I'm reluctant,
but --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, I think the language -- you're
trying to keep people indoors, and we're keeping people indoors
because we're not really providing them an area for them to be
entertained outside with TV s or music or any of those things. So I
think it's all been addressed by that language.
And if the chairman and Planning Commission don't mind, while
we're on that topic, I planned on taking out the 5813, but leaving the,
however, cocktail lounges and similar uses are permitted in
conjunction with restaurant language in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just want to make sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think everybody understood that
language that you added would stay. The whole point of discussion
was whether or not the exclusion of sports bars ought to be added as
language, and it was voted not to have that happen. So you'll -- that
won't happen.
What remains is what staff typically has always done in their
interpretations of restaurants. That's it at this point, with the
conditions of the language that you have added --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- basically prohibiting outside
entertainment.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I need Mr. Klatzkow to help.
Does he see that as problematic, sir?
MR. KLA TZKOW: As long as you're going to allow outdoor
seating, all right, then somebody's going to figure out some way to
entertain themselves out there. And, you know --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So this excludes outdoor seating,
what we have agreed to, correct?
Page 107
June 27, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it does not.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So then we're going to have a
problem.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, I can go to any Starbucks in
town, it has outdoor seating. I could stay as long -- and Starbucks that
opened on Pine Ridge Road is now open 24 hours a day.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do they serve gin?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, but what I'm saying is that you're
outdoors. I mean, it's -- you're not going to shut down Starbucks
because they have outdoor seats. It's -- my point is is there's -- if
you're going to be outside and you don't have a TV and you don't have
live music, you know, you're probably going to be out there sitting --
because it's -- in the wintertime it's kind of pleasant outside, you may
be sitting out there where it's comfortable having conversation --
remember how the buildings are oriented in this site plan, and we have
to change this by -- you know, we don't have any outdoor seating
opportunities in the rear of any of those buildings. They're all -- the
outdoor seating would either be to the side or to the -- whatever
direction that is, east, I believe it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, see the site plan you have on
here right now? Look at that long building C.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look at that southern corner and look at
the apartment -- I mean, condominium building right to the right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to end up having the same
scenario that you've got in Pebblebrook there if you were to have a
restaurant in building C --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm 125 feet away from the border, I've
got a solid wall on that part of the thing, part of the site plan. I'm
angled towards a different angle -- I mean, I'm not angled directly at
Page 108
June 27, 2008
the residences. We're talking about the same place, right? Where that
arrow is?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just north of the arrow. But Ms.
Caron, did you want to contribute?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, no. That's what I was going
to bring up is, perhaps limitation should be on where those types of
operations can happen, because I see not only a problem at that
southern end where the arrow just was, but I also see a problem in
Phase 1 here because you'll have the same thing. If you go to the
southern part of that strip mall that they've got -- no, no, no. The first
building, right there. Go to the end of it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The western end.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The west.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Match the words with the arrow game.
COMMISSIONER CARON: If you do one there -- and this is all
set for individual operations. If you do it there and have outdoor
seating, you'll end up with the same problem right there.
If it were flipped to the other end and limited to the other end of
that building, then, perhaps, you would mitigate for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So maybe if you look at outdoor seating
only in facades -- only in the sides of the building facing the Santa
Barbara right-of-way, that might resolve the issue.
Well, the Davis one, then you've got that building that Ms. Caron
just point about.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, I'm 125 feet away, and I've got a
solid wall close to the building. Because remember, our solid wall is
internal to the driveway, not -- the solid wall's not on the property line.
I mean, I'd like to think we've kind of mitigated all that coupled
with the limitations on really no TVs and amplified music. I'd like to
think that we've laid this out pretty respectful to the neighbors.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer?
Page 109
June 27, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one thing they've also done
is they've noted in -- I think maybe count your parentheses because
you've got them wrong here, but you're stating that none of the bar
areas can be in the outdoor seating.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the real concern is when
people are sitting with or without entertainment at a bar outdoors is a
problem.
Again, there are a lot of restaurants that are more passive that
people love to sit outdoors that would be a good location. If the
people are loud, then it's a problem.
So I guess, Jeff, what causes people to be loud, the fact that they
went to a sports bar or -- because that's just them being at the bar. It
could be the Rolling Stones Bar and probably be loud, too.
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got a shopping center right here that
is adjacent to residential. This is no different than the Pebblebrook
situation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Very different.
MR. KLA TZKOW: It's no different, Rich. And I'm telling you
right now, you put outdoor seating out there, you're going to get
complaints.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's a huge difference in the setback
requirements between what we have and where Pebblebrook is. I
mean, it's -- I understand that conceptually they're the same, but we've
got 125-foot building setback. Pebblebrook, I think the number could
get as low as 25 or 30 or 50, whatever the number was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Mr. Schiffer, then Mr.
Kolflat, did you want to say something, too, after Brad?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then what if we limit the
hours? I mean, is the problem -- let's say we have the chess bar and
Page 11 0
June 27, 2008
people are sitting out there at 11 o'clock at night playing chess and
screaming at each other or something. I mean, is that the problem? I
mean, what we're focusing on is not the geometry of the restaurant,
but the theme of the restaurant as the cure, and I don't think that's the
case.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well I--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why don't we limit the
hours? Why don't we say, no outdoor seating past 10 o'clock or
something and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: How about no outdoor seating past 11
o'clock?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, then that controls
whatever's causing the problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You understand the concern?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might be critical for you to address it
adequately so you get enough votes to win the day.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're trying.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why don't we leave it at
that. Those are the stipulations that were read -- that we -- I just
finished reading. If nobody has any other stipulations -- Mr. --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I wanted to make one comment to Mr.
Smith. I think his comment about the concern about uses really
applied to the general use, number 33, because I think they're fine with
everything that's listed. It's that kind of other, and I just don't know
that he's -- I don't think he's familiar with the process.
We -- to use number 33, Mr. Smith, we would have to go through
a whole new public hearing process where you would be notified. So
if we -- if something's on this list that staff says is comparable to that,
Page 111
June 27, 2008
there would be a public process. So it wouldn't just happen. There
would be public involvement, and I think that was what one of his
comments was, Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Mark, on the deviations,
you noted one deviation. Which one was it, again?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it was number two, was the
number. It was the one involving the architectural criteria.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think that should be
number one. Number one was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the facade.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, number one.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other thing is, number
two is, to me, a serious one. We didn't really get into it, but there was
a concern in the county awhile back, and one of the reasons the
architectural standards are put together was that people were building
strip malls, which essentially has all the parking in the front. So you
have a sea of parking in front of the place, so they came up with these
requirements to prevent it.
This project has that. The deviation they're looking for is so that
they can have all their parking in the front, or 90 percent of it, rather
than what the architectural standards call for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, if you are telling us now
you don't want to go with deviation number two, wouldn't we be
wiping out this master plan, starting all over?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but here's what the --
okay, so what the deal is, we have requirements in the code. If a
developer designs something not to those requirements, then the
hardship is he could design something not to those requirements? I
mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I mean, if you decide -- I mean,
Page 112
June 27, 2008
we've spent four hours and a half -- four hours today going over --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they could --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- this master plan. We'd basically be
sending it back to the drawing board and starting all over again.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They could lay that out
differently. I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we couldn't use the plan that's in
front of us today. We couldn't use the PUD that's in front of us today.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So we have to give them
this deviation?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, I think we're asking for this
deviation because the preserve was different than we expected it to be
when we got through that process, which pushed the buildings closer
to the street.
We also worked with the county to give up 100 feet in depth
along Santa Barbara which narrowed our site. I mean, there were a lot
of factors that played into giving us this rather narrow rectangle to fit a
project in. We also wanted to be sensitive to our neighbors to make
sure that there were no minimal noise opportunities closest to them
which, again, pushed the parking to where it is.
I mean, I don't think we just said, okay, you know, we can't
design this thing to work so we're just going to design whatever we
want. I mean, we had to be realistic on what we can fit. We worked
with our neighbors, and as a result, we do need a deviation from
putting parking closer to the residents. And--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Those are nice things, but they
don't mean that there's absolutely no other design that could achieve
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, in order to get -- I
understand your argument, but let's see where the board stands on this
so we can get past it.
Deviation number two would change the master plan and require
Page 113
June 27, 2008
the parking percentage of -- a greater percentage of it to be behind the
building instead of in front of it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me word that another
way also --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- for fairness, is that what this
deviation does is allow the classic strip store layout, which is the
parking lot in front, the store, and a little back alley in the back, which
was the reason we -- you know, didn't we have this requirement in the
code?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How many on this panel want to
see deviation number two turned down?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted to make a comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, anybody else? Mr.
Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I wanted to make a
comment. Wouldn't -- by moving that building up, wouldn't that
change the requirement for the facade then, that they'd have to put the
facade in the back?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would -- we would be here for quite a
few more hours trying to work this out if we could, but I don't think
we could because we wouldn't have a master plan that reflects the
intention of the PUD.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well intended.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's either we go with this today or
we vote no on it today if that's the way -- if that's so strong of a point
that some people feel they need to vote no on it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Seems the community is happy
with it, so --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's the way it should be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, with that, if there's any -- if we've
stipulated all the language we need to so they can write this up during
Page 114
June 27,2008
the lunch hour, is there any more language anybody needs to get into?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll take a one-hour
lunch and come back here at --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nancy wants to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- one o'clock. Nancy?
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, real quick, one clarification
on the building facade deviation. Did you mean for it just to apply to
only the two southern buildings, rear facade facing the preserve?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: First floor only.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. First floor only.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The red squiggly lines.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll take a lunch. We'll be back
here at one clock, and we'll try to finish up.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Welcome back from our
one-hour lunch.
Item #9B
PETITION: PUDA-2007-AR-11283, WING SOUTH, INC.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The other side is not here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a quorum here at the Planning
Commission, so we'll move forward with the next hearing, and -- but
I'm just wondering, I don't think the applicant's here. Oh, there she is.
It's Heidi this time, good.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please
rise and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
Page 115
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures on the part of the
Planning Commission?
Heidi, did we talk about this one? I can't remember.
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't believe recently.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know last time we did, but I
couldn't remember if we did this time, so --
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Heidi, this is going to
be a long, complicated process, I know.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I hope so.
MS. WILLIAMS: For your sake, I will keep this as short as
possible.
Good afternoon. My name is Heidi Williams. I'm a Certified
Planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates in Bonita Springs.
This project has actually come to you before, but I will remind
you of some ofthe details and then talk about why today's request is
slightly modified from our previous request.
The aerial exhibit I've placed on the visualizer -- thank you, Ray
-- shows the Shadow Wood PUD. It is located on the north side of
Rattlesnake Hammock Road west of County Road 951.
The property that we are seeking to change is within the PUD.
It's currently part of a tract designated for airpark, private airpark uses.
The request is simply to add five single-family dwelling units to
the PUD, and that request is very simple except it is a little
complicated by the fact that the Growth Management Plan postdated
development of this community, so some of the regulations have
changed.
I'm going to place a second exhibit on the visualizer. The left
side of this exhibit shows the -- is a colored rendering of the PUD as it
is currently designated into tracts. The yellow portions are
multi-family, the blue portion is single-family; that currently allows
Page 116
June 27, 2008
11 units, and the gray portion is the private airpark tract, green, which
doesn't show up very clearly on the screen here, but it is green, right in
the middle, is designated for commercial use. That's the part of the
PUD that is considered consistent by policy by the comprehensive
planning staff. Originally we were not touching that part of the PUD.
Because of the -- the PUD predated the comprehensive plan, the
density on the site was granted at a rate higher than would be granted
today. In order to add five units to the PUD, we are removing the
entire commercial portion of the PUD. We're striking out any
potential use for commercial on that property, and our request is
simply to take the entire commercial designated portion, which is
currently used by the private airpark, to put it into the private airpark
designation.
The second step would then be to take just under two acres and
place it into the single-family tract, also adding the five units per -- or
additional five single-family units.
I would refer you to page 6 of your staff report for the calculation
of how we got those additional units. We have worked with staff on
this, and they do agree that it's now consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
I would also add, I'm open to any questions, but members of
Wing South are here if you have questions of them. Other than that,
I'll be happy to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Heidi.
Are there any questions of the applicant at this time? Mr.
Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Heidi, a couple things. In--
which will now be tract C, which is the old commercial.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's going to be set aside for
airplane hangars and such like that? I mean, that's --
MS. WILLIAMS: If you look in, in the PUD document itself,
Page 117
-_.~""-----'-_.- -
June 27, 2008
there are uses under that tract designation, and it could be used for any
of those uses listed there. Currently it is used for a clubhouse facility,
meeting space, tennis courts, water management.
There are no plans that I'm aware of to expand very much. The
members of this organization, generally their homes include a hangar
facility.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in other words, that's
the clubhouse for the PUD.
The thing you have up there, that C-shaped parcel that surrounds
that, is that part of the original PUD?
MS. WILLIAMS: It was not originally part of the PUD. It is
part of the airpark, and that is an area of single- family homes. The
homeowners there are members of the airpark and use the facility
that's part of the PUD.
It was a little complicated. The zoning actually postdates the use
of the property for the airstrip and some of the homes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MS. WILLIAMS: So it all eventually worked out that that area
was not included in the PUD despite the fact that there is access
through that area and use of the PUD property by -- by homeowners in
that area.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is then, how
come we're not connecting to some of the roads that are right aside
actually adjoining this property? For example, Whitaker runs on the
lower part of that upper left square. There is Atkins Avenue that
comes in just about where that white thing is, and --
MS. WILLIAMS: Well, that aerial is labeled with Whitaker and
a couple of the other roads to the west. In the original PUD, it was
very clearly stipulated that those connections would not be made. It's
been our intention with this PUD amendment to keep the changes as
simple as possible, to only change the development regulations on
property that this applicant controls. They don't control areas to -- that
Page 118
June 27, 2008
border that western -- western property line.
And, frankly, the only people who came to the neighborhood
meeting in objection wanted to make sure that no connection was
being proposed to the west. So we reassured them that that was not
our intention, and they were happy with our amendment as we showed
it at that time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the guy who lives in
the northwest corner of this thing -- pull it down a second, too,
because it looks to me like there's roads totally bounding that
northwest corner, which would be just at the top of the screen.
So that -- to get to that point, you'd drive all the way through the
PUD, you actually leave the PUD to go into that C-shaped thing I
called it, and then you'd come back into the PUD.
I mean, in the interconnection -- obviously I can maybe
understand why neighbors wouldn't want it. Isn't it to the benefit of
everybody to start interconnecting all these things?
MS. WILLIAMS: Well, I agree that that is a development
challenge for the piece to the north; however, this applicant does not
own that portion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but -- okay. Anyway, a
concern I have, again, it goes back to smart growth again is that these
connections shouldn't be avoided. Gated communities are what causes
some of our traffic situations.
MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Schiffer, I generally agree with you
completely. In this particular case, the roads are shared use with small
aircraft and with automobiles, so that will have to be addressed at
some time. And in this application, to keep it as simple as possible,
we've not gone there. But at some point that safety concern will have
to be addressed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute. You're saying
that other than those parcels that bound the tract C, people are going
around in these streets in an airplane? I don't think so.
Page 119
June 27, 2008
MS. WILLIAMS: This is considered a fly-in community.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MS. WILLIAMS: So the residents who own property in the
C-shaped area, their homes are built with hangars included. And you
might see on the aerial that that's a tract on an inside loop where
airplanes might taxi through there, but the homes on the outside are
also homes that are developed for use by members of this airpark
community.
So there are occasions -- they are gated for safety reasons to
prevent any dangerous interactions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that will be a good -- so
you're testifying that Thresher Drive, those homes have hangars build
in with them?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, they do.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
MS. WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They do? On the lower -- the
lower section?
MS. WILLIAMS: To be very clear, let me point on the aerial
where the airpark homes are located.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it's that C-shaped
piece that I was calling it, plus the stuff that borders the runway?
MS. WILLIAMS: That's correct. And the homes that are on this
north/south run here access the runway from the rear of the building --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MS. WILLIAMS: -- of the single-family -- these five additional
units would be in the same design as these 11. But these homes are an
airpark fly-in community, and they do have access to the runway
through various corridors in that area, and it is gated for that reason.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So wouldn't it then be
smarter to take this northern stuff rather than it -- share the roads with
Page 120
June 27, 2008
the airplanes to actual get them out into the road system to the west?
MS. WILLIAMS: It may well be, but we do not control the
piece to the north, so we were not able to make that change in the
PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, pan back up, because
your site plan does show that you control -- you control the piece that
borders north/south, Holly Avenue, that's your farthest west boundary.
The other part of that, what seems like a little square, is
Whitaker, you own that. You own where -- I can't read it, but some
avenue connects to it. In other words, now that I know that in that C
shape, people are running around with airplanes, I think it would be
really wise to have a way to get out of this thing without going
through those -- past those airplanes.
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with you, but this planned unit
development is considered fractionalized, so we do not have control
over the entire PUD.
So while there are parts of the PUD that border neighboring
streets, we don't control that portion of the PUD. And for us to make
that request would, I think, be out of line and would alter the
development standards for the entities that do own those portions of
the PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then let me -- then
you're -- there's something in the documents I have that doesn't make
sense with that.
That upper left-hand corner, the northwest corner of this
property, there's a small square-shaped thing.
AUDIENCE: That's a house.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not on the visualizer, so --
okay. See where the word Whitaker Road is? To the north of that is
what is shown as part of the PUD, correct?
MS. WILLIAMS: It is -- it is part of the planned unit
development; however, it is not owned by Wing South, Incorporated.
Page 121
June 27, 2008
It is owned by another entity, another property owner.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's -- part of our application
today is the whole thing, so --
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm actually going to defer to Ray Bellows on
this one because we've had their opinion on that.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Manager with
the Department of Land Development Review.
This amendment to the PUD only reflects the ownership of that
property within the PUD. It doesn't reflect the entire ownership.
The applicant would have to have the sign-off and signature of
the property owner to this property to the north to be included in the
application.
This isn't a PUD-to-PUD rezone, so the entire PUD is not open
for staff review and comment. We're only looking at property owned
by the petitioner and is subject to the change requested.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yet -- okay. How would I -- in
other words, are we changing anything to do with tract D? It looks
like we're changing some area, or are we? We're not.
MS. WILLIAMS: Tract D is owned by Wing South,
Incorporated. So the designation on that property is being changed to
tract C, which is the private airpark district, so that's the first change.
The second change is the two acres near the southern entrance on
Rattlesnake Hammock that is being converted from tract C, private
airpark district, to tract B, single-family residential.
Instead of having one step, taking one part of the property that
Wing South owns and converting it to single family we're now taking
two steps. We're taking commercial out that they own and putting
single- family in as originally requested.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So how do we know that
the guys in tract E are okay with this then? I mean, they're not part of
this application at all.
MS. WILLIAMS: That is true; however, we had to follow all the
Page 122
June 27, 2008
public notification procedures, we notified everyone internal to the
PUD and external. We held our neighborhood information meeting,
and everything was advertised as required. So we haven't had any
objection.
I think had we proposed an interconnection to the west, as you're
discussing, we would have people here objecting to this amendment
today.
So, you know, again, we don't control that property to the north,
and although I don't disagree, that may be something to consider in the
future.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So when you -- and this
is my last question. So that when you make a change in a PUD and
it's on lands that somebody doesn't own, that person really doesn't
have any required say in that? In other words -- because you've wiped
out the store. How do I know the guys to the north aren't happy with
the fact that there was going to be commercial in there, and then -- so
they're not -- other than the fact that they would have to -- through
public notice?
MR. BELLOWS: That's exactly it. For the record, Ray Bellows.
The process is designed to give them notification that a different
property ownership within the PUD is proposing a change. They are
given every opportunity to comment, to look at the plans, to attend the
neighborhood information meetings.
But certain PUDs of large size, such as Pelican Bay, you cannot
get all the ownership interest in it to make any kind of amendment to
your own property. So that's why we have these limited amendments
that only affect the property ownership interest because there's -- in
some cases you will not be able to get all the various property
ownership entities to join in on an application to amend the entire
PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And are they notified, Ray, just
by the distance requirements or is everybody in the PUD --
Page 123
June 27,2008
MR. BELLOWS: Everyone in the PUD is required to be
notified.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a thought, Heidi. On your
master plan, it gave the impression that the entire PUD was in play
and, of course, it is in some respects, but just, perhaps, had you had
some kind of a --
MS. WILLIAMS: This?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Had you had some kind
of a segmentation there, some way of showing that your emphasis was
really on the lower portion, that might have helped to make that more
clear. That was just a thought.
MS. WILLIAMS: Sure. I understand and I appreciate your
comments. In your -- this color rendering was just for discussion
purposes today to make it -- to show you which pieces we're changing,
the before and the after. But the official master plan will show our
changes as requested.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well -- okay. And I wasn't
going to say any more, but now that you've said that, then it is an
opportunity for you to modify that for your next movement. If you
don't get consent, then you have opportunity to explain that should
that question arise again.
MS. WILLIAMS: That's a very good point. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at
this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Heidi.
Is there a staff report?
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Nancy
Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development
Review.
Page 124
June 27, 2008
And the staff report is rather short. This is consistent with the
Growth Management Plan, and staff is recommending approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions of staff at
this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are there any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Close the public hearing and
entertain a motion. Mr. Murray, you made a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I made a motion to --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- recommend approval to the
Board of County Commissioners for PUDA-2007-AR-11283 known
as Shadow Wood PUD as an amendment.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray,
seconded by Commissioner Adelstein.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
Page 125
June 27, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries, 9-0.
Thank you. That was the shortest moment of today.
Item #9 A
PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR-9486 - CONTINUED
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now we come back to the prior
application to see how we move forward with our normal consent
items and stipulations.
Mr. Y ovanovich, I hope you had a very productive lunch.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're printing 15 copies of the
documents as we speak.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any particulars that
you want to relay to us that are changed, or everything pretty much
consistent with the way we spoke?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we implemented everything you
had discussed. The only issue that we think -- the only issue we'd like
to discuss further is the architectural deviation for the two buildings
that are the smaller retail building and the CVS drugstore. We have a
proposal that I think will -- we hope that will be a reasonable
compromise, taking into consideration some of the limitations we have
with the CVS building itself and operational issues and the retail
building itself with some operational issues that we hope will -- so we
have some proposals for that.
And other than that, everything else, I think we got it right. We
just need to check with you to make sure we got the only open area or
outside uses. We've listed four things for the outside uses, one of
which is the outdoor seating, obviously, associated with the restaurant,
the gas pumps associated with the convenience store, the carwash
associated with the convenience store, and we limit ourselves to one
Page 126
June 27,2008
bay, we called it, and then, you know, temporary sidewalk sales was
the fourth outside use that would be allowed for outdoor activities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the drive-throughs for the
pharmacy and the bank, or are those considered accessory and they
don't need to be specified?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We didn't specifically call for those. We
thought that since they were attached to the building, we probably
didn't need to. But if we need to add those, we'll be happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff -- Ray, would you need -- would
that be needed, or are you guys pretty comfortable with not having to
add that?
MR. BELLOWS: I think we're comfortable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. What we -- when you see the
architectural provisions, what we've done is we've labeled the
buildings on the master plan so we could tie the -- basically we're
saying we get a deviation on buildings C and D for the first floor, and
we meet the facade for the second floor, but specific standards for
buildings A and B related to the deviation, which you'll understand in
better detail once we hand it out to you.
But that's why we've labeled the buildings on the -- we'll label
those on the master plan. We didn't have that drawing with us in a
form that we could modify it, but we wanted to show you what we're
-- when we go through the deviation request, you'll see which
buildings we're referring to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you wanted to say
something?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, by memory, so I could
easily not remember, but I thought I recall something in the LDC
regarding drive-throughs, a restriction of the number that you could
have associated with a bank, and if that's true, I don't know whether it
impacts on what they want to do. I do recall something that we talked
Page 127
June 27,2008
about quite a while ago that was all about having only one
drive-through as opposed to multiple.
Now, I don't know how meaningful it is, so I don't want to raise
an issue if it doesn't have to be raised.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you all are willing to meet the Land
Development Code requirement for banks --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good way to put it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- right?
MR. BELLOWS: I think that's the way to phrase it at this point.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. That's the
way to go.
MR. ARNOLD: I've got a few more copies for everybody. I
gave Marjorie one.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll have this memorized in a
moment.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not very much. We showed
everything in strike-through and underlined form.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, it might be simplest to
go in the order in which we stipulated them, and then show us where
in this document the change was made.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. You have your list so I can --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I've got my list.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't remember the order.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first one we talked about, adding
the wall along the south property line to a certain point in a certain
manner. Where did you address that in here?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're attaching the exhibit -- Wayne?
Wayne?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, these are really flexible
exhibits you've handed out.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're all blank.
MR. ARNOLD: Those didn't change.
Page 128
June 27, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where's the wall? Where do we address
the wall?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 11 of 15, landscape.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The first underline under B is dealing
with the plantings on the developer's side of the wall. I don't
remember where that was on your list. And the second deals with
extending the wall to the southeastern corner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does everybody -- and Nancy,
I'm going to need staffs concurrence as we move forward. Does this
language in the second paragraph of B meet --
MS. GUNDLACH: I don't have a copy. I'm still waiting.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: She should probably go to the
other --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's a good idea.
Nancy, when you get that, could you just go use the other
microphone, that would help, so we could have ample interaction.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What are we on, Exhibit B?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on page 11, very last underlined
portion, the last sentence, and this is the issue concerning the wall
moving the -- additional piece of the wall to go towards Santa
Barbara.
Does anybody have any comments on the panel from that? Seem
to meet our intent?
Nancy, if you have problems, just kind of shout out as we go
along. The second one was Phase 1, we'll include buffers and
temporary fencing for security purposes. That was discussed.
Where'd you put that in here?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The buffers and the temporary fencing
will be installed with Phase 1.
Page 129
June 27, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Page 12 of 15, next page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any comments on
that?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's good.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The third one talks about the applicant
reimbursing the county or paying for the Santa Barbara turn lanes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What we changed on that is page 10 of
15, and it's paragraph C.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has Nick seen this?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sure Nick trusts me. I'll read it out
loud. What it says, Nick, is if turn lanes serving this project are
constructed by the county as part of the Santa Barbara Boulevard
extension, then payment in lieu of construction shall be required for
the turn lane serving this project and payment shall be made within
120 days of receipt of written request from the county.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's nodding his head in the affirmative.
Let the record show his head nodded.
Okay. Under your uses, let's start. We had omit 7996 from AI.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which that's on page 1 of 15. You could
see the sequence was broken up.
Under automotive repair, number four, that's where the carwash
-- you raised the question how many carwashes can we have. We
limited.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number nine, 6021, it was added
instead of 60 11. That's fine.
Number 10, AlO, omit 5813, that was done. Are permitting the
-- then you limited the hours to 11 p.m., okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think Margie has a comment on the 11
p.m.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, great. Make it 10, Margie.
Page 130
June 27, 2008
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: It just could be a little clearer. It
just says, and limited to 11 p.m. I think we should say it shouldn't be
permitted or allowed after 11 p.m.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get the exact language then.
Outdoor seating shall not be permitted or allowed after 11 p.m.?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think it should state that outdoor
seating shall be permitted up and -- or until 11 p.m. I think that will
do it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Permitted until.
MR. KLA TZKOW: There's outdoor seating, there's outdoor
serving, all right. So when does the food stop? I mean, you sit down
at 10 o'clock, you get served.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: How about we say outdoor service.
Instead of seating, we'll say outdoor -- seating and service shall be
permitted until 11 p.m.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Outdoor seating and service--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And service.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- shall be permitted until--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Eleven p.m. So service has to end at 11.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. But people -- just so everybody
understands, people will be able to sit there and finish their meal, and
ifit ends at 12:00 or 12:15, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what this is saying.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's what that's saying.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So then service stops at 11, so if
they take an hour to finish their meal, they're there till actually 12.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Is that a problem?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why don't we make it 10 so that
it becomes 11, because the intent was 11.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
Page 131
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look it, if we're not going to regulate
the activities from like a sports bar and all that, then this 11 o'clock's
probably as good as any. I mean, if we're going to have a violation,
it's going to go well beyond an issue that's involving the timing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That may be true and I won't
argue necessarily, but I will say that our intent was to try to preclude,
and if we -- the case was made, if they're finished at 11 and they sit
there and they're loud and they're boisterous, they still end up
achieving the same thing we don't want to have achieved, which is a
lot of noise unnecessarily.
If we just stop it so that -- at 10 o'clock, by 11, they should all
have drifted away, if it's truly a restaurant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The way I read this, it says,
seating or service. So they can't be seated after 11 o'clock. They're
not allowed to sit out there past 11 o'clock, and the waitresses and
waiters cannot serve them after 11. So everything's got to cease at 11.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Seating would normally mean
somebody bringing them to their restaurant seat.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Sitting down. I interpret as
sitting down.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, no. Seating means --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, you guys, we've got to--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're right. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- talk one at a time, please.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Vigliotti, can you repeat your
statement so we can get a response to it. And I don't mind if Mr.
Murray responds, but let me hear your whole statement, if we could.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The way I read it is, no one's
allowed to sit outside or be served anything after 11 o'clock. So they
have to be gone at 11.
Page 132
June 27,2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I thought it meant when we
said outdoor seating stops at 11. That meant you -- if you had food
still there, you picked it up and brought it inside.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, if that's the case, I think it
clears up your concern, didn't it, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, no. Typically the term
seating is to mean bringing a person to their table for service, okay.
Seated -- seated would be the proper word if you want to qualify it.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Let's make it seated.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whatever you all want. I thought it
meant that the seats would no longer be occupied after 11 p.m.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now you're saying--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I thought it meant.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what we want.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's even better.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's what I thought we were
doing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, guys, again, let's try to
keep this a little -- Mr. Wolfley, did you want to comment?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. If you recall, the original
purpose of outdoor seating was over the cigarettes. That's when I
noticed restaurants bringing in outdoor seating, and then they brought
TV sets outside, then they started serving them alcohol outside. But I
don't think that has anything to do with this. It is no seating outside
after II.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But see, I think Mr. Murray just
said he wants the word seating to be seated. So no outdoor seated?
How do we say it so that it gets everybody's concerns accomplished? I
don't have a --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The outdoor area is closed at
11.
Page 133
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I would use the word service.
They can't be served anything after 11 o'clock. So there's no waiter
services, no waitress service. They're sitting -- if they're going to sit,
they can sit out there by themselves.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, no. You can go in and
get a beer and bring it back outside yourself.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's not going to work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You guys.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. I'm just trying to get this to
a point of -- first of all, the time is 11 o'clock, and it seems that we're
looking at now whether you can be seated and served at 11 o'clock or
seated earlier, stop.
Ray, did you have something to offer, I hope?
MR. BELLOWS: How about the prohibition on dining after II?
No outdoor dining.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the point was that people
outside after 11 need to go inside.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't think -- if they're not dining
there, they're going to be drinking there. They'll be watching
television there, or whatever they think they can get away with there.
So I don't know if that will accomplish the goal.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How about remain unoccupied.
The outdoor seating area will be unoccupied after 11 ?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, we're getting really involved
in the crazy semantics here.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. The outdoor area will be
closed at 11.
Page 134
June 27, 2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: That works.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think -- I mean, when I said 10
and Rich said 11, I thought that was giving them the hour to eat,
which I thought was a good idea. Why don't we just say that, shall be
permitted and vacated at 11 o'clock, just so that everybody's flushed --
the inside's still open. People can go sit around and chat inside.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you're the attorney that's going
to have to defend this if it gets challenged. What do -- you got any
ideas?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He doesn't want to voice them.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The word vacated means
nobody's outside after 11.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Honestly, I thought what it -- the
language, I thought read, when you say outdoor seating and service
shall be permitted until 11 p.m. meant that at 11 p.m., you had to get
up and get out of the chair. That's what I thought it meant, so I'm
struggling with coming up with another way of saying it when I
thought that's what it meant when we said it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was (sic) comfortable with that at this
point. Is there -- Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to close it at 11, say, the
outdoor seating area shall close at 11 p.m.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what you need to say.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So number 10 will be changed where it
starts -- where it says, the -- will be the outdoor seating area will be
closed at 11 p.m.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or shall be permitted and
closed.
Page 135
June 27, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And closed at 11 p.m. Let me read it
back. Outdoor seating and service shall be permitted and closed at 11
p.m.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody on staff understand
that change so we --
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we're not going to see this
again. You're going to have to make the change and it will have to go
to the BCC right after that, so --
Item B 1 on the accessory list. You're going to have to make the
same change there, Richard. So if you make its change there, I think
that meets the intent, which was the change that we just talked about,
and dropping the canopy.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And closed no later than 10 p.m., right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, just like we just said. Item B4 --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Eleven p.m., I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item B4 was a temporary sewage plant.
That was to be struck. It has been, I can see that.
Next one was modifying deviation number one.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wait a minute. Number 33. That's where
we said no outdoor uses are permitted except as follows. You want to
just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's the addition. I haven't gotten
to that, but that's fine. We'll do it now while we're on this page.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No outdoor uses are permitted except as
follows: Outdoor seating with 5812, gas pumps associated with
convenience store, carwash associated with the convenience store.
You said one bay. Where have you limited it to one bay?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's limited in the actual -- the list
of permitted uses. They're only allowed one bay.
Page 136
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, number four, and
temporary sidewalk sales. Everybody okay with that?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, let's go to --let's look at
deviation number one.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the way this will work is, for
building B, which is this building, we will have to do 15 percent
glazing instead of 30 percent, and three of the following A, B, C, and
D, instead of the 30 percent glazing essentially.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where you're locating that
is for buildings not directly abutting a preserve. We assume that
western facade is abutting a preserve; is that right?
MS. GUNDLACH: That's not a preserve. To the west is just a
landscape buffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, okay. So that one is one
of the ones that meets the needs of this definition then? Not facing a
right-of-way, that's -- the one on the north is definitely facing the
right-of-way, which would be to the left as it is in the visualizer,
correct?
So what we're talking about is all of the other three facades?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's only where the number one is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. How do you get to there
by the description?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because you have to -- that's where
deviation number one appears on the master plan. Only -- we've
marked them. Whenever you see a one, that is where the deviation --
as you see here under chain link fence, that's the deviation number
four that ties to it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So then why the
description? Because let's go through what you've added. For
Page 137
June 27, 2008
building B, facades not directly abutting the preserve tract. So you're
saying none of yours are going to meet that, and not facing the public
road, you're saying only the northern facade does that, thus it's the rest
of them, the other three facades, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. That was not the intent. So we're
trying to deal with just this one facade.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then why don't you say the
one noted one on the plan, then we don't need to get into that
description.
MS. GUNDLACH: He's just trying to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that the south?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you say, for building B, the
south facades, and then just leave it like that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's fine. But the other
description doesn't do that. Okay. Then for building B, the southern
facades must provide, and then we go from there, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you want to jump in on
something -- with something.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I'm concerned about the
other two facades, not the one facing Davis, but the two short facades
for --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have to meet the architectural
code.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, they have to meet what's
code.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is that--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's getting a deviation from the code
only on the southern facade.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, then I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you have more?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, we're going to --
Page 138
June 27, 2008
one thing, when you look at this drawing, there's the illusion that it's --
this building's surrounded by landscape. Obviously there's going to be
sidewalks and things like that. So what -- Nancy, we have a really
good perimeter landscaping requirements. Does this drawing reflect
what code would be? Because the way it looks right now, at the face
of a parking space you have landscape to the building when the reality
is you would have walkways and other stuff. So since this thing is an
SDP, I'm sure that somewhere there's some drawings that are further
along.
MS. GUNDLACH: Does the applicant have the SDP drawings
here?
MR. DELATE: Yes.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but the only issue we're talking
about is the southern facade. Is that where you're trying to focus your
questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. I'm not sure that
number D is -- may not exist, is my point?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number D?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On deviation one, there's a letter
D.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they could add that if they wanted
to, to that southern facade. They have four ways of meeting the
criteria. They have three out of those four ways. And if they wanted
to create planting clusters, they could. If they wanted to do each one
of those, they could, but one of them they wouldn't have to do them.
Maybe that's the one on the southern facade they would choose not to
do. And if that's the case, they would meet the intent of this PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's relevant if there is
landscape planting. Nancy, does it look -- looking at this thing on the
visualizer, it looks like there might be landscaping all across the back
of that; is that right? So option D is available?
Page 139
June 27, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. I'm fine with
it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's step into building A. Boy,
do we step into it gingerly, too.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The same description problems.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put the other buildings back
up there. What -- no, no. Let's put -- put the master plan back up.
Here you're talking about the southern facade and the western
facade; is that right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you have problems with
direction, Richard, but I think that's what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Eastern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the eastern faces Santa Barbara.
The western would be facing Falling Waters.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess we don't have this
oriented north then, that's why.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. So basically on A, for building A,
the western and southern --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Then -- I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, that's where the two ones
are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, but the first part -- the A, B, C, and
D option applies to the western facade, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why do you have the one on
the southern facade?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because we also need a deviation there.
And then in the south -- we would take it in two steps, if you will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then fine. Let's just -- for
building A, the western facade --
Page 140
June 27, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we strike out all the rest of
that language all the way down to, must provide, then we leave the
word building A, the western facade must provide three of the
following.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We go back into the same three. Then
the one after that, the south facing elevation of building A shall be as
depicted on drawing A4.1, dated 10/18/07.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which is this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's where we need to see that.
Now this one is this -- okay, there's the south. That's got plenty of--
looks fine. And you know that to be true because you've got a building
plan in for this already?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any concerns or
questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is staff clear on the changes that we've
recommended in the way we've described what facades are being
addressed?
MS. GUNDLACH: Very clear.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just go through one
thing, because some of the wording looks a little weird. We're going
to pick three of the following, and it kind of holds true for either one
of the A, B, C, D. Glass service or access doors. So there is no door
on that side of the building. That means you could never do that or --
correct? I mean --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which facade are we talking about now,
Mr.--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they're the same on either
one. So take the upper one, just to make --
Page 141
June 27, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. The upper one, we could either do
a glass door or we could do a different type of door.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or no door.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we have to cover the other three. We
have to do A -- we have to do A, B, and D under that. I'm sorry, A, C,
and D under that scenario.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the normal strip center
store, there would be no door on the -- on the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The rear of the building?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The southern facade or there --
okay. So -- so if you put a door it has to be glass, it has to be covered,
that's given; that's common sense in Florida. Ifthere is a planting
area, you have to cluster the planting. Does that mean something,
Nancy, that--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- viable or --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. We're back --
MS. GUNDLACH: Just say vegetative plantings, not clusters,
how you define a cluster. It could be one plant every 50 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And that can say, like
we're not going to do the normal required perimeter landscape and
we're just going to put a cluster somewhere so that could ruin what the
code says.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the whole point--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then architectural details
similar, you have that anyway. All facades have to have -- A is a
given no matter what facade. So there's really nothing -- so how would
you handle the western facade where you don't have a door? You're
going to put a door just to meet this?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which -- are we talking about the retail
building or did we switch back down to CVS?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go to building B or go to any
Page 142
June 27, 2008
one where you're applying this. CVS is going to have the same
problem because that doesn't have a door on that side.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it does on the west elevation
shown in the drawing in front of us. Isn't that a door in the middle on
the bottom?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The looks like a drive-through
window.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's all the way from the ground
up.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, that. You mean where the
pointer is now?
COMMISSIONER CARON: There's a door there, there's a door
here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're talking about the west
elevation in which the door piece applies.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. They do have a service
door, okay. So they'll make it glass. Big whoop, I mean--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually, that's a -- what
we're creating is a dangerous situation where somebody could break
into the pharmacy probably.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll tell you what, looking at
these elevations, why don't we just approve or not approve these
elevations. They're givens. If there's anything we want to do to mess
with them, why don't we mess with them and then just -- I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think we need to be
redoing the -- this is not an architectural board, so I don't think we
need to be really getting into redesigning a building.
Basically the criteria put in front of us, if we feel this plan meets
it, we already know it's in for permit and in for SDP. The stuff that
Page 143
June 27, 2008
they've provided to us here isn't going to make it any worse. If we can
live with it, we're there. So why do we want to keep going into
redesigning their architectural features for it?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because these are clumsy little
requirements, that's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you have an option --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't want to be -- I don't want
to be the guy to make them put glass on that door where people can
break into the thing.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we don't have to. It's an option.
We can do three of the four.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If we have a door, we can either make it
glass or we could make it of some other material.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or you could put a cover over it
or --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
MS. GUNDLACH: Could I just point something out? There's
four options to choose from, and if you don't have a door, you lose
two of the options right there. So how do you come up with three
without the door?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, because we know there's a door
there. We're okay on that one. We know -- we know on the small
retail building that there are doors back there and we'll put covers over
them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, what this does is pushes them into
the plans that they already got going through the county. And I think
what you're trying to do is make sure the plans you have going
through the county are acceptable in the process.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we're adding -- we're adding the 15
percent glazing that's not currently in the county on the rear of that
retail building.
Page 144
June 27, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can add to all of this. But is
that door that's there -- presumably that's the one you intend to have --
would that be accessible to customers?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That would be a point, I
suppose, if -- okay. I'm clear with the rest of this though. I'm not
going to prolong it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 15 percent glazing, Mr.
Y ovanovich, only applies to building B though.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is building A.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just confused as to which one we
were talking about. Building A, we're not doing a 15 percent glazing.
We're doing -- on the western facades, these choices, and then on the
southern facade, it's the exhibit that we're attaching.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any further
comment on deviation one and the way it's worded? If you have any
other than the changes we said, which for the first one is -- after the
word -- it starts -- let's go back to number one where it says, for
building B. We strike the words after that all the way until the second
line where it talks about the building facade and we basically say, for
building B, the south facade must provide a minimum of 15 percent
glazing and three of the following. Then we list the four items that
they have there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And three --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, what?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And three of the following, or--
and three of the following?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The next line, for building A, we
Page 145
June 27, 2008
insert the words the western facade must provide three of the
following, and we list the four items again. And the last word, the last
sentence stays as it's underlined.
Now, is everybody comfortable that's the language we can go
forward with?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That sounds good.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Very good.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, could I see that--
MS. GUNDLACH: I'm clear on it. I don't know that I'm okay
with it, but --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could I see the site plan, Rich?
I mean, one of the reasons, Mark, I am hesitant is when we do
these standards, the architects, it takes a long time to figure out the
unpredictable consequent of your wording. Okay. Thank you, Rich. I
just wanted to make sure that tower was at the corner of the
intersection of those two streets.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, do you have any concerns? I
saw you talking to Jeff. Is there something that bothers you?
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, I'm not a building architect. I'm not
qualified to tell you whether these are good or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a zoning board. From a zoning
perspective in the Land Development Code, do you have any
problems?
MS. GUNDLACH: I think it's only fair that the building
architectural staff person be allowed to review these.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are they?
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, didn't know it was an issue.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure, you did. We submitted a deviation
and you disagreed with it.
MS. GUNDLACH: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So you should have expected that we
Page 146
June 27, 2008
would have a proposal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I mean, yesterday I told staff we
were going to do all this today and be done with it. I don't understand.
If you think you weren't qualified to render this analysis, why
wouldn't we have somebody from staff then who is? I --
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I did talk to
Carolina Valera earlier, and I think as the plan is proposed, I don't see
an objection. It is a deviation that I don't think staff would have a
problem with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, may I jump in?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Wayne Arnold. I just wanted to let
you know Mike Delate and I did speak with Bruce McNall yesterday
afternoon, and we discussed some of the ideas we had for achieving
this deviation in a successful manner, and I think Bruce's opinion was
he understood the complexities of what we're trying to do and the
difficulty, and we also talked about the fact that there is a pending
Land Development Code amendment that's coming through to deal
with this primary facade issue on these independent buildings within a
PUD.
I can't say that he would endorse this that we've discussed, but
he's certainly aware of the complications and the issues that we were
going to bring to you today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My understanding of the process needed
today is that you -- Ray, there's a certain time frame in which this can
get onto the BCC agenda on the last meeting of this month, of July.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have -- we've got to be finished with
this today so you can put it in some format that it has to be
presentable, and your deadlines don't allow us the availability of
rediscussing this next Thursday; is that right?
Page 147
June 27, 2008
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm seeking a solution, and I'm
not sure how to do that without the staff people being here, if there
seems to be that much of a concern about this issue.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could we not continue it until
next Thursday?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can't get it done in time to get it on
the --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's no way?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, if staff has a problem, we can
express it in the executive summary to the board.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. Let's -- why don't we give him
a phone call.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me add -- can I say
something, Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's just for understanding,
there's other requirements in the architectural standards. There is the
requirement that primary facades solely have, which is all that we're
talking about here, correct? For example, the massing requirement,
which the back of this building doesn't do where it breaks up the mass
60/40 at least. That's not occurring. So does this in any way -- you
know, we leave that from that requirement.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, I'm not aware of -- are we
asking for any other deviations from the architectural code? No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So I think if this is a
deviation just for the primary facade requirement -- and I think
somebody with the LDC, if they could just check or pull it out so I
could look at the code that they're referencing, then I think this is
okay. They have other things in the architectural standards they have
to meet --
Page 148
June 27, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that it looks to me like they're
not meeting, but they have to. And--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you've already been through
SDP, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's in for SDP review right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your -- part of the SDP
requirement is that you've got to show all four elevations of the
building and the footprint. Have you been rejected for any of the
criteria of the facades of the building that you've submitted?
MR. ARNOLD: Mike Delate just indicated to me that the only
comments we have are pending PUD approval, which would have
been either endorsing the deviation that we've requested for this or
not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the massing you met?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With a flat wall?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that the wall is completely flat.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If that's the case, I'm going to
go home and add about 30,000 feet to a building. That would be the
best news.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Mr. Murray, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I feel we're in a quandary, and
I'm not sure that it's -- we should be there. But Mr. Klatzkow made a
suggestion. I don't know that it was heard. Get him on the phone. I
think he was referring to the architect who represents the county. If
he's near a television, he can see what we're talking about and he can
comment on the issue. Is that a reasonable way of dealing with it?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we patch him in like a
commissioner?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. Ray, is Bruce available?
Page 149
June 27, 2008
MR. BELLOWS: I just asked for her -- for a phone call to be
made and have him come down here.
MR. KLATZKOW: He can do it by phone.
MR. BELLOWS: The thinking is, we can finish the rest of this,
and he can come in and look at the language and any plans.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to the rest of it
and we'll go back and visit the deviation afterwards.
The other item is on Exhibit F, item lA. We suggest -- we
wanted language added concerning the costs or how to pay for it.
That works. It was added.
Number 11 -- 11 item we asked for --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait, wait, stop. I'd like to go
back. Let's go back to utilities A. I just caught something. I may be
in error. It says at the very bottom, 45 days after request by the, and
the rest of it is struck.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It should say county.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you don't want to have the
entire thing struck. You want Collier County still showing, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. It needs to be within -- yeah, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good catch, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sheer luck.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item 2B2, we are going to add the
clarification to the CO language.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We did, and what we left is -- we added
that we would get our CO upon compliance with building code
requirements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that works. Exhibit F, 3C2, drop
the black bear. You got black bear still there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We already provided the plan, so we
figured it's already in. We may as well leave it in because someone
whispered it might be a Growth Management Plan issue, and I didn't
Page 150
June 27, 2008
want to take any chances. Since I've already done it, you know --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just love it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything that costs everybody more
money.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we already spent the money, so
there was no recovering it at that point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. Then we had the 4A,
the 10-foot to the 12-foot, and that looks like you took care of that.
And that seems to be all of the changes that we had stipulated in
our prior discussion.
The last remaining item is the deviation, and to be honest with
you, Ray, we can take a break for 15 minutes and come back, and --
MR. BELLOWS: That would be perfect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By then, Bruce can be here to address it
and we can finish it.
MR. BELLOWS: Excellent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's come back at 10 minute after
two.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please take
their seats, and salvation is here. Bruce is back.
Are you ready?
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm ready.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri's ready.
Mr. Y ovanovich, are you ready?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Always.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich is ready. Okay. And
we have a quorum.
Bruce, thank you for speeding down here on your day. We
appreciate it. And you're in the thick of it right now. I don't know if
you've watched what was going on, but we've got a list of exceptions
Page 151
June 27, 2008
requested for a -- some deviation in -- regarding the common
architectural theme, and we certainly will need your input on it, but
first we've got to swear you in.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much of this have you been
watching or hearing on the --
MR. McNALL: I have been watching bits and pieces as I've
been doing reviews this morning, and just after lunch caught a piece of
it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I guess the best way to
approach it is to have the applicant show you what they're proposing
for their deviation. And I think the concern is now on building A.
And so, Wayne, would you mind briefing Bruce on what your
proposal is for building A, and then we can get his thoughts on it.
MR. ARNOLD: We actually did just discuss with Bruce in the
back of the room. Building A is what we also refer to as the CVS
drugstore, and we were showing Bruce the color elevation. And I
think the question is, we can meet the three of the four standards the
way it's broken into two parts. So we can do three of four things on
our west elevation that were in the list and we would prefer to building
the southern elevation as shown on this Exhibit A4.1, which was the
color rendering. And I can put that up on the visualizer if you want to
look at that again.
And I don't know -- I can't put words in Bruce's mouth, and I
think the question I had for him is, I think you're going to ask him if
that's a reasonable compromise from the normal standard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we are.
And Bruce, I know you just jumped into this, but based on the
language that apparently you now have seen and what you've heard,
what do you feel about it in regards to -- as an alternative to the strict
language in the Land Development code?
MR. McNALL: Yeah. Due to the complexity of this specific
Page 152
June 27, 2008
building use, you know, I've had problems with applicants achieving
the, you know, primary facade standards for all four sides, especially
on a CVS pharmacy with drive-through in a service side.
From what I've seen here, it look like it's detailed, you know,
pretty -- it's fairly architecturally detailed to the point where I think
that it would be acceptable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the review of the SDP, which I
understand is in the process, and they even have the building plans in
the process, in that SDP review of the elevations, did you have any
rejections under those criteria?
MR. McNALL: Not to my knowledge.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, because that one's important.
That wasn't something that we had discussed. It showed up here
though saying that the south facing elevation of building A, where --
shall be depicted -- shall be as depicted on drawing A4.1 dated 10/18.
So I just -- I do want to make sure that you don't have any problems
with that because we would not know if you did.
MR. McNALL: Yeah. I've reviewed it and I had a chance to
talk just before you reconvened here. And I think that I'd give my
approval as far as, you know, this being an acceptable deviation in this
case.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Because this will be in their
PUD. This is not something you can look at later and say, oh, my
God, I made a mistake.
MR. McNALL: I think so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brief. The other thing, too, is
that what they're seeking is deviations of 5.05.08C9, which is the
out-parcel buildings and freestanding. But this only -- by calling these
two or three facades -- because it's on two different buildings --
Page 153
June 27, 2008
non-primary facades, that doesn't affect their compliance with
transition and massing and everything else, correct?
MR. McNALL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it will go back to only affect
the -- what C9 does only affects C2 primary facade, and it overrides
the requirements there, and it overrides the requirements there.
MR. McNALL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or actually it adds to those
requirements.
MR. McNALL: That would be my understanding.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they could still do the menu
items there?
MR. McNALL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Bruce?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for speeding down here. I
hope you didn't get a ticket.
MR. McNALL: You're welcome, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it, Bruce. Thank you.
Now with that, I think we've gone through all the stipulations, the
changes, we've tweaked the changes a little bit. I want to make sure
there's no other issues. And let me run them by one more time
because we're not going to have a second shot at this with the issue on
the consent.
Under the Exhibit A for the permitted uses, AlO, we changed the
language under the outdoor seating in talking about how it was seating
and service and the 11 o'clock cutoff time. I'm not going to try to
restate the language. It was done earlier, but I want to make sure that
everybody's aware of that. We asked the same change be made under
accessory structures as well.
Page 154
June 27, 2008
In the deviations we've made some language changes for the way
the facades are referenced in building B and A, and we've accepted the
glazing content of A, and the three out of four standards for both A
and -- or glazing content for B, and three out of four standards for A
and B both.
In the utilities, Mr. Murray pointed out some missing language
referencing the county at the end of the sentence.
And other than that, everything else was typed up as I believe we
had stipulated in the prior process this morning.
Does anybody on this panel have any other changes they think
we meant to say this morning that we haven't gotten into or anything
else that needs to be discussed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are there any public speakers since
this morning?
MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that we'll close the public hearing
and entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to
approve with the stipulations they redid during our lunch and the
changes you made this afternoon.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to that motion?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second made by Commissioner
Adelstein. The -- everybody's clear on that?
Nancy, are you absolutely clear on the languages that we've
changed and the modifications we've made? You'll have to come to
the mike to acknowledge.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, sir, I'm clear.¼
Page 155
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I don't want any
mistakes going because we will not have this on a consent item.
And Mr. Klatzkow, do we need to waive the consent process for
this one by formal motion?
MR. KLATZKOW: Why don't we do that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take the motion we just got on the
floor first, and that is with all the stipulations and everything we've
discussed this morning. It's been made for approval.
I'll call -- any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Is there a motion to waive the consent agenda -- consent process
for this one item only.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I move that we waive that for
this item only.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Motion
Page 156
June 27, 2008
made by Mr. Murray.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Comment, yeah. Mark, I would
like you to go get a copy and be able to abort that just in case.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to do that but, thank you,
sir, for the recommendation. I appreciate it.
Okay. All those in--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I have a question relative
to that. If you were to find something, do you have -- what would
your action be?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would bring my notes and say, my
notes show this, staff would bring their notes and the minutes of this
meeting and say, here's what was said. And between those two things,
it would be unequivocally proven one way or the other.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it'd have to go forward,
wouldn't it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would need to, yeah. There'd
be no -- we've got plenty of documentation to prove what's what, so --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not arguing. I just wanted to
see --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's how I'd handle it. That's how
I handle all the consent prior to each meeting, so you know. I go
through each one, make sure they're consistent with all the issues, and
if there's any issue that seems to be in contest, then staff reviews the
tapes and the transcripts to make sure how everything came out so it's
absolutely accurate.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Y ou's is a good man.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it needs to be done accurately.
That's what the point is, so.
Okay. With that, was there -- all those in favor of the motion to
waive the consent on this item, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
Page 157
June 27, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
That was entertaining. Thank you, Mr. Y ovanovich. I'm glad
you came back from vacation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Want to go on another one?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Now he needs another one.
Item #10
OLD BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Old business. Is there any old
business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. Any new business?
Item # 11
NEW BUSINESS
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
Page 158
June 27, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Couple things, Mark. First of
all, I guess -- this may not be new business. It may be more of a
commissioner comment. Maybe we should add that to our agenda, but
the -- one little thing, and this is kind of to Ray. Ray, could you do
one thing, is when the paperwork comes to us, could you have items
. that are together stapled together?
For example, sometimes I get a sheet of maybe, God, I bet it's
like 150 pages, and when I go through it, I separate it, you know,
here's an EIS, here's other things, and they're not stapled uniquely.
Could you make sure they are? Because sometimes, for example, the
application will bleed into the PUD, which everything bleeds together,
and just make sure that each document's unique.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See this three-ring binder? I had to go
through and take out every single staple that you put in there so I
could put it in a three-ring binder, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, don't do that to Mark's.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't staple mine.
MR. BELLOWS: We're going to have a hard time of
understanding who gets staples and who doesn't.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but here's for example, let's
say you have an EIS and it's not stapled and then a traffic report starts.
You know, the fact that the two of them are not uniquely somehow
either rubber band, clipped, something, any way just to make it so you
don't have to go hunting through the back of one particular report to
find it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll loan you a yellow tab.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A yellow tab would be perfect,
a changing color sheet would be perfect. Sometimes you do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is, on the
MUNI code website, there's a real stack of ordinances that have not
been incorporated into the code yet.
Page 159
June 27, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think that it's to the point
that unless you knew that -- which would be very few people -- that
something has changed, the MUNI code's, at the borderline, useless.
So, for example, just take landscape. There's -- the perimeter
landscape ordinance has changed. Anybody who's designing a
building off of MUNI code and did not know that a certain ordinance
had that would have a difficult time.
So why is it that it takes in this case, over years to incorporate
our ordinance into the MUNI code?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you answer, Ray -- one thing I
don't know if you noticed, Brad, if you open up some of those, they
have nothing to do with our code.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of them are TIF files, pictures of
this, they're old PUDs that are lingering.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why they're on that site, I have no idea.
I do know that David Weigel sent a letter to MUNI code demanding
they remove them from the site. We've talked to Catherine many
times about it. MUNI code has not removed them.
So -- but I'll let Ray answer the rest of it. But I want to let you
know there's more there than just missing code elements.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The county has had troubles with the
MUNI code getting certain things through on a timely basis. Weare
trying. It's my understanding though we were having another site set
up where our scan revisions are available.
In any event, when the staff has their pre-application meetings
with applicants, we let them know of these deficiencies and where
current revisions of the code can be found, and provide them to the
petition directly.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think like I rely on that
Page 160
June 27, 2008
code both in design and in review of stuff here.
Is the GMP up to date?
MR. BELLOWS: I haven't checked. I don't--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I'm wondering in
today in age (sic) why we rely on MUNI code. Why aren't we just
doing this ourselves? Wouldn't this -- isn't this -- you know, the
technology to post something on the Internet is -- should be fairly
simple.
MR. BELLOWS: I believe Catherine Fabacher, who is our
primary coordinator of the LDC and changes, has looked into certain
things. And I can have a report back to you guys, the status of
previous research into that. I know we looked at it in the past.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other thing is, when you
send us a calendar, we don't need it back from January, I mean, unless
there's some curiosity we have. But just to save a tree or two now and
then.
MR. BELLOWS: I didn't know--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From the current month forward
would be fine.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Actually, I do long-range
planning. I appreciate any changes that they put in there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You mean you're worried about
last year?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, last January.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's talking about last January, six
months ago.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't hear with them in spite of
this.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's long-range retreating.
Ray, there's a house bill, I think, 697 it had some wording in it. It
was signed in by law. It says that we have to develop energy efficient
land use patterns. Do you know what that means or is staff studying
Page 161
June 27, 2008
that? Or what does that mean?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thirty percent glass.
MR. BELLOWS: I'll have to look into that. That's the first I
heard of it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. If you want it, it's -- after
he signed it, it's chapter 2008-191.
MR. BELLOWS: Say that again.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was House -- it's chapter
2008-19I. It's House Bill 697, and it's an amendment to Florida
Statute 163.3177(a). Just a little curious to me, and I wonder what that
means, especially in light of our activities --
MR. BELLOWS: First I've heard of it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- activity centers.
And last but not least, these SID (sic) codes, aren't they
somewhat archaic? We're talking about the different charges of banks
and stuff. Shouldn't we be upgrading ourselves to something that -- I
mean, here we're talking -- we don't even have a definition of a bar,
we don't have a -- I mean, why are we still using these codes if they're
that, you know --
MR. BELLOWS: We did explore going to other sources, and
each time we start going into it, many other problems arise, so I think
that was tabled a number of years ago, though since we were in the
middle of looking at comprehensive rewrite of the LDC, we've hired a
consulting attorney who writes code, Mark White, out of Kansas City.
He's -- he'll be before the Planning Commission soon, it's my
understanding. This could be a future action item for this code writer
to look at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He is coming before us for the first
meeting in July on the Land Development Code. That evening won't
be an evening to review the changes. It will be an evening to be more
or less understanding indoctrination from him as to what he's doing
and trying to do, so that would be -- come to think of it, it would
Page 162
June 27, 2008
probably be a real good time to bring this issue up and ask this fellow
ifhe sees any problems between the moving of those two, SIC and
AICS, whatever it's called.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because I feel sorry for
you, Mark. I mean, you did an extensive review of that thing, which
took -- must have taken a lot of time. It took a lot of time just to
watch you review it with everybody. So I mean, it's a sad sight.
Somehow that should be slicker than what happened today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm done. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Ray, is the SIC available on the
Internet?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: After this meeting, can you
show me how to get it?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We'll have Catherine contact you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's OSHA.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You'll have what?
MR. BELLOWS: Catherine Fabacher, she's--
MR. KLATZKOW: Just Google SIC code.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was going to ask, the SIC is
available on the Internet. Is the other one that you referenced
available on the Internet?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's even better than that. On the
Internet you can go to the site and you can find a conversion between
the SIC and the NA -- I think -- I call it NACICS.
COMMISSIONER CARON: NACICS.
MR. KLA TZKOW: NACICS.
Page 163
June 27, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the two of them -- and it also tells
you the changes in the conversion, what language is different, how
you compare them, every nut and bolt facet of the change, so it's
pretty handy.
And what I can do, Ray, is I can send the link to that conversion
site, which is a government sponsored site, to you, and you can
distribute it to the rest of the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Great idea.
MR. BELLOWS: That will work.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anything else anybody
has, any business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the public is gone so they can't ask
anything.
And motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Adelstein.
Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Waves hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? I hope not.
Page 164
June 27, 2008
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, I'm opposed.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:28 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
MARK STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 165