Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/18/2008 R December 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 18, 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 Strain Karen Homiak Donna Reed-Caron Tor Koltlat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. W oltley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, c.c. School District Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18,2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN 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 TilE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILA13LE 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 2008, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS -- NOVEMBER 14,2008, LEGISLATIVE MEETING; NOVEMBER 18,2008, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: SV-2006-AR-I0482, Seasonal Investments, Inc. d/b/a Fairways Resort, represented by Tim Hancock, AICP of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting seven variances. The first variance is from Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.a. of the Land Development Code (LDC) which requires an off-premise sign to be located in a nonresidential zoned district to allow an off-premise sign in a residential zoned district. The second variance is from Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.b.i. of the LDC which allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet for a double- sided off-premise directional sign to permit a 79.6::1::. square-foot off-premise sign. The third variance is from Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.b.ii. of the LDC which allows a maximum sign height of 8 feet in height above the lowest center grade of the arterial roadway for an off-premise directional sign to allow a maximum sign height of 20 feet. The fourth variance is fTom Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.b.iii. of the LDC which requires that a sign is located no closer than ten feet to any property line to allow a sign within zero feet of a property line. The fifth variance is from Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.c. of the LDC which requires an off-premise sign to be located no closer than 50 feet rrom a residential zoned district to allow a sign to be located within a residential zoned district. The sixth variance is from Subsection 5.06.06.Z. of the LDC which prohibits any sign which publicizes an activity not conducted on the premises upon which the sign is maintained to allow an off-premises sign. The seventh variance is from Subsection 5.06.06.AA. of the LDC which requires that no sign shall be placed or permitted as a principal use on any property, in any zoning district. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Piper Boulevard and Palm River Drive, in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) CONTINUED FROM 11/20/08) 1 B. Petition: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-I0325, Wynn Properties, Inc. and Carbone Properties of Naples, Ltd Liabiltiy Co., represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP of RWA, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel and Andress LPA, and Carbone Properties of Naples, LLC, represented by R. Bruce Anderson, Esq., are requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for the Sungate Center CPUD. The project proposes a maximum of 83,000 square feet of commercial leasable floor area. The subject ] O.O::!: acres are located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Green Boulevard and Collier Boulevard (CR 95]) in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: V A-2008-AR-1360 I, Okeechobee Inn, L TD, represented by Gina Green, P.E. of Green Engineering, Inc., is requesting a Variance from LDC Subsection 4.02.27, Specific De,ign Standards for the lmmokalee-State Road 29A Commercial Overlay Subdistrict, to permit access to State Road 29 for a parcel having less than the minimum 440-foot street frontage width. Thc 9.04-acre subject property is located on the west side of State Road 29, just north of tbe Lake Trafford Road intersection, in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, lmmokalee, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) B. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13639, Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints, represented by Alan Brcwe, of Reynolds, Smith and Hills, is requesting a Conditional Use for a church in the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3) Zoning District, as specified in Section 2.03.02.A.l.c.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The 4.63-acre subject property is located at 4935 23rd Court SW in Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 26 East of Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, A]CP) C. Petition: CU-2008-AR-1339], Bishop Frank J. Dewane, Diocese of Venice, represented by Margaret Perry, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc., and 13ruce Anderson, Esquire, of Roetzel & Andress is requesting a Conditional Use expansion in the Residential Multi-family (RMF-] 2) zoning district pursuant to Collier County Land Development Code Subsections 2.03.02.C.I.c. The proposed Conditional Use will supplement the existing Resolution Numbers 98-173 and 04-220 by adding four (4) lots to be used for church and school related uses including but not limited to a chapel, church/school related offices, religious goods store (not to exceed two thousand (2000) square feet), priests residences, and parking for church and school uses. The subject property is located at 5280 28th Avenue S.W. and 2760 52"d Terrace S.W. in Section 28. Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) D. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12026, Stephen .J. Lockwood, Trustee for SJL Realty II Trust, represented by Heidi Williams, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Savannah Place RPUD, to allow development of a maximum of 20 townhouse, single-family attached or single- family detached dwelling units. The subject 6.8]I acre property is located on the south side of Orange Blossom Drive approximately Y, mile west of Airport Road (CR 31), in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) 10. OLD BUSINESS ] I. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DlSCUSS]ON OF ADDENDA 14 ADJOURN ] 2/] 8/08 cepc AgcndaJRB/mk/sp 2 December 18, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the December 18th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY call. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And will the secretary please do the roll COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman is absent. Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 2 December 18, 2008 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a couple of items to change on the agenda. The first item is 9.C. 9.C is the Diocese of Venice for a change to the southwest -- 2760 52nd Terrace Southwest and 5280 28th Avenue Southwest location. We're going to move that up to first on the agenda. The applicant's representative is not feeling as well as he usually does, and he asked ifhe could move through the meeting earlier today. Is there any objections from the planning commission on that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of course not. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item that I'd like to ask that we make as close to 10:00 a time certain as we possibly can to accommodate the petitioner who has to fly out of here by noon. (At which time, Mr. Eastman enters the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So just in case that one takes a couple hours. That one is the Savannah Place RPUD. It's over on Orange Blossom Drive. And by as close to 10:00, what I was suggesting is we start moving through our agenda. And if we get a break point somewhere close to 10:00, 10:15 or 9:45, something like that, we take it and move into that petition so we can accommodate those that need to be accommodated here today. Is that okay with everyone? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fine by me. Item #4 Page 3 December 18,2008 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. With those changes to the agenda, we can move on to planning commission absences. Our next regular meeting you're going to -- I know this is going to break everybody's heart here today, but we don't have another meeting scheduled till January 15th. And I know staffs gonna just be so concerned about not having to do between now and then. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, nothing to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is everybody planning to be here on January 15th? Mr. Wolfley, maybe -- you're going to be out killing exotic weeds or -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You're so funny. No, I may still be out of town, but I'll try to get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the other two meetings in January that are very important, they will start at 8:30 on the 28th and another one on the 30th on the same subject, it will be the RLSA meetings, and they'll be held over at the Developmental Services conference room 609. So I'm hoping, based on our last meeting, everybody still can make it to that. So we'll -- that's our agenda for January. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 2008, REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have one set of minutes to be approved, November 6th, 2008. Is there a motion to recommend approval or modification? Page 4 December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Caron. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Ray, the BCC report? Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - NOVEMBER 14, 2008, LEGISLATIVE MEETING, NOVEMBER 18, 2008, REGULAR MEETING MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On December 16th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the conditional use for the public restroom facilities up at Moraya_ That was approved 5-0. They also heard the variance for the trellis at Moraya, and that was also approved 5-0. They approved on the summary agenda the K.O.V.A.C. Page 5 December 18, 2008 recycling facility. And that was approved on the summary agenda. They pulled off the summary agenda the King's Lake amendment, but that was approved on the regular agenda 5-0. And we also have news on the noise ordinance. The board heard and approved that subject to the CCPC recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you. And the first one you mentioned, the restroom facility in Vanderbilt Beach? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't that -- wasn't there some discussion about that may come back in another form by changing the building to a lower variance or something like that, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. For the record, Joe Schmitt. The board directed that the staff pursue a variance to the flood ordinance or the flood requirements so -- to mandate that that be built as a single-story structure. So that will have to go through the variance process for -- basically to allow that it be built below the FEMA flood elevation requirement for that area. And it is programmed to be in a VE zone as well. So it's going to be -- it certainly will be an interesting staff report and then certainly that will come to you for a recommendation before it goes to the Board of County Commissioners, just as any other normal variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When it comes back to this Board, I think it certainly would be helpful to understand the impacts of modifications to the flood ordinance, if it has any cost associated to the other residents of Collier County as a result of giving that kind of a variance. Because that would weigh heavy on whether the variance mayor may not be warranted. MR. SCHMITT: From what I just heard you say, I guess you're asking will it impact the National Flood Insurance Program. Is that what you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm hoping you'd come back with Page 6 December 18, 2008 that analysis, yes. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Okay, yes, that in fact will be part of the analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the chairman's report, I have several items. And unfortunately I know it's a big disappointment for the holidays, no handouts. MR. SCHMITT: Ray forgot to mention that the variance -- or the conditional use associated with the private beach club was continued. So that -- there was decision by the board on that. That was continued at the request of the petitioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, first item. I wish to welcome today Robin Scofield. She's in the audience and she is auditing our proceedings here today as part of debate requirements for I guess it's speech and debate. And I can tell you that's a fantastic program. There's a lot of very energized young people involved. Last year I had the honor of actually being a judge on part of it. It was an excellent time, and I sure learned a lot and I was impressed with the people participating. So welcome Robin. And I guess you may not want to take everything you learn here today to heart, but we'll do the best. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Note Mr. Eastman showed up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Our secretary just noticed for the record Commissioner Eastman just showed up. Page 7 December 18, 2008 MR. EASTMAN: Here, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You missed the coffee time, sorry. You don't get coffee because you're late. MR. EASTMAN: Sorry for being late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last meeting I think it was -- or maybe two meetings ago, time seems to change, go fast now -- the consent items that we have today, I notice one was missing, and that was the denial item on the Bayview Park. And I asked staff to please give us consent approval for even denial items. And the reason I am stressing that is because I have now watched twice when we've denied something and it's gone to the BCC either as a regular agenda item or on appeal to them, and both times the BCC was very concerned that they were not given enough clarity on our reasons for denial. And I think that might highlight itself if we get a chance to see, even if it's a denial, how staff writes up our denial. And we can -- certainly I think that will aid the system and help the BCC to understand more explicitly why we may have reasons for denial. So -- MR. BELLOWS: In that regard, I have put together a draft, and I'm going to run it by Joe and Susan, is the form of the executive summary that deals with the CCPC recommendation. We will make that part of a memo that goes to the planning commission on the consent agenda so you can see what we are putting in as staffs summary of the CCPC findings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I expect that on January 15th we'll have that on consent? MR. BELLOWS: If you have it -- yes. For the one that was recently denied? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the Bayview Park one. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the planner has indicated that will be ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 8 December 18, 2008 And the last thing I want to mention, occasionally when I have the ability, I like to tune into the Board of County Commissioners' meetings to try to keep track of how they are handling stuff we send them to see if they're in agreement with things or what we need to change. Well, if you tried to do that this week, you would have gotten a bunch of fuzz on Channel 11. And I found out that Channel 11 has been moved by Comcast to Channel 97. So if you punch in Channel 97, you'll find out it's -- not only -- there's a picture there, but it's fuzzy and full of lines, just as you're probably seeing this show today if you're watching it on that channel. I've talked to county IT staff, and it seems to be a problem with Comcast in their selection of that location for the channel. The fix is individual visits by Comcast to every home in Collier County to adjust their apparently signal. It's wrong. It shouldn't be done this way. I don't know how this board can make a suggestion, but hopefully by saying this today on record, and by hoping it's broadcast, maybe Comcast will take the hint they need to provide a little bit better service so the public of Collier County can watch the program that they're entitled to see through public participation. So Mr. Schmitt, I don't know if we can have any emphasis with that, but I know you've got some very good people who coordinate these things with Comcast, and if you could at least let them know our displeasure with Channel 97, because it is inferior in a whole number of ways from where it used to be on 11. Also, there is video streaming for this particular program. And while that's a good alternative, it does -- it's intermittent, unfortunately. And I don't know what the problem is there, because the Comcast high speed is an excellent service. And I've used that in two locations. So I don't think it's that. I don't know if it's the buffering or the way the transmission's in, but that's not as viable as the Page 9 December 18, 2008 television. The television is actually the best source for the public to view these programs. So maybe we can see something written up on that. Item #8A PETITION: SV-2006-AR-10482, FAIRWAYS RESORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we have two consent agenda items. The first one is Petition SV-2006-AR-10482. It's the Seasonal Investments, the Fairways Resort, requesting seven vanances. And we had a hand-out just given to us this morning, and we've had a couple renditions of this sent to us. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Seems my recollection is that we talked a lot about the support of the sign and that it was going to be two poles to allow less wind resistance and also to convey the historical perspective of the sign. But I note the exhibit in here shows the original layout, which was not two-pole design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The exhibit does. And surely -- Nancy's here, she can explain. If you look at your Exhibit C, item two on Exhibit C basically allows the applicant an exemption from the pole cover requirement of LDC 5.06.04.C.l.e. And it is my understanding, and I would like staff to confirm, that that exemption allows them to go back to the pole standard that was there before. And -- yes, sir, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, Exhibit A on Page 1 of 2 shows the old one, not the new pole design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's the design that was Page 10 December 18, 2008 submitted. But I think they don't have to stick to that, based on the conditions of approval on Exhibit C; is that -- Nancy, you're going to need to confirm this for us, please. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Nancy Gundlach, with the Department of Zoning -- is this on? -- Zoning and Land Development Review. And yes, Commissioner, you are correct. We've written into the conditions of approval that the applicant is allowed to install a pole sign without the covering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, you didn't -- I mean, that's not how it's worded. But wording says, this sign may be exempt from the pole cover required by LDC Subsection 5.06.04.C.l.e for health, safety and welfare purposes. And that -- I did pull the section of the code. That's the one that requires everything to be covered. MS. GUNDLACH: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By removing that cover, you're thus allowing poles; is that -- MS. GUNDLACH: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Vigliotti, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The way this is worded, they may do it. I thought we decided that they should do it and they have to do it with the poles rather than the stanchion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was an option that we're providing to them. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Suggestion. MR. SCHMITT: We left it strictly up to the applicant. They can choose to do it. It wasn't a requirement. And I don't know if it would be the appropriate thing for this board to direct that it be done. Let the applicant choose whether they want to do it or not. And understand, they still have to come in through the building Page 11 -"~-~.~._""'--_._'., .,--.--.-,".--.-----'" '" -...--.'-.-..............'.,-.. ,"',,", .,.".""~,-=-,--~- December 18, 2008 permit process. So the variance and the -- the exhibit was the original exhibit, but that does not necessarily mean that's what they're going to submit. They still have to submit a plan and come through the normal building permit process for a sign permit. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I would just say that I think that number two needs to be more specific. I think we should have these things written in English so everybody knows what that condition of approval is. And it shouldn't have to be -- for a condition, you shouldn't have to go back and look up the code. It should tell you specially what the condition is that we're authorizing for approval. It should be stated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have some suggested language? It's a good point, because as I've found out that -- I had to call yesterday to find out why the pole issue wasn't in here. After later in the day I discovered that, and then I found out it was in here by this reference, because I didn't catch that reference either. Is there a way that you could tack on a clarification of the intention of number two as a second sentence to it, Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: We could do that. Oh, go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, too, the executive summary will specifically tell the board that this decision was requested -- or this recommendation was made by the planning commission, in more detail explaining the issue and that if the board wishes, that they will make that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But that will not go along into the future with the ordinance. MR. BELLOWS: I see what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, recorded language would be more useful, rather than having to go back and study minutes is what I -- that's the only point I think we're trying to make. Page 12 December 18, 2008 Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Would the elimination of Exhibit A clarify it? Because that's what shows the old picture. And if you take that out of it, why then it won't be carried through. Exhibit A, Page 1 of2 of what you handed out today. MS. GUNDLACH: I don't know that it clarifies it, because we reference it in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, on Exhibit A, Mr. Kolflat, the six feet that's shown for the base, it doesn't necessarily mean it's six feet of a solid wall, it could be six feet from outside, outside of poles that are there. I think that's what they're saying the base is going to take, that dimension. So I'm not sure that means the wall, based on the way it's written up on Exhibit A. So it may not be that problematic to leave it in. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern with it is in there it says the sign may be exempt. I think the intent is the sign is exempt. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the concern with that is it gives the illusion that there's an authority down the trail to make that decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the word would be -- that's a good point. The word will be shall be exempt. It's the same -- it comes back to the intention I know you had, Nancy. So if we say, this sign shall be exempt, and then we added one sentence to clarify that the issue is the allowance of poles to support the sign, I think that takes care of the issues that were brought up. Is that fair for everybody here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with those comments in mind, can we get a recommendation of approval for that particular consento Page 13 December 18, 2008 item? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Approval of consent Item SV-2006-AR-I0482. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Nancy. Item #8B PETITION: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-I0325, SUNGATE CENTER CPUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we'll go to the consent item Petition PUDZA-2006-AR-10325. That's the Wynn Properties and Carbone Properties for the Sungate Center on Green and Collier Boulevards in Golden Gate. Are there any comments, questions, clarifications on that particular item? Page 14 '_,..'__m""'~"_,,_~,__,,_ _"__"_M'__,..___~._....~,___"._,__~., December 18,2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a recommendation for approval on the consent agenda for that item? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Is there a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Somebody. Somebody? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ms. Homiak. Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Ms. Homiak. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Item #9C PETITON: CU-2008-AR-1339L DIOCESE OF VENICE Page 15 December 18,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, moving on to our first advertised public hearing. It will be 9.C, the one we moved up. And that is Petition CU-2008-AR-13391. Bishop Frank 1. Dewane, Diocese of Venice, for a conditional use. And let's see, it's on 5280 28th Avenue, and 2760 52nd Terrace. All those wishing to participate in this particular item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a phone call from Mr. Anderson for a meeting to go over issues. I didn't have any issues, so it didn't seem like we needed to waste the applicant's legal time, and so I canceled the meeting. And with that, Bruce, it's all yours. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson with the Roetzel and Andress Law Firm, representing the St. Elizabeth Seton Diocese of Venice. Initially I want to thank you very much for accommodating my request. With me today is Father Dennis Harten, Pastor of St. Elizabeth Parish; Joan Haden, the office manager; Margaret Perry, the planner for Wilson-Miller; and Engineer Jared Brown, also from Wilson-Miller. This is a request for an expansion of an existing conditional use for a church and school related uses on four lots that are adjacent to the currently existing approved conditional use area. On the overhead projector it is the lots, the shaded lots that are the subject of the hearing today. These lots are all zoned RMF-12. And churches, private schools Page 16 --"'''_-~'_'''~----_._~"-_._,--,.~...._,-_.....-.;;..~,.. . December 18, 2008 and associated uses are allowed as conditional uses in this area. St. Elizabeth Seton Church and School have been a fixture and active community member in Golden Gate for many years. The original church was constructed in 1979, and the school in 1987, although a temporary school was provided back in 1980. The original church building is now used as a parish center. And the current church, which was constructed in 2000, is not within the lands that are the subject of this conditional use. The current church building is located entirely within the Founders Plaza PUD. And that abuts this property. At this time, the parish does not have specific plans for development or redevelopment of these additional lots. However, the proposed uses include church and school related offices, religious goods store limited to 2,000 square feet, a chapel, perhaps priest residences, and/or expanded parking for the existing uses. The future uses will be determined by the needs of the parish and the available funding for the improvements. The lots one through three currently contain five duplex units, which the church will be upgrading. The future church and school related uses may be housed in these existing structures after renovation, or new structures may be built along with demolition of some or all of the existing duplex units. The only concern that we have heard voiced is that during the season some parishioners park illegally on the grassed right-of-way along Golden Gate Parkway. Father Harten has warned his parishioners during services, and will put it in the church bulletin, that it is against the law to park there. The church has plenty of parking within easy walking distance. The grassy area where this parking sometimes occurs is county right-of-way. And we would request, frankly, that the county install "no parking" signs in this area and enforce it. When this application was first filed for purposes of Page 17 u '_'__"'_"~""""_'_'_""___"'_'''~''____~__'''' ._.._,._.,"_~_._ "".~.___>__>_....,"__"_._____,....;_ December 18, 2008 transportation impacts, the figure of 8,900 square feet of retail commercial was used to demonstrate the maximum transportation impacts. Since that initial filing, we have instead simply limited the religious goods store to 2,000 square feet. The actual size of the other buildings and uses will be determined by required setbacks at the time of site development plan approval. A neighborhood meeting was held on October 29th, and a presentation was also made to the Golden Gate Civic Association on November 10th. They issued a letter of support for this application, but again expressed the concern about the parking along Golden Gate Parkway. Future development and redevelopment will obviously be in compliance with the Land Development Code as required at the time. And the applicant is in agreement with all of the conditions of approval, as outlined in the staff report. Now, I am available or any members of our team to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions on the part of the planning commission? Mr. Wolfley, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Bruce, what -- on number two here of the recommendations from staff, they wanted limited to the chapel church school related office, so on, so forth. What uses were proposed that staff did not want? In other words -- or was there nothing? What was the problem there? MR. ANDERSON: Oh, this was what we originally applied for. I mean, it was a self-imposed limitation. Staff didn't -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Why? MR. ANDERSON: Well, because we weren't -- we tried to make it as all-encompassing as possible. But if you, you know, what want to remove those, we certainly have no objection. Page 18 December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, no, no, that wasn't the point. I was just wondering what was there that we didn't -- that I missed. I thought I might have missed something. MR. ANDERSON: No. No, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Bruce, in the staff report on Page 4 of 10, it states that the chapel, if that is built, will be no more than 200 seats. Can you tell me where that is in the ordinance and why that isn't reflected in either conditions and/or stated in the ordinance itself? MR. ANDERSON: No, I cannot. If you want to insert that in your conditions of approval, that was the maximum size that was talked about. FATHER HARTEN: Good morning. I'm Father Dennis Harten, I'm the pastor at St. Elizabeth Seton. And the chapel, as we say, is really not -- is only a concept that we have at this point in time. The property -- the purchase of the property did put the community in considerable debt, and so we'll be paying for that for an extended period of time. You'll notice that the property, actually it belongs to -- we're all around that particular piece of property. And since we have taken possession of the property, we have improved certainly the condition and the look of it. But at this particular point in time I wouldn't be inclined to define what might be the possibility 10 years from now. So I think if -- what we're bringing before the Commission is the fact that we will keep this property within church and school related uses. That is really the request that we're making to the planning commission this mornmg. COMMISSIONER CARON: But it was stated that if you were to build a chapel, and that's up to you, it would be no more than 200 Page 19 _..,.~-_......"....,_._-_.-~_.,~-~-_."...- ~-_.'-' ...__...._"..,----~-,_.~...-~-""~-~._---_._,-_.~..,- December 18, 2008 seats. FA THER HARTEN: Yes. I understand that that is in our report. And that would be something that I would certainly consider as a number that would be what we would be looking for in terms of our needs. In other words, I wouldn't be looking to build a second church. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And so all I'm asking is that that be stated as a maximum in the conditions. FATHER HARTEN: So you want that in there? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What your conditions say right now, sir, is the uses shall be limited to a chapel, church, school related offices, religious gift store, maximum of 2,000 square feet, priest residences and parking. I think the suggestion is that the uses shall be limited to a chapel, then after that do a similar kind of parenthetical that says a maximum of 200 seats. And that -- just insert that and then we're done. Does that work for your operation? MR. ANDERSON: Father would prefer that that seat limitation not be included as a specific condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we need to see what staffs-- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- thoughts on that will be. Because if you have an unlimited condition there but yet it's restricted by traffic, the TIS or by some other methodology, that may help. So I think when we get to the staff report, maybe we can get that question answered. And we'll come back to you before it's over. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER CARON: I have one -- no, I'm not done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, go ahead. That's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: I had one more question. Right now on that southern portion there are duplex -- there's Page 20 '-<"-~--'-_._"'.-'--'--"--~--"._...-_.- - '--'-'~-'-'-~---"-- December 18, 2008 duplex housing. Are people currently living there or is that empty duplex housing because the church bought the property? MR. ANDERSON: It's empty. No one's living there. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's empty. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I note here that you've taken out the facilities will not be rented out to other congregations, school groups or clubs. Does that preclude -- in your mind does that preclude the church sponsoring organizations such as Boy Scouts or 4-H or whatever that the church itself would sponsor and not lease the property or license the property? Because my interest is in not precluding opportunities for the youth of our community. F ATHER HARTEN: Right. Thank you for that question, I appreciate it. At the present time, St. Elizabeth Seton has a Boy Scout troop, a Girl Scout troop, a Cub Scout troop, and we're thinking of a senior cub scout -- no, we do have a full range of services for our young people. And I appreciate your noting that fact. No, we would not want this property to be excluded from that kind of use, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, as I mentioned to you, we didn't have a meeting because I didn't have any. But I certainly want you to know that this is a vast improvement to the Golden Gate City area. And any time we can take out duplexes to improve the area with something as nice as a church, I'm certainly in favor of it. I think it's a good example what we need to do in the urban area like this. So with that I'll ask for staff report. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, for the record, Department of Zoning and Land Page 21 '------."-_......_---'-_.~~-,.,-,._._...~-.,.._._-_.._~-.._"~------~._-"-.-_---,,_.~- December 18, 2008 Development Review. And Commissioners, this petition is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And for that reason, staff is recommending approval. And we are recommending approval subject to two conditions: The first condition is that this conditional use is limited to what is shown on the conditional master plan. And the second condition is a limitation on the uses. And the uses shall be limited to a chapel, a church school related offices, religious gift store, a maximum of 2,000 square feet, priest residences and parking. And we can certainly add in that we are limiting the chapel to 200 seats. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question about this 200 seats thing. The chapel would be the smaller group, so it wouldn't be as big as the main church service. I don't see why we have to limit it to 200 seats unless there's some specific reason from transportation that says that it -- you know, that anything more in the chapel would create a problem. Because this is not the main where they have the big services. The chapel is for smaller services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And of course where is transportation when you need them most? Okay. And they're not here to answer that question. So I know Nick is probably watching things, maybe he could e-mail Joe, who's got his computer on, and through that e-mail we can get an answer to the question. MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, they've been called and they are on their way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: I can -- would you like me to attempt to Page 22 ____'_'"'_~..'_."m'_.'_._.._,___.._",."._., ....._,."'..,_...~"~...._"'_________~_...,_..,~,< December 18, 2008 answer the question? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The TIS is based on 8,900 square feet. And certainly the 2,000 square feet is a reduction from the original 8,900 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the chapel? MS. GUNDLACH: It's a less intense use than what was originally proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we still wouldn't have a worst case condition on the TIS -- MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if they made the chapel 200, 300. But at some point -- at what time would it break the TIS; do you know? MS. GUNDLACH: No, I don't. And the 200-seat chapel came from the applicant -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MS. GUNDLACH: -- so we consider, you know, what they propose to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Wolfley, then Ms. Caron. Did you finish, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, just making the point that unless there's some reason, some substantive reason why we have to limit it to 200 seats, if the church would prefer not to have that limited, I would be in favor of not limiting it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I feel the same way as Mr. Midney. Nancy, I feel compelled -- I don't doubt Bruce at all, but what is number two? What was in number two of your recommendations? What did not you want there? What did you not want there? MS. GUNDLACH: Well, we put in exactly what the applicant requested. Page 23 .u.~_'_""__'_"_.. _~"___""'."'~__'__ "__'''_'._~__''_'''''''_~'''_~~__'_~_'___'..__._",.,,_._.,,__......_~_"'_~_~_._. December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. MS. GUNDLACH: So it wasn't an issue of what we wanted and what we didn't want. It's what they requested in the petition. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just rarely see things like that, when everyone's in agreement on something, you put it in as a recommendation. I just -- MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, it's a condition of approval, and so we state it as part of our recommendations. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I doubt they're going to put any objectionable retail stores or whatever. But okay, I'm fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Nancy, do you know how many seats are in the main church? MS. GUNDLACH: The main church, I do not know how many seats. Perhaps -- do you know, Father? FATHER HARTEN: Yes, I do. 1,100. MS. GUNDLACH: The main church -- the Father says that the main church has 1,100 seats. And that's in a separate PUD -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understood. MS. GUNDLACH: -- and not part of this application. COMMISSIONER CARON: Understood. But if there is no maximum for this chapel, then it's unlimited only -- it is limited only by the setbacks; is that correct? Buffering and setbacks. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, it's limited by the size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, it is limited by traffic impacts, would it not be? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: But we don't know what that is yet, because transportation's not here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 24 ^.'_'~~'_-~----'-"'--"----_..,.'.~._. December 18, 2008 else. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Then lets go on to something CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, we're going to-- COMMISSIONER CARON: So we can't make a decision until transportation gives us that answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And they're probably on their way. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just wanted to second Commissioner Midney's comments. I think it is limited by its physical size when they construct it. And all the other factors, including the TIS factor that we'll learn about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I tend to agree with that. I'd like to hear from transportation, but if not, they're still limited by transportation and size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of county staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now we've got an impasse to wait for our transportation department. Bruce, I know you needed to be up and out of here. I know you're not feeling well. I think it would be worth the wait to get an answer from transportation on this. And then we'll -- so what I'd like to do is continue this one to after the next one and go right into the next one, and hopefully by that time transportation will be here. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer? Page 25 -"'~~'---"""'--"""'~"-"+"~"---'---""-'-'-". -- ,.. ~- _."-"_.,...,~~.__.----"_.._.._*--~"~--_....--,..__...,,.._-_."'-~-'''.' December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy? I'm sorry. In the development of this site, though, the parking and everything else would kind of restrict the size that this thing could be. So, I mean, what is it that transportation's going to give us that -- the trip count in their -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My con -- oh, here's transportation. This is good. My concern is that if we can put this on the summary agenda, it saves everybody money, time and the BCC a lot of effort. If there's one commissioner here who has a concern, we need to resolve that concern so that there's a better chance of it going on summary agenda. So that's the only reason I was trying to delay it, Brad. And we don't have to now, because transportation just showed up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the fear is what, that the chapel will get to be too big? I mean, is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the fear is if they go beyond the 200 seats -- and I'm paraphrasing Commissioner Caron -- it may pose intensity items that we haven't looked at, because they -- and the staff report indicated it was 200 seats. Is that a fair statement, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'll be very specific. They proposed the 200. Now they don't want it. That leads me to believe that they have other grandiose schemes here for this chapel to turn into a second church, limited only by the dimensions of the piece of property that they have. And potentially parking, though it looks to me from the site that that's not an issue. I'm concerned about the traffic issues on both Golden Gate and Santa Barbara. And I'm anxious to hear. If it's unlimited for the chapel, do we run into problems from transportation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, you walked into it today, thank you. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 26 '---~-~-'~-_.,----_._~--.~. December 18, 2008 MR. GREEN: For the record, Michael Green, Transportation Planning. What questions do you have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron's got a little bit of a sore throat today, so let me try to help her with it. MR. GREEN: I was trying to come up to speed on exactly what project we were on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant, when they applied for this, produced a TIS that had a bunch of variables in it, including a larger retail area than they currently are asking for. But that's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is a chapel. They requested -- they indicated in their narrative that they're going to have a 200-seat chapel. The concern is that if we don't limit it in the stipulations to 200 seats, how are they limited then, by the size of the chapel, and where and when and how does a TIS trigger a re-review for traffic standards based on the size of the chapel? Is that fair, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh. MR. GREEN: A TIS on a chapel is done both by seats and gross square footage, depending on if you're looking for PM weekday trips or peak event trips. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. There are no square footages in here either. So what are you basing it on? You were basing it on the 200 seats because that's what they told you, right? MR. GREEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you turn to Page 2 of the TIS, you got your table there, and it talks about the uses that are proposed. Or I'm assuming proposed. Which one of these would have utilized the chapel? Or any of them. Or how would you have looked at the chapel in regards to the TIS? Page 27 -""~---~---'''''''''-'~--~'--'-''~'---''-'-'''---'''~'~"~-"...---..,.-,- December 18, 2008 MR. GREEN: I think in this TIS we were looking for the areas that were grade out in the map as being part of the extension of the conditional use in which we looked at the specialty retail proposal. Because the specialty retail and the proposed extension of this conditional use would have the highest impact. They weren't discussing making changes with any of the other existing buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Question, Transportation. When they do decide how large they want this facility, they're going to have to go back through transportation and you will restrict them based upon seats at that time. MR. GREEN: That is correct. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No matter what happens here, they can only build what you allow them to do. MR. GREEN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know at what size a chapel would have to be seat-wise to have a negative impact to a point where you couldn't approve it? I mean, they're saying they want to do it 200. If they said 400, would you guys be upset over that? If they said 10,000, would you be upset over that? I guess we need to peg a range so we can nail this down and get past it. And I need to -- MR. GREEN: It's hard to target a specific range for a chapel. Because when we look at traffic, we look at the PM peak hour. And chapels don't generate large PM peak hour, they generate weekend peak event trips, which are operational issues, in which we bring in, you know, off-duty sheriffs department to direct traffic and such. But those are also operational issues and they're addressed at the SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, does that provide you with enough information at this point? Page 28 '__'__'~_'_~_'_.~T_..__._____,___..._..,__.....__ . ,'-- __'+_"'C'~U_'.'_____,<,_=~,,,,,~,=___,____,"~__,___,,_",,,____.......__ December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Everybody seems to think it should be unlimited. That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Parking obviously is an issue. So, I mean, if they plan a 10,000 seat chapel, they couldn't seat them there because there'd be no place for anyone to park. So it's self-limited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that, but I just wanted to kind of try to peg a range where we had some idea what transportation would say was really unreasonable. And they're not able to do it that way, so-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: If there's a range between 200 and 350 or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I agree with you, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Without time to run the numbers and come up with some logical rational nexus, you can't do it. In other words, once they submit a site plan, then you can tell them either they can or they can't and they're restricted by parking and they're also restricted by a TIS. MR. GREEN: And at that point we're limiting them to more current concurrency issues and operational issues. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which is more restrictive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, just to be safe, on their TIS they use a retail square footage four times what they're now asking for. I think it was 8,900 square feet and now it's 2,000 square feet. Is that -- I believe that's the way the TIS was written up. Am I right on that, Bruce? Didn't I hear you say that? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that means that you have at Page 29 "-~-"'_-_"~."_'~'_'''._._~_._-,--,.__.._"-,.~..,.._,..,~ '"--------_.~''' ,._~~---~._---,-_......_-- December 18, 2008 least 6,000 square feet of retail built into the TIS that the chapel could actually grow to a size before it would even exceed that 6,000 additional retail that's buffered in the TIS before you guys would have a problem. And when they come in with an SDP, do you make sure that the SDP application doesn't exceed the total of the TIS submitted with the conditional use? MR. GREEN: Always. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, then I think we're in perfect shape then. I think that works. And Ms. Caron I think is satisfied now with that, so good, we got to the bottom line. Thank you, sir. Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, do you have any closing statements? MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to approve changing the -- just removing the 200-seat restrictions and letting transportation and parking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, there is no 200-seat restriction in there now. The discussion was about putting one in. It was decided it isn't needed. So basically your recommendation for approval should be consistent with staffs conditions -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It is, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and then you're off and running. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that your motion, Mr. -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, it most certainly is. Page 30 December 18,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made to-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- recommend approval, subject to the conditions of staff. It's been seconded by Mr. Midney. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody disapprove? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you. Bruce, I hope you feel better. Take it easy. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, definitely feel better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you've given a lot of people whatever you've got, because both sides of me here are sick today. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's really miserable up here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad I have a month off so I can recover. COMMISSIONER CARON: And everybody needs conditional use forms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yes. Your forms in Item C, everybody, let's take a minute to turn those in. Page 31 December 18, 2008 Item #9 A PETITION: VA-2008-AR-1360L OKEECHOBEE INN, LTD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item up is Petition V A-2008-AR-13601, the Okeechobee Inn, Limited, to permit access on State Road 29. And it's just north of Lake Trafford Road intersection. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there disclosures on the part of planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none -- by the way, these go to Mr. Vigliotti, your applications. And Mr. Vigliotti, they go to Cherie' after the meeting. Okay, no disclosures, applicant may proceed. It's all yours, ma'am. MS. GREEN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Gina Green. I'm a licensed professional engineering representing Okeechobee Inn, LTD. My client is requesting a variance from the Land Development Code, Subsection 4.02.27, specific design standards for the Immokalee/State Road 29A Commercial Overlay Subdistrict, to permit access to State Road 29 for a parcel having less than the required 440 feet street frontage minimum width. The subject property is zoned commercial intermediate C-3 and is within the State Road 29A Commercial Overlay District. The 9.04-acre subject parcel is located on the west side of State Road 29, also known as 15th Street North, just north of the Lake Trafford intersection in Immokalee. Page 32 December 18, 2008 If you'd please reference the vicinity map on the overhead, you can see the exact location of the parcel. According to Subsection 4.02.27.A of the LDC, properties having 440 feet or less of street frontage on State Road 29 must not, when possible, take direct access from the highway. However, Subsection 4.02.27.B provides for a variance from this requirement for any possible development -- THE COURT REPORTER: Could I ask that you please slow down. MS. GREEN: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Cherie'. I'm sorry, I should have caught that. Yeah, you've got to -- MS. GREEN: Not a problem. I am a fast speaker, so I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything's being transcribed, so you need to keep it a little bit slower pace. MS. GREEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, we're quite familiar with the code, but you can proceed. MS. GREEN: Okay. Well, then we will cut it to a very simple. This parcel is looking only to be developed. There was a lot split application that was approved; split the parcel off to a smaller 1.7 -acre parcel to develop a Suncoast School Federal Credit Union on the smaller parcel, which is what brought on this variance, because they need access to their future bank. And as you can see on the -- this is the proposed plan for the credit union. And the parcel -- the parent parcel now has no plans at this time to be developed. Also, this parcel has been at the size that it is, which is a 322-foot frontage on State Road 29. It was never previously split, and it was in existence this way prior to the overlay district being put in place that makes this restriction of the 440 feet. Page 33 December 18, 2008 The owner of the parent parcel, which is the Okeechobee Inn, Ltd., and Suncoast Schools Credit Union would wish to have the access placed at its location to provide distance from both the north and the south entrances that are already developed, because the parcels both north and south already have commercial uses on them. By doing this, the future -- any future uses on the parent parcel would take access from this single shared access between the two to joint owners of Suncoast Schools and the Okeechobee Inn, Ltd. Weare about 950 feet north of the Lake Trafford intersection. State Road 29 right now is in a PD&E study for expansion of this right-of-way, which could allow for no, you know, cross traffic or anything on -- at this point, because of the closeness to the intersection. You know, there's really not much else to say, so I'll close my introduction and let you ask me any questions, if you have them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: We don't know if the -- it could be four-laned or if it could be a divided highway. MS. GREEN: Right, we do not know. At this time right now it is two-lane with a continuous turn lane in the middle that allows traffic to go freely up and down that corridor on either side, so people can make left turns in a common center turn lane that is a continuous turn lane. That is its present condition right now. And that is how all the businesses in this stretch take their access. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And we don't know if it's going to be -- if there's going to be a turn lane there on that side, on the right-hand side or if it's going to be right in/right out? MS. GREEN: Right, exactly. I would venture to guess with its proximity and due to the fact of what State Road 29 is, I would venture to say that they would probably divide it to where this would -- I mean, knows what year it will ever get built due to funds. I would Page 34 ~--_.~- ."..."......"...~-~.~--_.~"".._;>-~- December 18, 2008 venture to guess that this would end up being a right in/right out only parcel in the far future. I don't see those -- I mean, they don't even have the PD&E study. I spoke to Department of Transportation, they are still working on the PD&E study, so they don't even have any conceptual plans, you know, anything to provide me right now to give me a little bit of idea to give you any information. And I think that study's supposed to be coming out next summer, was what they had told me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Quick question. Is the center line of the property the center line of the access easement? MS. GREEN: Yes, the center line of the access easement is the common property line between the parent parcel and the credit union parcel that has been split. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then what is a slope easement? MS. GREEN: That is for construction in order to build the road. We've -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Going up to -- MS. GREEN: No, actually, to slope it back down to natural grade. Because the road will have to be -- this access easement will have to be built up above grade. And so this is a slope easement to bring it back down to natural grade on the south side in the undeveloped parcel. So Okeechobee Inn has allowed that temporary slope easement till they ever, you know, decide to plat or sell off or anything to develop that piece of property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) Page 35 December 18, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple. The slope easement. Generally your utilities, FP&L, gas, if available, digital telephone, the rest of it, all have to go on 10- foot utility easements on each side of the right-of-way. Would you allow that slope easement to also incorporate the access for utilities? MS. GREEN: If that was the need. I do not see a reason why the setbacks from the access easement would not allow a building to be too close to this right-of-way that a 10-foot utility easement could not be placed there ifFP&L or any of the utilities deemed that that was a necessary improvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you'd have no objection then if we stipulate that the slope easements shall also include easements for private and public utilities, if needed? MS. GREEN: I don't see a reason why that can't be a stipulation. Can I just make a clarification, though? That if they decide to take their access in for the utilities in a different location such as, let's say, there's power poles down the north property line that FP&L's going to put a drop-in and bring in a transformer on the north side of this property, then they would not need to utilize that easement, would it be -- could make it to where it would be on an as needed basis, based upon the design from the utility company? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if needed is as needed, but MS. GREEN: Okay. It's not required if it's not needed, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure why your property owner would have any objection to it, because it would better serve everybody. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to object to it. But just it's a practical thing, so in the end down the road if you had adversarial positions here, one couldn't start fighting with the other by holding off that and extracting funds that weren't necessarily needed. Page 36 --'''-'-~--''---'--''---~"'-'-<----~-'--~--''-''-'-''''~- December 18, 2008 MS. GREEN: Right. And in the same sense, if they decide they need to go down on the north side of this access easement towards the credit union building now, because that's what's being developed also and that's what's taking service first, it could be that, you know, they come back and say, hey, we need -- you know, this is actually Lee County Electric Co-op out there but, you know, they could come back and say, hey, you know, we need an easement on the north side of that access easement in order to bring our utilities in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, all I'm suggesting is we provide them with one ability to access and that is the slope easement that already exists, incorporate private and public utilities into that and you're done. MS. GREEN: Ifneeded, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as long as you don't have a problem, that's fine. The other thing is the condition that staff imposed on this says, all access to State Road 29 from the 9.04-acre tract shall be through the access location and approved as part of this variance, even if portions of the property are subsequently sold to another owner. The remaining parcel is only 7.36 acres, right? MS. GREEN: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when staff comes up, I want to understand that that 9.04 is really to be 9.04, or is it 7.36 acres that we're talking about, so -- MS. GREEN: I think the difference between the two is the fact that at the time that this variance was applied for, the lot split had not taken place. And subsequently since the initial variance request and today and the writing of the staff report the last split was submitted, was approved, and it is now actually two separate parcels. Still all in Okeechobee Inn, Ltd's name, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Page 37 December 18, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll go to staff report. MS. GREEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. J.D.? MR. MOSS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. The proposed use is permitted within the neighborhood center subdistrict of the Immokalee area master plan, and the proposal is also consistent with the applicable provisions of the LDC. So with the stipulation recommended by staff, staff is recommending approval. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have about the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John-David, the condition one, that all access to State Road, that doesn't preclude the fact that you could access the residential street in the back if you're developing the back of this residentially, correct? MR. MOSS: If -- I suppose if they were able to. But that was the problem and the entire reason the applicant had to come in, as they were unable to get access through any of the adjacent parcels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are those private drives in the back, or on the west side? MR. MOSS: On the west side of the property, the applicant stated in the application they were unable to get any access with those owners. So I don't if it may be possible in the future, if they change their mind, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we don't know if that's a public street or not? Because obviously -- I mean, if they developed a back residential, it might be preferable for those residences. Obviously Page 38 December 18, 2008 MR. MOSS: To exit, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I can see why. The credit union would be a disaster to come in from there. MR. MOSS: Well, I don't think the stipulation precludes them from gaining other access, but we just want to make sure that any development that occurs within that 9.04-acre tract does at least have access to State Road 29. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But there's nothing that precludes them coming off of this North 18th Street? MR. MOSS: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. MOSS: That wasn't the intent of the stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Transportation doesn't have any reservations about this variance? MR. MOSS: No. They just wanted to ensure that they all shared access. That was their only concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., the 9.04, is that correct as it reads, or should it be 7.36? MR. MOSS: Well, the county attorney's office put the stipulation with 9.04 acres because the entire tract is that amount, as Mrs. Green said. The lot split did occur, and so now the remaining portion is less than that, it's seven point something. 7.36 acres. But we just want to make sure that all the properties within the original tract share access, so that's why I think they chose to put 9.04. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, minor point. Just was -- that's fine, thank you. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant or staff? Page 39 -~"---"--'"~"."-'----- December 18, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does the applicant wish to rebut anything staff said? MS. GREEN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll make -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd like to make a motion that we forward Petition V A-2008-AR-13601 with a recommendation of approval, subject to staff condition one. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made for approval, subject to staff condition one, seconded by Mr. Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to ask that the motion maker and the second consider adding a stipulation that the slope easement will be modified to include public and private utilities where needed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney accepts. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second accepts it. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those wishing -- in favor of this motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 40 -~_...~,'-,.,.~'" -"'--"""'~"-',---,"-,<_..~"-"~._---q.,,,-,,_.,..,~~,-----~----_..._..,.~... ,......--.. .".'. ""---'---'- December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you. Okay, we have time probably for the next one. And after break, we'll go straight into the Savannah Place then. Item #9B PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13639, CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LA TTER DAY SAINTS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item up is Petition CU-2008-AR-13639, Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for a site located at 4935 23rd Court Southwest. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You sit up here and you get that look from Cherie', you know you've done something wrong. So I will do my best. MR. SCHMITT: Duck if she throws a shoe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll get the Secret Service on that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, boy, that was a Middle Eastern comment. Page 41 December 18, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any disclosures on the part of planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll go into the applicant's presentation. MR. BREWER: Good afternoon. My name's Alan Brewer, with RS&H. I'm here representing my client, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who's requesting a conditional use for an expansion to an existing church approximately 3,600 square feet. And adjacent parking approximately -- I'm sorry, 40 standard and two accessible parking. Sorry, I need my -- now I'm going to keep mine brief, because I've got what everyone else has going around. I won't put anymore on the microphone. If you look at the shaded areas of the expansion we're looking, one would be a foyer to the front entrance and the other is a non-chapel expansion. The adjacent parking is actually to bring the building up to code. And that's pretty much what I have. Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the questions -- you might want to tell us about this exit issue, because you're showing -- you've got a new -- MR. BREWER: I didn't know if you wanted to do that after the staff recommendations. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, your chance is now. You can have rebuttal after staff, so -- MR. BREWER: During our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- why don't you just explain that, whatever's going on there. MR. BREWER: If you look where he's pointing, during our discussions with the staff they wanted us to close down one of our Page 42 ,"_.. _~"_"_"~~____'___._'__"_'_~__'_.'___h_.._~______._Mh. December 18, 2008 existing entrances and move it to a different location, which is where it's shown now. The only problem is with putting it in that area, we can't meet the 50-foot throat. We actually have a 38-foot throat. To meet the 50-foot throat, we'd actually have to move an existing building, so we couldn't move that. Again, this is a compromise that we worked out with the staff to close down one entrance and move it to another location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm not --let me get this one all on the table so we get the right questions. On the plan you're showing us right here, you have two entrances on the left side of the plan. You have a white entrance towards the top that I'm assuming is your existing, and you have a shaded entrance towards the bottom that is what I think you're proposing to add; is that right? MR. BREWER: Correct, sir. If you also look at the existing, if you went roughly 35 feet to the north, there would be another existing entrance that we were proposing to close, since we have worked with the staff to relocate it to the other location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now you've got me -- that just threw me. You showed two entrances on here: One existing and one proposed. You say there's a third entrance somewhere? MR. BREWER: There would be an entrance right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I'm sorry, you're going to have to use the walk-around mic. or something. You've got to talk through the mlC. MR. BREWER: I apologize. MR. MOSS: Grab that mic. MR. BREWER: There we go. If you look, there would be an existing entrance right here that we worked with the staff, they wanted us to close it down and relocate Page 43 December 18, 2008 it to the area that it's at now. But unfortunately we can't meet the 50-foot throat if we relocate it to that location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff, could you put the aerial on? Or Ray, somebody, whoever's over there. The aerial, there is one in our plan. It's rather small. My question is, why are we messing with the entrance at all? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I wonder. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. MR. BREWER: That was something we worked with transportation. That's what they want -- they wanted us to close one down, but would give us the other one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, transportation does want a lot of things, but maybe there's -- we need to understand what they want -- MR. BREWER: We would be willing to go back to the locations, the two existing, where they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this is what you have now. What you're proposing to do is close the one entrance to the far north of this one, leave the one on the south side of that semi-cir -- that circle open and then add another one to the south of that, is that -- MR. BREWER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. Mike, we're going to need your help on this, so -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ray, could you point where the new and old entrances are here? I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, the new ones aren't on here, just the old. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. Where they would be. MR. SCHMITT: There, there -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Existing right there. MR. SCHMITT: And I believe they want -- this is the existing entrance and existing entrance, and this is where they want to put the Page 44 -_'__"---~---'-"~~"---"'_'.""_'.,._~...,_. -'~""""'-"'."~'-"'- December 18, 2008 new entrance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I -- Mike, the new entrance that they're being asked to put in, enclosing half the existing north entrance, what is wrong with the operation like it's shown right here? They've got an entrance on one end and an exit on the other or vice versa. It seems to function fine, it's in a quiet neighborhood, why do we need to mess it up? MR. GREEN: Well, actually what's shown on the display shows two directional driveways, not a one direction in and a one direction out that are slightly split by a median. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's wrong with what's on the aerial? MR. GREEN: Which aerial? The-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's only one aerial. That's a concept plan. Let's look at the aerial that's on the TV. MR. GREEN: The condition that's on the aerial is not a problem. The problem comes from the proposed new solution where you have two totally separate two-way driveways. We do not want to have a totally new driveway. It's contrary to trying to manage traffic patterns in a neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, would you leave that one back on there till I get done with my questions, please? MR. BELLOWS: I'm sorry, I was trying to show it to you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Getting me seasick here. COMMISSIONER CARON: If! wasn't sick before -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, this one, transportation has no problem with this; is that what I hear you saying? MR. GREEN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who is insisting on adding the new entry to the south? I got the impression it was the applicant. MR. BREWER: We were relocating the existing one. We'd rather ours stay the way it is with the two entrances. Page 45 --'~-_"'_+""_"~---""_"_--~'.._---~--,--,-,--- December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh? MR. BREWER: Okay? Thank you for that. The way it is is fine. We'd prefer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine. Then transportation hasn't got a problem with it, okay, good. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's not break that egg open again, okay? Whoa. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's for transportation. Is the throat requirement -- I never understood that to pertain to local roads before. Is that a requirement now? MR. GREEN: We always try and look at throat requirement and where you have a potential to impact the traveling public. It applies to anywhere where the county can be involved in right-of-way permits. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, yes, you're going to have throat -- so you have throat requirements now on every MR. GREEN: On everything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And has that been in the code somewhere? Is that your interpretation? MR. GREEN: That's identified in our right-of-way handbook that the code -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is always isolated for collector and arterial. That's -- it does now say local? MR. GREEN: There's some interpretation involved in that. It doesn't just specifically say arterial and collector. It culls it out as roads that are public right-of-way or would fall to county right-of-way permitting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is every road but a private road. Okay. I mean, I don't see the need for throat requirements in here Page 46 December 18, 2008 anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. The egg's still closed. Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Only one there, just for verification. We notice there's a maximum zoned height of 35 feet. What's the actual height going to be? I just want to make sure we have it correct. What's the maximum actual height that you want to build to, so we don't have any question. MR. LIVINGSTONE: Give me one second, I'll give it to you right off the plans. For the record, my name is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that should include any spires or anything else associated with it. MR. LIVINGSTONE: For the record, my name is Gil Livingstone. I'm the architect for the project with Reynolds, Smith and Hills. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get closer to the mic., sir, if you could. MR. LIVINGSTONE: For the record, my name is Gil Livingstone -- he's sick, I don't want to get too close -- I'm the architect for the project. The actual height that we are adding to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just say something while you're -- I mean, essentially what they're doing is just extending the existing roofline. MR. LIVINGSTONE: No, we're -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're going to raise -- MR. LIVINGSTONE: The existing building with the existing chapel is a lot higher than we're adding to. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I want to find the answer to -- Page 47 .~'-'-_."~-"-_.~-_.~-'-'-~--'-"-~---~"-" December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but the point is-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- my question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- your addition is extending the existing roofline of a lower part of the building. MR. LIVINGSTONE: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you'd be not raising anything above the existing -- MR. LIVINGSTONE: Correct. We're just extending it straight out from where it exists now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that going to work, Brad? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I get the answer to my question, please? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had the floor. Could I get the answer to my question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I asked -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, go ahead, that's fine. MR. LIVINGSTONE: The existing top of roof ridge for the highest part of the building is 128 feet, two inches, which translates to 28 feet, two inches high. And then the existing to the addition, in other words, where we just extended out the existing part of that roof, is 15 foot, 10 inches to the top of the ridge. In other words, the peak of the roof. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, in my ignorance of what that means, I still have to ask you what that represents in terms of -- I heard Commissioner Schiffer's comments to you, which are probably correct, but I want to be able to understand myself that we are talking about something that conforms or something that arises much higher. MR. LIVINGSTONE: Okay, this is the existing chapel, which is the highest part of the building. That's been there for 30 years? Roughly 30 years. Page 48 December 18, 2008 To this point on the ridge, not counting the spire, because I don't have a height on the spire, to be honest, but it's been there for 30 years, is 28 feet, two inches. This is the addition back here. From this point on the rendering -- or excuse me, from this point on the rendering up is where we're adding. The existing roof, if we put a line right here on this drawing, is here. So we're just extending it out. And that new roof part will be IS-foot, 10 inches. Just extending out the existing as-is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you'll never really meet the maximum zoned height of 35. MR. LIVINGSTONE: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Really simple answer. I appreciate that very much. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, staff report. Thank you. MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. The subject property actually straddles two different subdistricts of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan: The urban residential subdistrict and the high density residential subdistrict. And the use is consistent with both of those. As noted in the staff report, the church has been on the site since 1979, and the proposal that they're requesting with this application is also consistent with the RSF-3 zoning district of the LDC. So staff is recommending approval based on the stipulations contained in the staff report. Although it seems like number two is going to need to be amended. I think we're going to have to revise the conceptual site plan to show the existing entrances on 50th Street, rather than the ones that are proposed in the staff report. Page 49 December 18, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would concur with that conclusion. And also, since our consent agenda is January 15th for this item, the applicant will need to get a master plan resubmitted and back to us by that time so we could approve it on our consent, if that's the consensus of this board during the vote. MR. MOSS: I'd also like to add that a NIM was held for this conditional use, and none of the neighbors attended, so -- and I haven't received any letters of objection or phone calls about the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions from (sic) staff? Mr. Wolfley, and Mr. Schiffer after that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The community park facility is, oh, I don't know, just 100 feet away or so. And there are festivals there a couple of times a year. There's events, big events. Parking's always a problem. There is no parking when you have an event. They're all up and down Golden Gate Parkway and all over this property, from what I have seen before. Is there going to be a conflict -- I was kind of surprised that the community park people were not there. Are there going to be issues with that? I mean, is the church going to get a little upset if people are parking in their parking lot during those festival times, or is that a cooperation thing? MR. HAILS: My name is Wayne Hails (phonetic). I represent the church for construction here in Florida. We encourage people using the parking lot for a community event like that. As a matter of fact, we try to respond quickly to any kind of a community emergency with tractor-trailer loads of supplies for the community. Weare going to -- part of this renovation will be to insulate our building so that we don't hear the boom boxes and things like that, if there's an event going on while we're holding our church services. But if we're not in the parking lot, feel free to use the spaces. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Great answer. Thank you. Page 50 December 18, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was actually kind of my question. But I'd like to add to that is, is there the ability to put some sort of a walkway? Right now people would have to climb down through a detention pond. Is there a way that we could do something to make it -- MR. HAILS: No, we would ask that you just use the public sidewalks around the edge of the facility. We're going to have a berm that goes between them and some vegetation up on top to cut down on the noise. Because we -- right now when you have an event in the park there, we can hardly hear ourselves talk inside the building. So part of our project will be to insulate the building so that we don't hear the commotion going outside. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you wouldn't want to put a sidewalk through there? MR. HAILS: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff? MR. BREWER: Can I rebut -- say one more thing? As part of this plan, we are putting sidewalks on all four sides of our property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you have any problem if we voted to retain the one entry that exists today on that one side, instead of the new plan that you have here, revising this plan by the consent agenda date of January 15th? MR. BREWER: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public speakers, Ray? Page 51 December 18, 2008 MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we can close the public hearing and entertain a motion. If the motion maker would like to consider the idea of leaving that one entrance that exists today on that one road in place, then we need to -- the recommendations should include an elimination of staff point number two and a re-submittal of the master plan for the consent agenda. Does anybody wish to make a motion? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to be clear, what he testified is that each of those access aisles has an entrance out onto the road. So on the northeast -- or northwest part of the property there is actually two road accesses existing, and we're going to say keep those exactly as they are? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BREWER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a rec -- Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'd like to make a recommendation for approval for CU-2008-AR-13639, Naples Meeting House, again for approval, with -- keeping the ingress and egress the same. I believe that's 50th Street Southwest -- is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: As it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staff recommendations then one, three and four; is that -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, one, three and four for the staff recommendation will remain. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Commissioner Wolfley, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Discussion? Page 52 December 18, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much for your time. And with that, we will take a IS-minute break till 10:00, and we'll come back and resume on time Savannah Place. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And can I get the conditional use forms signed, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pass all your conditional use forms, please. (Recess. ) Item #9D PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12026, SAVANNAH PLACE RPUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from break. We have one item left on today's regular agenda. It's Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12026, Stephen J. Lockwood, Trustee for SLJ (sic) Realty II Trust, which is the Savannah Place RPUD on Orange Page 53 December 18, 2008 Blossom Drive. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures on the part of the planning commission. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich shortly about the proj ect on the 15th, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich regarding this matter. He asked me if I had any questions. I had few. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I also had a phone conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Same here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for me, I had conversations with I think Wayne Arnold and/or Heidi, and Mr. Y ovanovich for sure about all the issues and any that I'll be discussing today. In fact, some that I didn't know at the time that have been corrected today. And we did receive a hand-out this morning correcting -- removing one column and moving the standards of that column in to where it should have been in the PUD and into the accessory structures. So with that in mind, the applicant can proceed. MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Heidi Williams. I'm a certified planner with Grady Minor and Associates in Bonita Springs. I'm here today with Rich Y ovanovich and Josh Evans. And Josh is a professional engineering with Grady Minor, and Rich is, as you Page 54 December 18, 2008 know, a land use attorney here with Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich and Custer. We're here on behalf -- as Mr. Strain mentioned, on behalf of SJL Realty II Trust. We're here to request your recommendation of approval ofa rezoning of6.81 acres located on the south side of Orange Blossom Drive, west of Airport Pulling Road. First today I'd like to describe our project and then I'd like to talk a little bit about compatibility. And then I'll turn everything over to Rich to talk about some of staffs concerns. And then we would be happy to take any of your questions. On the visualizer you can see a diagram of the subject property. As I mentioned, it is 6.81 acres. It's located within the urban designation on the Future Land Use Map for Collier County. Currently designated rural agricultural zoning, we're asking to rezone to residential planned unit development for 20 dwelling units. Those dwelling units -- and the master plan is on the board over here -- are -- we're asking for either single-family attached, single-family detached, or townhome units. Those are all listed in the PUD document as principal uses. And then we are also asking for related accessory uses that you would expect to find in a residential subdivision. We have not requested any deviations from the Land Development Code. We started out with a very different product that did have deviations. We have moved away from that product. Weare not asking for any changes to buffering, open space or sidewalk requirements. Weare completely in compliance with the code. The next thing I would like to talk about is compatibility. You may have noticed in the staff report that there was some concerns about what we are asking to build here and how it relates to the surrounding area. The aerial photograph on the board over here indicates the subject property is outlined in yellow. It is currently used -- it's an Page 55 December 18, 2008 agricultural nursery. It's surrounded by development. And I took a look at the section that this property is located in. It's everything within one mile -- I haven't shown it in this aerial, but development in this part of Collier County has occurred from 1997, in the form ofPUD's, through 2005. And there are a variety of housing types and a variety of lot sizes, and they all coexist. And although this section of Collier County is not unique, there are many PUD's in Collier County that have been approved with multiple housing types, multiple housing sizes, and it's expected that they have internal compatibility. I'd like to show you two examples that are actually fairly close to this project on the visualizer. This first photograph is an image of Monterey PUD on the west. The middle component of that is a portion of Emerald Lakes PUD. And the portion on the right is a PUD called Marker Lake Villas. Each of these properties have a different type of unit. We go from single-family to an attached home -- attached housing project to an even smaller attached project. They're in very close proximity to one another, and those were approved and deemed compatible. And as far as I know, they are very desirable residential neighborhoods to live m. That project -- those projects are accessed, a combination from Orange Blossom Drive and also from Vanderbilt Beach Road. This is at the northern end of the same section that our property is in. This second example is also located in the same section as Savannah Place. It is on the west side, a portion of the Sleepy Hollow PUD. That subdivision is actually Mill Run. On the east side is a PUD called Keystone Place. That is developed as the Arbor Walk Condominiums. It was formerly affordable apartments. And on the south what you're seeing is actually an industrial development. All three of these uses are adjacent to one another, and they've been deemed compatible. And incompatibility is dealt with by a Page 56 December 18, 2008 combination of setbacks and buffering and other development standards. So what we're trying to show with these two examples is that the unit type is not necessarily what is the main driving cause of compatibility. Single-family, townhomes and attached, unattached products can all be located in very close proximity and not cause problems between neighbors. Another factor for compatibility is density. Staff points out that the Sleepy Hollow PUD is 1.69 units per acre. And overall it is. There are large areas of preserve in that PUD. Because of the environmental conditions on that property, I don't think you could have gotten a higher -- maybe you could have gotten a higher density and changed the product types, but what I would suggest is that within this section of land, that's the exception, not the rule to the density in the area. We have asked for three units per acre. Keystone Place, which again is Arbor Walk shown in that aerial, was approved at 11.88 units per acre. There are two other PUD's with high densities in this area. Bear Creek is one. They have 14 units per acre. Those are outliers. They are both accessed by Airport Pulling Road. The Buckley mixed use PUD is also a high density, it's 10.99 units per acre. So what we've seen is that those projects located on a main arterial road are given a high density. And as you move away from that, the density increases. Monterey PUD is 4.7 units per acre. Cay Lagoon, which actually abuts our property on the east side, the northeast side, is a multi-family product. It's a PUD that has a 5.45 unit per acre density. So the three units per acre that we're asking for this infill project is actually lower than many of the projects around them. It is allowed by the comprehensive plan and that's why we're asking for that today. Similarly, the lot size was raised as a concern by staff. The same Page 57 .....----'.-.,--_,.____"",__'____._.._'____4......_~.__<._____. December 18,2008 list of PUD's that are contained within this section, I went through and tried to see which ones allowed multi-family, which ones allowed single-family. There's actually only one that does not allow multi-family product within the PUD, and that is the one we're adjacent to, Sleepy Hollow. There are three that only allow multi-family in this section. Those are Bear Creek, Cay Lagoon, which is another of our neighbors, and the Buckley mixed use PUD. All of the others allow both single-family and multi-family product within the same planned development. Obviously along the way we've determined that multi-family and single-family can be collocated and be compatible. One thing I'd like to describe is the staff report has on Page 7 in the setback comparison table, we actually asked for 15 feet from the PUD boundary. It's typed in there as five. And on the west and southern sides of the property, we would be willing to change our request from 15 feet to 25 feet to increase the distance from our neighbors. That is unfortunately not one of the changes we made in the revised PUD pages that were handed out today. The first change that we made to the documents that were handed to you today, we simply changed the title in table one. This used to refer to the clubhouse building. We took that out. This only refers to townhomes. This is the development standards for principal structures only. And we took the development standards from the principal use table and added it to our accessory use table. So table 1.1 has a new column with those same development standards. So that's the -- that brings me to the end of my discussion on compatibility, and I'll turn it over to Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich. Page 58 "'.._.<.~__~~'_"_>m^,__._,,,.'>'._"__"~~_'_'">O'."_~'_"..._...~~_c_,,_~.._, December 18, 2008 What I wanted to address was the staff comments regarding the native preservation requirements. And basically what your staff is saying in their staff report is that we are required to retain 100 percent of the existing native vegetation found on the site. We've been given two reasons for that request: One is in the staff report and one is in e-mails that we received. The first reason is that staff claims that the note on the SDP -- and the SDP was for a nursery, which is an agricultural use within the agricultural zoning district. So it was in a site development plan for the nursery and the building supporting the nursery. So we did a site development plan, which is one method of doing an agricultural use. On that site development plan there's an area that says existing vegetation to remain. The reason that was there is because we were not clearing that portion of the property related to the nursery use and the buildings to support the nursery use. Your staff is saying that those four words, existing vegetation to remain, equals the term preserve. There's no easement on that property to say it's a conservation easement, but they're saying it should be treated as if it's a preserve because we elected not to clear it as part of the nursery operation. I think they're wrong on a couple -- for a couple of reasons -- oh, the second reason we were given is that the nursery really isn't an agricultural use, it's a commercial use. So since it's not an agricultural use, you don't get to take advantage of the provisions in the code that say agricultural uses are exempt from the minimum native vegetation requirements. Well, if you look at section 2.03.01.A.l, A.2, which is the agricultural, the list of permitted uses in the agricultural zoning district, it specifically says that we're allowed to do agricultural activities. Page 59 December 18, 2008 And if you look at the use of agricultural activities in that section, it says nurseries. So nurseries are clearly an agricultural activity. So the argument that a nursery is really not agricultural is inconsistent with the county's own Land Development Code. Second, if you go to Section 3.05.02.C of the Land Development Code, it provides that agricultural uses within the scope of Sections 163.3162, sub-paragraph four, and 823.14, sub-paragraph six of the Florida Statutes, they're exempt from the native vegetation requirements in that section. Now, we all know that those sections are -- they're basically the Right to Farm Act sections. And in the Right to Farm Act sections, it says you have to go to the property appraiser and get an agricultural exemption to qualify under the Right to Farm Act. This property has had an agricultural exemption for many years and it still has an agricultural exemption from a nursery. Now, to get that agricultural exemption, you've got to be a bona fide agricul -- you have to be a bona fide agricultural purpose. So what do the statutes define as a bona fide agricultural purpose? It says the use must be a good faith commercial agricultural use of the land. So the fact that staff may believe this is a commercial use, it has to be a commercial use to qualify for the agricultural exemption. The goal is to try to sell the product that you're producing. You may not make any money doing it, but you're required to be out there doing a business, a commercial business, your product is agricultural. So the argument that we're a commercial operation and not an agricultural operation and therefore we're not entitled to the exemptions also is not consistent with the statutes or the county's Land Development Code. Now, we've -- you know, it's one of those things that you know you've done this many, many times, but I've been involved in many petitions where staff says to us, prove that the land was properly Page 60 -~--,' -+'---"~'.-'-"-~_."""---""'--~"--'-~'~"'-"-'._''~-'~--"---<~'"~""-----~-----"'-'<--'~--'--'-"---'-.".".,_._-"_...._-,.""'~~.-... December 18, 2008 cleared. And if you can prove it was properly cleared, then you keep 15 percent or 25 percent, depending on what it is, of the then existing native vegetation. If you can't prove you have the right permits, sorry, we go back and we look at old aerials and we figure out what the native was there, and you keep 25 percent, 15 percent, depending on what you were, of what was there originally. Sometimes you don't have enough left and you actually replant to come up with what the required number is. And we've all seen these -- you've seen the debate about whether you can prove or not. And staff will even go so far as to say, you know what, we'll work with you to get an after-the-fact agricultural clearing permit if you could show that you've had a bona fide agricultural use. And if you do that, then the clearing is fixed after the fact and you keep 15 percent of the then existing native vegetation. And the most recent example ofthat was the Naples Church of Christ that we just did on Livingston Road. Remember, we had to provide affidavits to staff that this was a horse farm. And I'm blanking on the name, but Commissioner Strain, you actually I think did the barn out there. So that's an example -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: House. And the house. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It looks like a barn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I used to do just barns, but houses work, too, you know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, houses and barns. But anyway, so that was an example where staff said we'll work with you, you've proved it was a bona fide agricultural use for the required period of time, you keep 15 percent of what's there and we move on. I did the Santa Barbara Apartments on Santa Barbara and Radio Road. Same situation. The apartments were built on ago land that had been cleared, we came in and did a PUD after the fact, because there was some land within the project that we wanted to do a different type Page 61 "< -----~-,.__._~---~.._~,..__.._._-~~---._.-_.~~._---_..'-~-'-'-""'-""""'''''-~''''' December 18, 2008 of product. There was native vegetation. We kept 15 percent of the then existing native vegetation. We didn't keep 100 percent of it, we kept the then existing. So I mean, there are many examples of where they use the valid clearing as a mechanism to determine how much you've got to keep on the site. And it's usually been to determine, you know, is what's there today appropriate, and then you do whatever the percentage of what's there today. So this is the first example where staff is saying to us, you've got an agricultural use, although they don't want to acknowledge it's an agricultural use. We've got a site development plan for an agricultural use. It's been in an agricultural use for the required 10 years, because at that time it was at 10 years; it's been recently changed to 25 years. And now they're saying a note on the plat that says since you've retained that vegetation it's now a preserve. And it was a required preserve. I don't know where there was a required preserve for the agricultural use, because the Land Development Code didn't require preserves for agricultural uses, they've always been exempt. Now all of a sudden those words become a required preserve and we've got to keep 100 percent of it. I don't think that's the way the code's been applied in the past. I think this is a new interpretation of the code. We think it's incorrect under the LDC provisions. And we are requesting that we be required to keep 15 percent of the one acre that's there, and that's what the code says, and we will do that. We think that -- again, I don't want to belabor the point, but to my knowledge that's the way it's always been applied, at least in projects that I've been involved in. I've never seen it applied this way. And so we believe that your staff is incorrect, we are consistent with the Land Development Code, as well as the Growth Management Plan. And Heidi's gone through the compatibility issues regarding Page 62 December 18, 2008 what's around us. I will tell you, I was a little surprised when I saw the staff report, because we've done a lot of PUD's, and all those PUD's basically contain single-family through multi-family, and I've never seen staff say you can't put a multi-family parcel next to a single-family parcel in a PUD because it's incompatible. I've never seen them say to us, you need to -- you can't have "X" lot size next to "Y" lot size because it's internally compatibility. I think you look at what's around us. And if projects had to be internally compatible, and you can have those projects next to each other, why would they no longer be externally compatible because you're allowing those products next to each other? And I would point out that in the Land Development Code under the straight zoning standards, if you put RSF -1 next to RSF -6, your only requirement is a Type A buffer. So even the Land Development Code recognizes that you can have these different lot sizes next to each other and the requirement is the buffer between us. And that's how we deal with it internally in PUD's. And I would give you one other example that's not in this section, but from a compatibility standpoint. And it deals with the subdivision that I live in, which is the Pine Ridge subdivision. That is mostly straight zoning. And there's straight zoning RSF -1 for most of the lots. There's straight zoning RSF -- I mean straight zoning agricultural next to the RSF-1. And there's a portion, the northwest portion of Pine Ridge where you have RMF-16 adjacent to RSF-l. Those have all been determined to be compatible with each other. You deal with it through the Land Development Code buffering requirements. I find it hard to accept that single-family next to single-family, albeit on smaller lots, is somehow inconsistent with those types of uses. We think that with the additional 25-foot setback, that there is -- our project is compatible with Sleepy Hollow. Page 63 "~-""_"""'__,___,~"~,_","",_~""""_,,,,,,_'h _....,'__...,._._._..~....,._."__.___ December 18, 2008 And I forgot to tell you, Heidi, this -- well, actually I told you this, but I forgot to ask you to say it on the record. But when I spoke with Mr. Murray on the call, he had a concern about the lot -- I mean the square footage for the nontraditional single-family. I believe we can go down to 750 square feet. The single-family is 1,000 and we said we could make those numbers consistent. So there'd be 1,000 square feet across the board. So I forgot to mention that earlier. But with those changes, we would think that all the compatibility issues have been resolved. And again, I think the native vegetation analysis from your staff is not correct under the Land Development Code, and has not been the application of those provisions historically. And with that, we're available to answer any questions you might have regarding the PUD we're requesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's start with the applicant's questions. Does anybody have -- Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you have any land clearing permits that you could find showing when the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was the site development plan. The site development plan showed what we were doing on the site. It was a site development plan for a nursery. The buildings and everything. It showed the nursery area that was clear. Even portions -- and staff has it with you, you'll see other portions where we cleared it. And alls it says is exactly what your staff report says, native vegetation to remain. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are all nurseries agriculture? Because to me there seems to be two kinds of nurseries: One where stuff is brought in from somewhere else just for selling and another type of nursery where everything is grown I guess maybe in pots on the site. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think your code says that they're both agricultural operations. So I would say yes. From a treatment of whether they're agricultural, yes, I think whether you grow it all Page 64 .~"-~-,~,--",-,~".~",,~,,,,_,___'h___,______~,.,~.V______..__ December 18, 2008 on-site or you bring some of it there and you grow some of it in pots, I think they would qualify as nursery. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So the code makes no distinction. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think it does. I haven't seen it. I don't there we were -- we're not a retail nursery. We're a -- you know, you kind of grow it and use it within your business. So in this particular case I don't think you'd have to worry about, you know, were we open to the general public. We were using it as part of the business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, there's no limit on the length of the townhouses, so conceptually they'd be big units, I'll agree, but you could run a townhouse that would go all the way around the whole road system. Would you have a problem limiting the maximum length of that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Maximum? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We get 20 units. We're only allowed 20 units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I said, they'd be kind of big, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many to a cluster is what he asked MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm asking, what is your -- you said -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, 200 feet is a conventional break on the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. We don't have an issue with saying a townhome building cannot be greater than 200 feet in length. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. I'm done. Page 65 -_..,._-~..~-,~~, .., .. -~_.__. ,_,,~~~____. '_W"_ "" ._. _. '~______R_""",,,,____..~__ ~. ""~-"'_'_-"-""'.._."--_...,._-,--,._.,._,_.._-_.,._,.,_...._-'-_._._...,-~_._-_. December 18, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: In my conversation with you, Mr. Y ovanovich, we talked about the height, the actual height of 45 feet, and whether that was necessary or not. You and I talked about making the zoned and actual height the same. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Of 35 feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that didn't seem -- of 35 feet. That certainly allows you a townhouse product that would be compatible with anything else that's around it, and allows you to be compatible. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'd have to -- yeah, I understand that the definitions are different. And I would hope -- I know we talked about that. I don't have an exact answer. And Mr. Schiffer, I hate to defer to you, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: On that, is it a problem to design -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think alls you would do is force the developer to put flatter roofs on his project. That's the -- remember, the zoned height goes to the midpoint of a roof, actual goes to the peak. If you make those the same, the developer has a choice of either lowering the roof or flattening the roof. So the intent of the actual height was not to cause all the buildings in Collier to have flat roofs. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But would a 35 -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And that is not happening. And so if you want to make the zoned height 25 feet and your actual height 35 feet, fine by me. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What about 35, 40, instead of 35, 45? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it's not going to work for me, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's the thing, though, is what's being punished is the roof. I mean, the developer is not going to Page 66 ".....- --'"'.."~'~._- ".,.,._,.,-.,._-,_.._._,--"--._,--,-.._--~--~---~._~~~,,.---.. '""-'~'---"--"--'-"'--'''''-''-''- .. -"-..._-_._...,-------~. December 18, 2008 change probably his bearing height of his second floor. So aIls you're going to do is lower that roof down. If he's got a wide footprint -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: How about 30 and 40? That's what our neighbors have. They have 30. They don't have an actual number, but they have 30 zoned. So that would be -- COMMISSIONER CARON: What are they actually? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, I -- right now I don't know. But that doesn't have to stay that way. You know, as neighborhoods get older and get more expensive, people are doing additions. So what I'm suggesting is that height would be the same that they could develop on their site. So it would be 30 zoned and 40 actual so we don't mess with the roof. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we're just playing with numbers, we're not playing with geometry. And it is a geometry problem. You would probably have -- if you had a nine-foot ceiling, two foot of structure, you have 11 -- 22 feet is the lowest part of your roof bearing. So alls your doing, like I said, is just laying the roof down. We have some beautiful projects with nicely sloped roofs that I don't think are causing anybody any grief from the roof. And that's all you're dealing with is the slope of the roof here. That's the only thing you're adjusting. You're not adjusting the height of the building -- the floors of the building, just its roof. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the applicant has suggested a compromise during discussion. We need to know where we go with that. So anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So close. Page 67 ,-"-..,...,,-......-.""......-...,,-,---......-....- ._~,.._""."'~.._..- December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And actually, you took care of some of them. The removal of the clubhouse from the principal to the accessory table works. My concern is where are you going to place the clubhouse and recreation centers if they were to go on this property? Where would they not be going? And that's to protect the neighborhood and the surrounding areas. So where are you -- where would you like to limit those? MR. YOV ANOVICH: To the east. It needs to be -- let me walk over. We're talking about in this area, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So any recreational-- any of those accessones -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is multi-family adjacent to it. So we would put it on the east boundary and not adjacent to the west boundary, if that helps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would east of the right-of-way to the roadway. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. Of the road, yes, internal road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And your new table took care of all my other issues that I had. Mr. Murray's 1,000 square feet, you've agreed to that. So I think the only other thing is the argument you've just put forth on the preserve. And I didn't have a concern either way. I don't see anything wrong with your argument, so I'm inclined to agree with your position on that. So I don't have any other questions. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, can we have staff report. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, we're not to public speakers yet. Page 68 _,.....__.<+."._..M_~._..M__.__._,~__.____~_._.~___~.._---..,__,,__ ,..~_.__._~__.____"_.,___".._.__~,,_.~,,_..__ _ ._'M __ _nm__."._.m.____., December 18, 2008 And you weren't sworn in, so when you do speak, you'll have to stand and be sworn in. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Key Deselem, and I'm also a certified planner and I'm with the Department of Zoning with Collier County. You do have the staff report, and the attachment to go with that A and B that are the findings in support of the staff recommendation. I won't bore you with the details that you've already heard once. There's no need to go into that. I'll just pretty much hone in to the issues that we have that are outstanding between the agent and the staff. The main issues that we have, as you know, are the compatibility issue with the unit types and the environmental issue. F or the environmental issue I have Susan Mason here from our environmental staff that will address that particular issue. As far as the other issue, staff will, yes, admit that it is a little bit different from what I understand. There has never been the analysis that was provided in this one as far as looking at the size of the units and the lot size. But staff did do some research, and we looked into the issue based on the input that we received from the neighborhood information meeting. If you look in the staff report, you can see there were 25 people at the second meeting that we had, and they were truly concerned, seemingly, about what was being proposed. And not knowing exactly what was being proposed I think perplexed them as much as anything. And they did seem to have concerns about the proximity of the uses that were proposed for the proj ect. More or less that than the fact that it was single-family homes. They did have concerns about the multi-family aspect. Staff didn't really hone in on that. Staffs concerns with compatibility were the lot sizes. And we did do an analysis, as you see in the staff report, with Page 69 ,.----_._, .__...~.,---~--'^_._~_.._._----_.,"..~ December 18, 2008 Sleepy Hollow, which is the most impacted of the projects as far as the proposed lot sizes in this project and what is there. And staff pulled up several sources that talked about compatibility. And compatibility is -- also involves design of the project. And design of the project, it's not just the use. And this is a standard that's accepted in planning texts throughout the United States. And this is one source where it talks about the compatibility. And it talks about the bulk of structures. It's not just the use itself. There are other things that deal with compatibility. And oftentimes you'll see in a staff report with the recommendation, it will talk about the orientation of building, location of buildings, the mass of the structure. And this is another aspect of compatibility that staff tried to look at to resolve concerns raised by the neighbors. Before you now is an excerpt from the Land Development Code. The petitioner's agent mentioned that there are things within the RS-l and RS whatever and RMF whatever, whatever the different categories are of the zoning code that deal with buffering. But this is taken directly from the design standards for planned developments. And it notes in here that you can look at things differently in a PUD than you would in standard zoning. And that's what staff has done. I offer this as an excerpt from another planning book that's accepted, and it's provided by the American Planning Association. And it talks about floor area ratio as a way to evaluate projects when you have single-family homes or residential uses that will be abutting residential uses. This particular issue came up in the context of teardowns, where you have an older neighborhood that's being changed, you have older homes that are small and now everybody's going to come in like they did several years ago and build the mega-houses, and it's like how do you deal with that issue. Page 70 .'.__'" '_'-.n,___'O<M__"___~_<_,.~.L""~, '___~'________~~___'_'_'_"__~____ ,. _..______._,,_.,,_,~,_"_.__..__."'._.._~...._,_._.._. __._".__......_.,..__~_ December 18,2008 And we have somewhat of a similar situation here where we have an infill tract. It's ago It's surrounded by, as noted by the petitioner's agent, developed properties. Most of them have developed with residential uses. And the residential uses do vary. So how do you address that? And this particular text indicates that one way you can look at that is through the floor area ratio. And when you have an equitable floor area ratio, hopefully you have a more compatible design of a project. Staff did an analysis with the Savannah Place, what's proposed by the petitioner and what staff is recommending in comparison to the Sleepy Hollow. And this Sleepy Hollow looked at what was approved in that zoning, not just what was actually built. Because as noted in the staff report, the structures that were built and the lot sizes that were developed are significantly larger even than what's proposed here. But as you can see, the floor area ratio of the proposed Savannah Place units is quite higher than what was approved for Sleepy Hollow. And if you look at staffs recommendation for the two projects, we are proposing something that's more in line as far as floor area ratio with what's approved in Sleepy Hollow, staff believing that is a more appropriate way to address compatibility in this project. I would note that in the applicant's presentation they provided various aerial photographs and mentioned several projects. But I think something that was left out of that analysis you need to consider, too, they didn't mention the size of the buffers or the setbacks that might be part of those PUD's. They didn't mention the location of the structures or how they're implemented. There's driveways in some, there's internal roadways in others that we're actually showing to separate the uses. And interestingly, you don't know the size of those projects. Those could have all been approved as part of a larger project. This is a very small project. Like I said, it's almost an infill, trying to fit it into Page 71 ..-~.__.,.._.,_._"..,...._~.~-_...,--_.._---,--,-,-,_.-'"--~='--""-__._-~~._----",..~_...,.._.,.,...,..._,,---------"--~~,."...., -. .... ---,-------...-.-.--- December 18, 2008 a neighborhood, which can sometimes be problematic. And that's what we're trying to address here as staff. And you just don't really understand unless you look at all those and have all that information in front of you. All you're looking at is an aerial photograph. One other thing that you can't tell from that is who was there first. Which project came in first. We have a project here that's coming in after the fact next door to a larger lot subdivision. And those projects that were shown to you, we don't know who came in first. Was the multi-family project there first and then the large lot single-family, or the large lot single-family or small lot single-family came in prior to the multi-family? And I think that's a lot of the dynamics that we have here that we're trying to be concerned about and address the compatibility issue with that. And although the petitioner's agent did mention that he's never seen an analysis like this before, that's understandable. Like I said when I started, I don't know that we've used this particular type of an analysis in Collier County. However, historically that's nice to know, but it's important to understand that each project is evaluated on its own merit and not necessarily on something else that might have or might not have been done in the past. And I think staff has tried to show you what we've looked at and how we've evaluated it. And I think it's a fair comparison to cite what we have cited and to recommend what we have recommended. And with that, I don't have anything else. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, based on, you know the studies, these were all based on the minimum that was required in the PUD. Page 72 <- -.~-,~.,.,~.,-"~,~--..,., "'-"-"--""'-'-'~'"----'~-._-,---,~- ~-'--'-'_~__'__"___"'__'_"'___N",'_'_"'_ . ....._.__,.._._,.___._.._......._,,"-..___ December 18, 2008 MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So anything above that minimum would cause the FAR to increase. So, for example, the Sleepy Hollow could have 2,400 square foot units in there, which would be an FAR of 22 -- .22, right? MS. DESELEM: Yes, but also those lot sizes were considerably larger as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, you know, I'm just playing with the math. In other words if, you know, you took a larger lot size into what their minimum unit was. But in fact we don't know what they really built, do we? MS. DESELEM: I just did -- and that's what I said, I just did a comparison based on the PUD itself, what was approved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So their units -- MS. DESELEM: Which is what we're dealing with now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So their units could be .3, could be.4 FAR. MS. DESELEM: Yes, the minimums are what we are approving. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Kay, west of, well, let's say 1-75, everything we have is infill. So I don't think infill is bad. The only issue with infill is that -- there's a couple of things. I guess you're -- you're FAR is part of it. Another thing is the sale price of the end product. A lot of times when you have a neighborhood or an area that's 10, 20, 30 years old with a certain design to it, very difficult to put a new project in there that is not going to skew off the property values. So I think that the property values have a little bit of weight here as well. I don't think it would match to give your FAR -- I don't think is a fair assessment as an only -- as the only way to do this. Page 73 December 18, 2008 So I think the property value probably has something to do with it. So I'm not necessarily in total agreement with what you say. Next I want to get into the vegetation, the native vegetation. MS. DESELEM: If! may, Susan Mason is going to address that Issue. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which one? MS. DESELEM: The issue about the native vegetation. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. MS. DESELEM: And she'll make a presentation to you and then can respond. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Great. At your neighborhood information -- you had two meetings. The first meeting, do you remember how many people were there? MS. DESELEM: I'd have to go back and look at the staff report, I don't recall. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ninety? Nine-zero? MS. DESELEM: I know there was a significant amount, because they flowed over outside of the room. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, okay. And that's when they were going after 75 units in that location? MS. DESELEM: Yes, they were proposing an affordable housing component at much higher density. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And that didn't go over very well. MS. DESELEM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Now they're proposing 20 units. Okay, I just -- and do you know how many people were at the second meeting? MS. DESELEM: I believe there was 25. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Twenty-five. And that's what I was getting at, is I was wondering what was solved at the first one? Was it the number of density? Was that why Page 74 December 18, 2008 there were so many fewer people? Because that sounds like the majority of the neighborhood, the surrounding areas were concerned about 75 affordable housing units. Whereas now it's 20 single-family units. So I just -- again, I don't understand that part about why the square footage of the lots. I had another one, but I'm going to have to wait until I find it. I'll wait for the native vegetation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You know, it's interesting your comparisons here, especially when your staff recommendation comes down to continuing with 750 square feet. I'm just surprised that -- I guess that's the result of their arithmetic, right? MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I don't follow your question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, in other words, you're advocating 750 square feet. MS. DESELEM: No, I only analyzed what was proposed -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I mean -- MS. DESELEM: -- they didn't offer anything different, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I mean then when I say it was arithmetic. MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because you did a calculation -- MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- absent any other criteria associated with it. And as you may have heard, I'm not happy with a 750 square feet place for a person -- a family to grow up in. You would agree, though, that 1,000 square feet would be better than 750 square feet for a living accommodation, wouldn't you? It would be illogical not to, I think. MS. DESELEM: I think that's a matter of choice for each person. I mean, in some cultures 750 square feet would be a huge Page 75 ._~.~-____"._~ _.".._.'"____....n_..".~..~,_..._~_,.._.._.. ""'_"'_""_"___"""'___'_'_'_"__' December 18, 2008 home. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: This is Naples. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is -- MS. DESELEM: In my personal estimation, yeah, I would much rather have 1,000 square foot. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. What I'm trying -- maybe I didn't say it as well as I should have. What I'm saying is relative to this location to the adjacent places, 1,000 square feet is a bigger home in general; physical structure has to be bigger. And that means you'll have fewer. And that's one of the factors that I thought was applicable here. I'm not trying to put you on the spot in any way, but I'm just surprised that you were -- your calculation just brought it down to 750 square feet and that would have been acceptable. All of the other posture that you have related here is based on all kinds of criteria from all other locations, and that's a simple arithmetic calculation. I think it doesn't serve you as well. That's all I'm really relating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I don't particularly think that the staff doing this kind of analysis and selectively doing it for this project is a good precedent to set. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : We are not as a county organization supposed to be dictating marketing. I don't believe this is a really fair way to evaluate solely compatibility. For example, you're going to eliminate affordable housing throughout Collier County if you wanted to use this analysis and every neighborhood wanted to throughout the county. The previous 75 units, could this property have taken or been allowed to have 75 units of affordable housing? MS. DESELEM: We did not evaluate that. It never got to that stage. Page 76 _"_~_'_""""""'+_"__"~~""C~"_'~"_'____, ...."_.~-".~-~~-~_.._~,,_..,....-...~~--,,--~_..,.,,.._, December 18, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would they qualify for 75 units of housing under the density bonuses and things they could have applied for? MS. DESELEM: It appeared to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, under your analysis, they would have lost that ability, because you couldn't have got more than 50 units on here, based on the square footage you want. And that's if you had no road and no water management and no preserve area. So I don't think your analysis is the way to utilize compatibility in Collier County. We have plenty of examples where that wasn't done before. And I still think this is an avenue we don't want to go in. So that's just a statement, Kay. I disagree wholeheartedly with the way this one was approached. But other than that, I don't have any other questions other than getting into the -- if there wants to be a presentation on the preserve area, that's fine, we can go forward with that, if there's no other questions of staff. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment on Page 3 of 10. And I don't know who wrote the Growth Management Plan consistency, but under Policy 7.2 it says, the county shall encourage internal access or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. And in response to that it says, the RPUD conceptual master plan depicts an internal cul-de-sac road with the project. All individual lots or tracts within the project will obtain access from that internal road. And I just think that that -- whoever wrote that is not reading the policy correctly. Encouraging internal accesses or loop roads is one thing. Having a road to get to your home is a totally different thing. Page 77 ... ...~,."'...~._.,...._..'"'.._._"--~.__..__.,-,-~~~--,..-,,-~----,_........- -"'""~-'''''~--'~''-''''-'-"' -.....------>-~----..... ..,-.,..--.-.--'_._....,_____.._~_,..~____.M December 18,2008 This doesn't get traffic off highways, it doesn't prevent you from going out to the major arterials or collectors in order to get to shopping or whatever. When we talk about creating loop roads and interconnects, it's to prevent people from coming out onto the road. And I just think whoever wrote this is totally misinterpreting the code. And we need to think about those kind of things before we write -- this project obviously has to have a road to get to the houses that are on it. But it has nothing to do with preventing a traffic signal, creating a loop road or an interconnect or anything else. It's just the road to get to the project, which they must have. And by the way, since I'm on that road, what's the length of that cul-de-sac? Are we over the 1,000 feet deal? I have no idea. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MS. DESELEM: I don't know right off the top of my head. I could scale it out. Perhaps -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I forgot to ask. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We didn't ask for a deviation, so it better not be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff before we go into the preserve issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Just one question relative to the statement. I just want to know, was it you that wrote the -- on Page 4 of 10, was it you that wrote the statement, in accordance with CCME and the whole -- I know that, I know that. Was it you that wrote that? MS. DESELEM: Wait a minute, what statement on Page 4 of 10? Page 78 "_'__.n. '. _""_'~"_""_~_"_'.__'<__'_'~.._'"__~""~_''"'~''____~___~__._~..,~.__......_...,'_., December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 4 of 10 on the bottom, where it begins in accordance with CCME. Is that your -- MS. DESELEM: This is a staff report. It's a compilation-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: A compilation. MS. DESELEM: -- but yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the information -- MS. DESELEM: My name is on it so I take full responsibility for everything that's in there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay. I'm just trying to ascertain if it was your wording or not. So it's a compilation, so we'll figure out when we hear from Susan. MS. DESELEM: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Mason? MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason with Engineering and Environmental Services Department. To explain how staff applied the preservation requirements to this site, we need to kind of go back a little bit to the original SDP that was approved in 1997. That was for a commercial SDP. The applicant at that time had requested clearing and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Mason, in order not to forget things that are relevant, because this is an important issue, as you go forward, if you can clarify something. You just said it was a commercial SDP. What evidence of that can you provide? MS. MASON: The way it was reviewed. The 1.04 acres is 15 percent of the vegetation that was on that site at the time of development. And that was what was reviewed, approved and built. Back in that time period, the Growth Management Plan and LDC did not require that what was required preserve had to be labeled literally preserve. That came about in -- it was either 2003 or 2004, really to clarify when was something an applicant had simply left uncleared versus something that was a required preserve. Page 79 December 18, 2008 And prior to that, people could really label it anything they wanted, from -- sometimes they were really clear with conservation area preserve, other times it was things that were a bit more arbitrary or less clear; recreation areas, open space, all different kinds of things, but it was their required preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know the date of that SDP? MS. MASON: 1997. So this was approved prior to it being-- having specific language that they had to use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you the reviewer of that SDP? MS. MASON: No, I was not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you speak to the reviewer of that SDP? MS. MASON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So comments about your assumption of it being reviewed by -- under a commercial basis is based on your belief? MS. MASON: Well, no, it would be because the clearing plan was approved as part of that SDP. If somebody is requesting agricultural clearing, there's a separate either agricultural clearing permit or ago notification that they provide. And then it's specifically stated that there's no preservation requirement. So that would be the way, in our opinion, that this was applied. And so we came up with the original preserve and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's why -- you have lengthy responses here today. Let me -- Mr. Wolfley, go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is there any way, either can we get the camera to zoom in on that yellow -- the surrounding -- the picture of the actual aerial. Let me use the word aerial as it is called. Either get the camera there or get a -- something. I want to show something there. Because I think you wanted to add a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put it under the ELMO, if you could. That might get it there. Page 80 December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think, you know, you're adding words to whether it's a preserve -- that's fine, that's great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kady's listening to every word we say. Thank you, Kady. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. I think there was a word that you may have left out when you were describing preserves and existing things. I think you left out a word out called a buffer. If you look at this, I think that that site was using that foliage. Whether you call it Florida native or not, I don't think it is. I think it's a buffer to buffer the homes from their operation. And that's what it was there for. And I would like to see someone deny that. Because if you go back in that foliage, I would like you to tell me what native vegetation is in there. MS. MASON: Staff did go out. It's got native vegetation. It's pine flatwoods that's out there. And there's -- actually on here, this is the site plan that was approved in 1997. And you can see along the edge here -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ray might need to get up there and switch it. She's looking for it, but Ray, could you give us the overhead, please. MS. MASON: That area there that's largely in the hatching actually is labeled landscape buffer easement. So that was the required buffer that was on there. And it is very common for people, whenever possible, to have a preserve and a landscape buffer easement overlap. For a lot of reasons. For buffering the neighborhood properties, in addition to fulfilling the requirements, they're able to -- it may sound negative, but like double dip, really. And that's in a good way that there've preserving and -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But this double dip is in not a good way because you're using the word preserve and it's a buffer. It was there for a buffer and you're using it as a preserve and making Page 81 December 18, 2008 these people keep it a preserve when it was a buffer. MS. MASON: If! could just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let her finish her presentation before we come to a conclusion. I think -- though I wanted to make sure your presentation, you need to be as precise and as clear as you can as your sources of why your assumptions are being made so that we understand it. That's what I was trying to get across -- MS. MASON: Okay, and I'll do the best I can to try to answer it during my presentation. If you still have questions, I'd be happy to answer them afterwards. But we would have required -- or the applicant would have submitted an ago clearing permit application or an ago clearing notification if they wanted to. And the way we -- I kind of looked at this one was sort of a retroactive trying to apply well, we could have requested ago clearing and we didn't at that time but we'd like to now. And basically that's how we applied it. They had preserved 15 percent at the time in 1997, and to take 15 percent of the required preserve at that time did not fill the requirement that they have a mmlmum. So -- and we did run this by the planning department, including the Director, Susan Istenes, and Joe Schmitt did agree with our application at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Susan. What I was trying to make sure is that we had a -- some statements made about various conditions in the past. I was looking for a factual rebuttal to those. And I mean, that's what I was trying to keep you on track with. MR. KLATZKOW: I need to clear the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. KLATZKOW: Susan, when this site development plan was approved way back when, was there either a GMP requirement or a Page 82 ~ ___.._.__..._, _. .__.._...~.u.._...__..~._~~'~_.._..~,~______.__.____;______~.___,_,.,_, _~__ December 18, 2008 code requirement that required a 15 percent preserve area be set aside? MS. MASON: Yes, there was, 15 percent minimum. And that is for commercial properties. MR. KLATZKOW: Deed is not commercial-- MS. MASON: Yes, it was stated on there by use, 25 -- it's exactly the same as it is today, 25 percent for mixed use -- MR. KLATZKOW: So what you're saying is that it's your view that this site development plan was a commercial use? MS. MASON: Right, and that-- MR. KLATZKOW: Because it's a commercial use, they were required to have 15 percent. MS. MASON: Yes, that was how-- MR. KLA TZKOW: If it was not a commercial use, if it was an agricultural use, would they be required to have the 15 percent preserve area? MS. MASON: No, they would not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are nurseries in agricultural use? MS. MASON: Yes, I believe so. We always kind of coordinate with the attorneys on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've been out to the nursery. MS. MASON: -- the telephone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They won't sell retail. This is a wholesale nursery. Is this the typical kind of nursery that is allowed in an agricultural use? MS. MASON: There's all different kinds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The state -- well, let me just back up, since I apparently am a purveyor of noxious and other types of plants in the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exotic weeds. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exotic weeds. Thank you, Page 83 ,. '.--<---..---.-,.- December 18, 2008 Chair. Which is not so. But in any event, nurseries are looked on a little bit differently, especially in the agricultural ends of things. Ag. does not want to label nurseries as ag., because of the property appraiser exemption. Does this property have an ago exemption with the property appraiser currently? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, it does. It currently does. It's had it continuously for -- since '97. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: As a nursery. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. All right. Well, I mean, more recently there has been some issues with that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. But as of today, there is an ago exempt for the nursery. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right, okay. I just wanted that acknowledgement made. That's all I needed to know right at this second. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go to Mr. Murray, just so that everybody listening knows that our jokes with Mr. Wolfley about his exotic plants, is he has gone into an endeavor to promote biofuels through a plant called the Jatropha plant. It's actually a very useful plant. But recently someone at the state decided it may not be a -- it may be an exotic species, so we have to -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's only been here for 250 years. That's my issue with native vegetation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the occasional comment's about. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Either Susan or Mr. Y ovanovich, I have a -- the issue of the exemption. I thought Susan indicated that she didn't observe that or was not made aware of it. You submitted all your documentation. Did that include the exemption? Page 84 December 18, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: The ago exemption? I mean, we've -- that's never been an issue from staffs perspective, as far as I know, that there's an ago exemption on this property. I think what staff is trying to say -- and frankly, they never provided me a document that said there was a calculation that says this is a commercial project, it's required to retain 15 percent. This is -- if you look at what it says on the document she's saying, it says it's a nursery on ago zoned land and it has to be commercial to qualify as the exemption. So I think she's correct that it's a commercial nursery which is an agricultural use and it's exempt. I think she's told you agricultural uses are exempt. I think she's confusing some terms. And it's okay, I mean, it's happened before. But I think they're just confusing some terms. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I guess what I'm trying to get at is I'm looking at an SDP that showed a boundary that was intended -- this was an approved SDP. And what I'm seeing in my interpretation of what Susan's indicating is that because the people who owned and operated those premises decided to leave a lot of trees where they were obliged to keep them, that is now designated as a preserve. And I see in the staff report on that Page 4 of 10 where the use of the word was to remain on-site as preservation area. And I know Susan indicated before that in prior years people had options as to the use of the words. Well, we try very hard here to be definitive. And I would -- I had marked that up in my record quite early when I read this, and I thought that was an evasive term. To me it's either a preserve or it is not. And your SDP, unless you can tell me -- prove to me otherwise, the SDP clearly shows to me that it was never intended to be a preserve. So help me, if you can. MS. MASON: Okay. Just as far as the history goes on developments from this era, they were labeled all different ways, and there was no way staff could require specific more clear language until Page 85 ---~_._~-~-,-,--..-_----,.,~-_..,--"...._.,._,........".._~.,~ December 18, 2008 the LDC required it. But I did want to clarify too what Mr. Y ovanovich was saying. We did not evaluate the preserve requirement on this site based on any kind of ago exemption. It was strictly based on the SDP and what was approved as part of that SDP. We did not argue whether or not it was a legitimate agricultural -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's what I thought you had said earlier on. Now here's my question to you: So you have various approaches being taken. You have no definitive term that had been established. So what you've decided is therefore it must be a preserve because there's trees on it or there's plants on it. Not because you could have -- I mean, in my mind you could have just as easily have said, gee, looking at that SDP it looks to me like they're entitled to -- you know, the people are entitled to the buffer and we're not going to require that much to be used. Because you're basically closing down the use of the land on an assumption. And that assumption could easily have gone the other way, but you're an advocate for preservation. I'm an advocate for preservation, but I'm also an advocate for equality. MS. MASON: Staff was just trying to apply the code as we thought was reasonable. And then when we did get comments back from the applicant that disagreed with the application, we did try to explain our position to, you know, people higher up from us. And it was a consensus that we were applying the code correctly. And I think this is really a policy decision on how you want to make these things. Just so you know, there are enumerable older projects that are labeled similar to this. And the intent -- and I could go back and, you know, maybe by the time this comes to consent agenda, I can have information or get it to you sooner, in the original comment letters back from the reviewer that would say this is a required preserve and then it was provided. I did not do that extensive of a research. Page 86 December 18, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It won't do any good by consent, just so you know. We can't change our vote at consent. MS. MASON: Maybe for the Board of County Commissioners to understand more. But I did not look into that kind of information. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, but not having all of the information would mean that you didn't go to the full extent to qualify it either, in my opinion. Not that I'm taking it personally, because I think you're a nice lady, I'm not trying to do anything to you. But I address these matters in a blunt fashion because I think they should be devoid of emotion. The fact is that a decision was made, and in this case, I think perhaps you did not have enough -- it seemed that the tipping point was a very simple tipping point. And that's your prerogative, but frankly, I can't agree with that. MS. MASON: Okay. It just -- part of it too was the fact that the math worked out to be exactly 15 percent. It seemed an odd coincidence. So there was an assumption that we worked under. And we don't investigate everything to the greatest extent possible, due to time limitations, but in the future we'll make sure we have more -- if the comment letters, the original approvals are available, we'll make sure that we have that for you all to include in your evaluation. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That would be good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, could you zoom in on the table that's on that drawing. See if we can -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's small. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because we tend to show what's required and what's provided on these tables. So do we -- where is that line item on there? Can you find it? MS. MASON: The table does not contain any information about clearing at all on any of the sheets. Page 87 ........_."___"'b_.____..,_.. .. .___."___,._~._"'_.~..,, December 18, 2008 I think there was only five or six sheets on this SDP, and it was silent to anything like that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It does show a buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because normally this table -- and we've done it long, you know, way back -- would normally show what is required, like it is up above, and what is provided. So if there was a requirement for landscape, it certainly would have been part of this table. MS. MASON: The landscape is included up there. MR. KLATZKOW: If there's a requirement-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or the buffer. MR. KLATZKOW: -- for a preserve, would it have been on this chart? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I believe so. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's the question. MS. MASON: Often the preserve is on there. More often than not. I'd say on rare exceptions we've not found it, but more often than not it's on there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hence the problem here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Susan, had you known when you made your evaluation that they had an ago clearing permit, would that have made a difference in your evaluation? MS. MASON: Yes. If they had an agricultural clearing permit, that would have negated the requirement for a preserve. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I guess Kay or Susan then, if someone's going to come in with an SDP, the SDP can be utilized for the clearing as well. It would save them the process of submitting two separate plans, especially if they know on the SDP more accurately where they're going to put their facilities. So, I mean, not all cases Page 88 .-------.,,-.-.--~"-~~.-.----.--__.'"'__,_,,_,._...___._~___",..__~.'.~,_..__. _"'_'_"_W_"""~'_.~___<___.__."" December 18, 2008 benefit from separately submitting clearing plans versus doing it with the SDP. MS. MASON: The benefit of an agriculture clearing permit and the reason it's a separate one and required is because there is specific language on there that the applicant acknowledges different things about recreation of preserve if they don't keep it in an agricultural use for the 10 or -- at that point or 25 years now. So there are requirements that the applicant needs to acknowledge. If I'm clearing under ago use, I have to follow one set of rules versus a generic vegetation removal permit. So that's why it's required to be separate. And it's important that they understand -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you can -- MS. MASON: -- the difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- combine the process of clearing in the SDP. MS. MASON: I suppose we could, but we have not at this point. We do a vegetation removal permit as part of SDP's because that's the standard thing. When it's an agricultural clearing permit it's always been issued separate precisely for those reasons for the applicant's knowledge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Before we go into public speakers, there's a couple of things I'd like to make sure we understand so it might help the public speakers know where we're at here today. But first of all, Richard, does your client have any problem that if they do a product, whatever product they pick, they do just that product, they don't intermix products? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we -- this is so small, I don't think you'd want to have multiple product types. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be all or one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we'll pick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now you have a three-product Page 89 "~""'___M_.__...~_._._._.>___~~__..,._.,...._..___,_______....~__.,_".~,_.__~~ _~~.....__,~~_,__._~_~_..... .._._"._....__~.~_.,.___._..__.._..._...._._ w_, ._, '_'__'_,~. December 18, 2008 selection: Single-family detached, single-family attached and townhouses. The argument that townhouses are multi-family is only subject to the way you sell them. You can have a townhouse four units in a row, it looks like a multi-family building, but because you sell them fee simple with a common wall, all of a sudden it's a townhouse and not multi-family. And that's a little disingenuous in the way it's presented. Would you be able to live with just the single-family product and not going with the townhouse product? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I would -- I understand what you're saying, but let me -- on the multi-family, it's typically looked at unit over unit. And townhomes is basically, you know, you have one unit that can be one or two levels, versus a unit over unit. That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the way it appears to someone driving by -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're going to have a box that's a box, period. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm trying to get to some resolution so maybe that all the issues can go away. The townhouse one to me is one that may be problematic in regards to its appearance to the neighborhood. And if you were to eliminate that and stick with just single-family, whether attached or detached, you've got a more -- more product that is more in line with what else is out there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have the authority at this point to remove that use. But that doesn't stop you from recommending, if that's an issue that, you know, to condition the approval on the removal of that, to which I'll then discuss it with my client to see if we want to object to the removal of that or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me go through the notes I made, so if anybody's speaking, they know where we're already Page 90 _ _.'_~'.____"__'H'"'__"_'."______'___'_~__,,,,;,,~_"^_______......-...=_~_~~.,._~.~.,'_~_.~_____'"'__~_ December 18, 2008 probably at. Go ahead, Ms. Caron, you had something first? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I just wanted to note that I had already asked you to discuss that with your client based on our phone conversation, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I did. Ms. Caron, I did. I just didn't get a -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Response, okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't get a definitive answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We talked about the environmental, so there might be a request to stay with -- to work with your environmental calculation over the others. We've talked about limiting the detached square footage setbacks -- or the single-family setbacks or all product setbacks along Sleepy Hollow to a 25-foot rear setback, which would be your west and south property lines where they abut that project. If there is a townhouse building, it would be limited to not greater than 200 feet in length in anyone section. You submitted a new table to clarify the standards that were mixed up on the other two tables. We talked about a zoned height of 30 feet and an actual height of 40 feet. We talked about limiting the clubhouse and recreation to the east of the proposed entry roadway right-of-way. I think it's going to be a driveway, so right-of-way might not be the right term. There's a -- floor area will be 1,000 square feet for any of the buildings or structures. That would be the minimum floor area per unit. And that's most of the issues that we've talked about here. Yes, Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Was there one more about the height? Page 91 December 18, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I already -- I made that statement. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right, sorry, I was -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I may have missed it, but there was also the location of the common area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said that too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You did, okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: East. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: East of the roadway. But anyway, just so when the public speaks, those are what we're (sic) been discussing. Some of those may sit well or sit not well with you. And we certainly would like your input on that. So with that, Ray, we'll ask for the public speakers. MR. BELLOWS: Ann Cox. To be followed by John Garbo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to use the speaker, and both of you will have to be sworn in. I noticed neither one of you stood during the presentation. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ms. Cox, if you'd like to go-- either one of the speakers would be fine. MS. COX: Well, I'll go here, because I want to point to this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to start by just saying your name for the record and then we'll move forward. MS. COX: Yes, I'm Ann Cox. And I purchased all of this property 30 years ago. I own the little cutout up in this -- in that area right there now. I sold the rest of it 10 years ago to Joann Smallwood. And I attended all of these hearings you've been discussing originally for the rezoning when she purchased the property. And it is my recollection that that was supposed to be both a preserve and a buffer. But that's subject to your further examination. I would like to point out that all sides of this property have single-family homes on them now. And therefore, I think the single detached would be more appropriate for the area. There's only one Page 92 December 18, 2008 side that has something that is larger density. They have mentioned a buffer to the south and the west of 25 feet. I would like to request that that buffer also be on the other side of the property, which is contiguous with my property. I think they've only requested 15 feet or something like that. Also, I had an area of concern which was the flooding problem in that whole area. I have however discussed this with them, and they assure me that their plan for removal of excess water during the rainy season would connect them with the sewer system on Orange Blossom Drive. And if that is implemented then I don't think there would be a problem. Over the period of 30 years there have been at least three occasions when we've had 12-inch rains and the whole thing has flooded. So I want to make sure that they do handle this flooding problem by connecting with the Orange Blossom sewer system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, first of all, the drainage doesn't go into the sewer system, but there is swales and drainage systems that do function for Orange Blossom. I'm sure for the record that's what you probably mean. MS. COX: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they would have to have a positive outfall, and we can get them to testify to that point after you finish. MS. COX: Okay. Then also right now there's an existing hedge which I myself and my husband planted many years ago between my property and the existing clubhouse. And I would like to have -- if they remove this hedge for whatever buildings are put in there or roads or buffers, I would like to have a comparable hedge between my property and whatever they construct there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said an existing clubhouse. You mean the building that's there that used to operate the nursery? MS. COX: Yeah, I meant the office building, I guess you'd call it. Page 93 December 18,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Do you know what that buffer is? Do you know what the size of that buffer is? MS. COX: Right now? COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, what did you put in? Was it a lO-foot wide buffer, a 15,25 feet? MS. COX: There's a ligustrum hedge that's at least eight to 10 feet tall. I'd say eight. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not talking about the height, but I'm talking -- MS. COX: I don't know the exact number of feet, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, could you put the site plan on so we can talk to this lady with the site plan in view. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Could I ask a quick little question while we're doing that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want to know, ma'am, you live there, correct? MS. COX: I live there. I have a house on that -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just wondered if is this was your rooftop there that I'm seeing. MS. COX: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On this plan -- MS. COX: And when we built that, there was nothing anywhere around us but woods. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I bet you're going to keep that MS. COX: We had to put the road in to our place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, on the plan that's on the overhead right now, that roadway they have coming in, or driveway they have coming into the property, between that driveway along that Page 94 '-~._'--'--"'.'~'--""--'----"--"-'-~"'-,---,"",,,<-'~-""~-""'----'--"~>>"'-'-'-'''-~-"';'~-'~'.-..-> December 18, 2008 one area and your home, it looks like they already have a 15- foot hedge, and that's where your ligustrum hedge is. MS. COX: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the distance between the edge of the utility easement on the outside of the roadway and your property line they can't use for anything, so we will talk to them about expanding the buffer there. On the south side, which is where that lake is, you're suggesting that you want a buffer so you don't see the lake? MS. COX: Right now there is a 25-foot buffer surrounding their lake, between that lake and my property. They say they are going to extend that all the way out to the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, right now their proposal is a 25-foot separation to the Sleepy Hollow project, and you're looking at a 25- foot buffer around the south side of your property and on the east side of your property between the road and them. MS. COX: Right along here there's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. COX: -- now a great big berm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to understand what to talk to them about. Appreciate it. MS. COX: It's a large berm actually lipping the lake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. We'll certainly bring the questions up to the applicant when we get back to them. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is John Garbo. MR. GARBO: Like Greta. She's my aunt. You didn't know that? Oh, yeah. Trust me, if Greta Garbo was my aunt, I would not be standing in front you. I'd be on the south of France. My name is John Garbo. I'm the present of the Orange Blossom/Pine Ridge Community alliance. This is an organization that was formed a little over a year ago and is made up of every single Page 95 December 18, 2008 HOA that runs along Orange Blossom Drive. First I'm going to kind of respond to some of the queries I heard. Mr. Wolfley, you had asked about the residents the first time around. I think the count was pretty accurate. There was probably 90 to 100 people. The biggest issue was the density with affordable housing credits. Our organization made contact with developer and members of the commission, and the petitioner reduced it to the 20 units. Our organization is pleased with the 20 units. We feel that is compatible with the neighborhood. The issues of size and everything else, I think that's more of a marketing thing. I kind of noted Sleepy Hollow, which I also live in, their requirement when that project was built was 1,800 square feet minimum. I believe they have increased it either 22 or 2,400, just as an FYI. The issue that really our organization would like to see and we've been talking about it a lot here is a landscape buffer. And primarily the homes that run along the south and the west, which is Mill Run or Sleepy Hollow and Mrs. Cox, there is a lot of vegetation there now. Some of it will probably have to be removed to put in the right drainage and et cetera. Those residents and our organization would like to see that there is a nice landscape buffer that goes back in there, regardless of what happens with what is called the preserve and the debate on that. So that's one issue. The other one which was also brought up, whether it's single-family or townhouse or multi-family, that was another big issue with the first proposal and is still today. I can tell you, the majority of the folks that live along that side area would really prefer to see single-family. The biggest issue is if there's a two-story product and if it's a multi-family product, you basically are going to have people on the second floor looking down Page 96 December 18, 2008 into your residence. It was noted that Monterey has Emerald Lakes on its side. I happen to have friends right there. And when they built Monterey, those two-story multi-family units weren't there. And now they are. And what happens is the people on the second floor look straight into the eyes of the people sitting around their pool. So I think the multi-family component would probably be the least desirable. Single-family would be the most desirable. The townhome product, let's assume that it's a two-story product. Chances are on the second floor there's going to be a master bedroom, generally. Probably wouldn't have that same effect as that multi- family. So that's kind of in the middle of the issue. And the overall height was some of the other issues that I know the folks that came to those meetings and have since expressed them to our organization was the height. And I think that's probably an issue which seems like it's going along okay. Cay Lagoon. I know the folks at Cay Lagoon which is on the east have an existing I believe it's eureka, that you know how those things grow, they're very tall, pretty dense, and they're probably along where I understand where they're indicating their amenity package would be. I know the folks at Cay Lagoon, because they come to our meetings, would like to see that either stay or be replaced. So the landscape buffers are the biggest issue. We'd like to see -- you know, suggest that they continue to put those in, if the current ones are removed. And I can tell you that the organization is pleased to see the 20 units versus the 75. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Okay, I guess we probably need to start talking with the applicant about conditions. Let's -- Richard, if -- and if it's okay with the commissioners, I Page 97 ""-'____~._~._.,_.__~_'_.^'_..__.._"~.___.."U~._,_,,'_.._.~~_,__"_~._,__._,_,_........_~_._~_,.__~.,,_._,,__,~_~__.....,,~._,,___~_______~_. " .n____._._. __ _"_'_'___~_ December 18,2008 have a list I can start running down, and then we can add whatever's rlllssmg. Landscape buffers. Apparently you have existing buffers. Whether you call them buffers today or whether they're vegetation, it's matured out and is providing a good buffer between the east Cay units and to the west for Mrs. Cox on her property, both along the south and along west of that road entry. And I know we're talking about buffers along the Sleepy Hollow project to the west and to the south as well. Where there's a buffer already in place, it seems people are satisfied with those. Can we get a commitment that would go into a stipulation that where the buffers are already in place, if you have to disturb those for utility lines, drainage lines, whatever else you're doing, that you'll replace with either equal to or greater than the buffer that's in place both in opacity and width? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, the hard part is you're talking about you'll have mature growth versus new growth. I don't know that I can get there immediately. What I would propose, Mr. Strain, is since the code requires between these types of uses -- assuming we don't do the -- the single-family to single-family require a Type A buffer, which is basically a tree every 30 feet. That's all our neighbors had to do for theirs and that's all we were requesting for us. What I would propose we do is we do the Type B plantings so they get the same vegetation they would get as a Type B buffer, within the 10-foot width that a Type A buffer would be. So they'll get the benefit of the plantings of a Type B, which is more than they had to do on their own. So it would be hedge and trees along the south and the west. And I don't know why we couldn't do it all the way around. We could do it all the way around the project. So they would get a Type B buffer within the width of a Type A buffer, so they get the same vegetation. And we'll do it all the way Page 98 December 18, 2008 around the project to try to address that issue. Because I don't know what will get disturbed, what won't get disturbed, and I don't want unreasonable expectations to how quick I've got to get to the same opacity that's there today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: For the benefit of the public that is here and concerned about those buffers, will you explain to them exactly what getting a Type B buffer in that 10-foot width is going to mean to them? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They would get a tree every 30 feet and they would get a hedge that goes to six feet. Would grow to six feet. Otherwise you don't have to do that when you have -- they didn't have to do any of that on their site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the buffer you replace with is a Type B, as just described -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the width ofa Type A. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: All around the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All around the property. That means the hedge and trees both. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the audience, it may take a little bit of time for that to grow in, but it would grow in as a hedge, and that's the objective. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments on that one? COMMISSIONER CARON: To six feet, though, just so that everybody knows, not to the eight feet that may be there on somebody's property now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's required to go to six, but ifit Page 99 December 18, 2008 goes higher, you don't necessarily have to cut it back if you don't want to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I just don't want to be required to grow it higher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Rich, I thought you were going to ask your client about a wider buffer on the west and south side, if you would agree to a 25- foot -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're doing the 25-foot setback. We've agreed to the 25-foot setback. And we're going to put the plantings -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But no wider buffer than -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to do all the plantings you would put in that area anyway. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The 25 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to do the 25-foot setback, and within that 25-foot setback will be a 10-foot wide Type B buffer. We had originally proposed a lO-foot wide Type A buffer. So what we're saying is we'll do additional plantings within that same area and set the buildings further back than we originally asked for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Okay, let's move on to the others. First of all, whatever product type you pick, it will be all the same product. Do you have any objection to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that? Let's talk about the product types. You were offering three. Two are single-family. The townhouse is a single -- depending on how you sell it, it's fee simple, single-family, but it's more of an attached product. Page 100 .._---'--,.__._._-~-_._-~-_._--'"-_.. December 18, 2008 Does anybody have any concerns about the townhouse? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think, Rich, you've got to be careful. What Mark was saying, it is going to be classified in the building code as multi-family, three units or more. You're going to get into sprinkler systems, you're going to get into a different level of development that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We could commit -- we specifically said townhouse, which would mean it had to be fee simple ownership. So that -- we could commit to single-family detached, single-family attached, which is a two-unit building, and a townhome. Has to be townhome, it can't be -- it would be a townhome concept where you do the fee simple ownership with the buildings not longer than the 200 feet we had talked about. And those would be the three produce types COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think you're going to find that once you get to three units, even if it's the configuration of a townhome, it's in the building code -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Multi -- essentially treated. I mean, there are some provisions for the townhome that are different. But, you know, you're bringing in sprinkler, you're bringing in a different level. So wouldn't it be easier not to build it? So if you build it, you're going to build the whole thing then, so I guess it doesn't matter. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That does give you five to six units, though, per building at the 200- foot length. And that does make it appear as a multi-family -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- large building in a primarily Page 101 December 18, 2008 residential area. That still is a little troublesome why you need that. So I'm just -- that's why I'm offering it up for discussion. I guess we can take it up on discussion of the motion when we get to that then. The issue on the environmental to go with the calculation by the applicant, I mean, it's in the urban area, there are no endangered species. I understand there's a discrepancy in the way it was looked at, although we've not seen any hard evidence, even if it's offered. I'm still not sure why there's a concern in this area for that, especially with no endangered species. So I'm inclined to agree with the applicant that their calculation works here. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm taking a different interpretation. I think that the retention of native vegetation is of benefit to the proj ect and to the aesthetics of the neighborhood. And I think that the proposed .13 acres of the preserve is too small for a seven-acre PUD. I agree with the staffs interpretation, and also Mrs. Cox, the former owner, who said that she remembered that the site plan intended the 1.04 acres as preservation. And I think this is supported by the fact that it is still classified as pine flatwoods, which is a native vegetation. And also the fact that an agricultural clearing permit, which is a separate process, was not obtained. So if you do go with what the applicant is going with, I'll be voting against it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Midney, if! might, her comment was she remembered this during the rezone hearing. I think that's what she said. And there was no rezone hearing for this application. It was a site development plan, which was purely an administrative process. And honestly, I believe if your staff had a document that said that they did a calculation to arrive that that was the required native vegetation, they would have produced it to me. And if they had produced it to me, I would have addressed it. It has never been produced to me. Page 102 December 18, 2008 I think they're assuming something which I don't think they can assume based on just the documents that have been presented. I know I didn't get a rebuttal, so I'm just -- if you'll give me the indulgence to respond, as it came up during this part of the discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is basically your rebuttal, so MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, so -- I mean, I just think -- I believe that the documents they showed you, it speaks for themselves. It says it was native vegetation to be retained. Didn't say preserve. There's a table that lists every requirement. And they've said to you that it's highly unusual not to list the requirements. So if there had been a required native vegetation requirement, it would have been in that table, in my opinion, because that's the way it was always done. It didn't make any sense to come through with two separate clearing applications when on the face of the document it said it was for a nursery. It was for an agricultural use. The code is what the code is. Whether you sign a document that says I acknowledge I've got to do this for 10 years or not, they still have the 10-year the limitation. So I think that staff hasn't -- I think it's their burden and I don't think they've met the burden to show that I'm wrong on this. I've asked for it. I'd like to believe that if! were presented with that document that I would have cried uncle, because I'm not going to fight a document that, you know, speaks for itself. So with all due respect, I think -- and this happens throughout the county. And I've been saying this all along, you guys have some requirements that result in these I think ridiculously small, quote, preserves. Let me put the green space somewhere else. I mean, I'm doing additional buffering to hopefully address that by doing additional plantings to address the real issue. And I hope that that would be taken into consideration in response to some of the statements that were said regarding the calculation of native Page 103 _.__._,---_....~.~~_.",.,.~..._~..~~~,-------,._~-,._-_.'".~_.,,-.~,.~.. December 18, 2008 vegetation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But Rich, even if you assume that all of your reasoning is correct, don't you think 0.13 acres of preserve is very small? I mean, even for the aesthetics of your own project. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know what, it's a code requirement. I think you're right, I think you should get rid of that code requirement. I think you say that if it's below a certain threshold and there's no native -- there's no listed species using it, maybe you take that .13 acres and you take that planting and you put it into the buffers. Do some additional plantings. You know, I think that makes sense. But I agree with you. I've been saying that: Why are you making -- like the Naples Church of Christ we had probably had the same similar number, and we kept saying this thing is -- what is it serving? You know, there's better uses for that native vegetation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That wasn't exactly my point. My point was more that there should be more native vegetation in a project this size. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's an infill piece and we worked with the neighbors. I think Mr. Garbo will tell you -- is he still here? He left -- that first meeting when we were asking for affordable housing was not a pleasant meeting, to say it nicely. And I think there were some comments made that I thought were inappropriate. But we met with and talked to residents and we said, you know what, we're not going to fight an uphill battle. If we go down to three units per acre, which is what we can get, will you be happy with that? And we were told yes. And we've gone down to three units per acre. And we've come up with the design standards that will hopefully get us to those three units per acre. And I think that's fair. I think we've been responsive. We're willing to do additional plantings in the buffer. And they've got to work with us to get to the three units per acre. And we're not trying to do anything incompatible with what they Page 104 December 18,2008 have. And it's a small piece. I mean, I would love to say it was a bigger piece, but it's an infill piece. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you build your project if you did have the one acre as preserve? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Cannot build the project at the 20 units with the one-acre preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Paul, one thing, what Rich is going to do, he's going to outline that that's the preserve. That doesn't mean they're going to cut down every tree. I think it is desirable to have good landscaping. The design of their units might preserve some more landscaping than shown. It's just -- Rich isn't agreeing with me, so maybe he is just going to cut down all the trees. But the intent is that a good design would incorporate any kind of landscaping that the site had. So I don't think this plan shows the only trees that will be left on the site. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. But he just doesn't want to be legally tied to what to do with the trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Boy, I sure respect what staff does. They have to go through an awful lot of stuff to give us the information that we get. And in saying that, I also want to say through the time I've been on the planning commission, this time around and before, I have noticed an erosion of rights. And it comes down to where there was a buffer, well, buffers have trees in them. Well, then all of a sudden the buffer becomes a preserve because the preserve has trees in it. And we're setting a precedent. You know, if we said, well, yeah, one acre per seven acres, that's what we're going to have and we're going to call them preserve. Well, we're setting a precedent that is in every single -- it's like putting that preserve in that commercial site on Yahl Street we did a month or two ago. I was going, this is nuts. What they need is a buffer. And that's Page 105 ,~~.~""_"_, " _'~_V___"M_. .. _ _ ", ."."",'_' __'~"'__."^_"_. ~..._.._...,..~. December 18, 2008 what we did. So I just don't want to see a precedent set here by calling things something that they were not intended to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we've kind of talked about the environmental issue. Let's move on to the -- some of the setbacks. Basically the tables that we got have been reissued. There are a couple of changes to the tables. One is that the single-family attached minimum floor area will be 1,000 square feet, and that the -- we're going to have a sub-note on there probably to limit -- if townhouses are allowed, to limit them to not greater than 200- foot in length. And that the single-family townhouses or any units placed along the adjoining Sleepy Hollow project will be set back a minimum of 25 feet. And I think those are the only changes to that table. Unless you do it by footnote in regards to the accessory table in which the clubhouse and recreational areas will be limited to east side of the driveway right-of-way, whatever you want to call the road going in on the property. Does anybody have any problem with those comments at this point? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, so right now, just to make sure, the PUD boundary that's going to be 25 feet, is it every boundary, or -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's basically. (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so we would be happy with a building closer like to the street than -- the street boundary? I mean, it would be up against the -- I mean, you could put the side six feet if it's a single-family -- I mean, seven feet from the -- you know, it's the buffers what's regulating it at that point, correct? If I put a unit -- as I come in that road, the first unit -- let's say Page 106 __....._._._,..~.. ~., ...k.-.....,.__".__.__,.___..H_.._.'_,_~__..__ December 18, 2008 you start a townhouse project. Am I able to put the side of that townhouse -- and because the buffer's 10 feet, the setback's six, I could put it 10 feet from Orange Blossom? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the PUD boundary on that north side by the road is 15 feet. So you'd have to be the lO-foot buffer plus an additional five feet by the table. Isn't that what the table says? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are we talking about a front right now, Mr. Schiffer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're talking about a PUD boundary along the roadway, Orange Blossom. How far back would you be from Orange Blossom with your first building at the worst case scenario? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's not a buffer, Mark, it's a setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but there's a buffer on the site plan of 10 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And so what I'm -- I mean, we're building buildings extremely close to property lines. And remember that, that 25 feet, that's the back of a unit. That's you open your back door, there's a patio. I mean, that's really -- you've got a buffer maybe 15 feet away. I mean, are we -- Rich, take the townhouse. What's the closest dimension I can get it to Orange Blossom? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It says PUD boundary, which I guess is Orange Blossom, is 15 feet is the closest. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can't we make all the way -- I mean, can't we make that one 25 also? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Along Orange Blossom? Sure, along Orange Blossom. COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought you made them all 25. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I did not, no. Page 107 ~"-~---~""'--'^"""'-~""'-"-"~'--"--_.~~--<--_.--~"~~-'-""""----------"_..-~_._._._-~~-----,-.~...-~.~._,----.->- December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: The PUD boundary, that's what you said when you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's not clarifying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, what we said was staff -- staff had asked us for the south and west to go to 25 feet, which we said we can agree with. This is multi-family adjacent to us here, so we wanted to keep the -- what we had requested, since we were adjacent to multi-family. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Rich, how about every boundary but the east? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That includes -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Go north. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Every boundary but the east. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know, I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: North, west and south. Go ahead, Ms. -- are you done, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'll be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: But the majority of your eastern boundary is single-family, not multi-family. Only a section in the front towards Orange Blossom. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's actually ago that's adjacent to us. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, there's a single-family on there on the over -- you know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's RSF? MR. BELLOWS: RSF-l. MR. YOV ANOVICH: RSF-1 next to us? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's -- you know, who knows what the future's going to hold? It's a big lot. Page 108 December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: I was under the understanding that the PUD boundary setback, all four sides, was going to be 25 feet. I thought that's what you had told me on the phone as well. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I said we would agree with staffs 25-foot setback. And I don't think we got into the details of where that is. And staffs was the south and west boundaries. And that's what I intended it when I said that, when I said we can agree with staff on that, because that's what was in the staff report. As far as the depth of the lots, it doesn't really work if I have to do a 25- footer on the east as well. Correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, could I talk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna, I think the east -- first of all, it does have multi-family. And the way it's oriented, it's parking lot's a multi-family on the upper part. And the bottom part, prob -- those are very large lots. The dimensions we're talking about aren't going to be noticeable to the existing use, and the existing use probably won't be there forever. So I think the eastern property is -- I'm comfortable letting that one go. But thank God we talked about it, because you don't want it up on Orange Blossom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But now that brings in another level of discussion, and we're going to break that egg open again. Accessory uses. If you go to the next table, you'll notice that the PUD boundary for accessory uses is five feet. It's a little impractical if you've got a 15-foot buffer all the way around. So I'm not sure that the five feet serves any purpose, and maybe that ought to be changed as well. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, I'm sorry. Let me -- I'm told that 25 feet for principal structures around the entire PUD boundary is not a problem. The accessory needs to stay the same. I think -- what do we have with that? It's 10 feet, right? December 18,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, right now -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know what the code says, but you're right, you can't put your accessory into the buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Right now you've got five feet -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for accessory. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hear you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the boundary -- the PUD -- the accessory has to be equivalent to the buffers. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So it needs to be 10 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or 15. You've got IS-foot buffers and 10- foot buffers both. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it depends -- yeah, you're right. You're right. If we end up with the 15 feet buffer, we will do -- the accessory has to be 15. If we end up with a 10- foot buffer planted like a Type B, then we'll do 10 feet for the accessory. Principal is always 25. Do I have that right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any comments on that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, there's really no difference in your accessory structures and height and stuff. If you really want to do that, can you limit the height of accessory structures to one story? And get rid of some of these -- because you have a requirement that accessory structures could be zero setback. The garage is an accessory structure. So what most people consider part of their unit, you're going to say it's an accessory structure and shove it up close to the road. And that's only a good idea if it's only one story. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Mr. Schiffer, what would you do with a pool cage? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't -- I mean -- Page 110 December 18, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, I don't want to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but a pool cage can cover up the pool. So you want pool cages within 15 feet of Orange Blossom? That wasn't a good thing to say. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, I hadn't gotten to the Orange Blossom. I was focusing on the rear yard, if you will, of a home where you said you wanted to limit it to just one story. And I'm saying the pool cage could be more than one story, so I don't want to agree to that. If you're saying along Orange Blossom, you don't want anything within 25 feet, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, I mean-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: If that's the issue, let's just say you could COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You could exempt pool cages. I mean, I think there's a big argument, well, how many stories is a pool cage. I mean, it's -- obviously you could enclose two stories, but it's a one-story in most definitions of a story. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it's too difficult to deal with that. So if the real issue is you want nothing closer than 25 feet from Orange Blossom, we can agree for Orange Blossom principal and accessory is 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't really mention pool cages, but you -- obviously if they're allowed in -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's a standard accessory -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- use to a residential. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that is scary. I mean, pool cages 15 feet off these people. What is the rear setback of the units to your west? For everything. Do we know? MR. YOV ANOVICH: For everything? Page 111 December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have it. We'll pull it. That's the Sleepy Hollow PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know for a fact what it is for the accessory . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's try to clarify where we're at with the table, though. Right now we're looking at the PUD boundary for accessory uses will match the buffer width, and we're talking about however nothing will be any closer than 25 feet from Orange Blossom, whether it's accessory or principal. That's so far what we've done with the accessory use table. The only other thing we're now discussing is the height versus the accessory setback; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the information -- Heidi, do you have that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're looking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're looking. I think Heidi's doing all the work. While they're looking at that, do we have any problem as a Board with going to a zoned 30 feet and an actual 40 feet height? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Not a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I do want to discuss-- you guys are just -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is 10 feet -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll go back into it then. Go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Accessory structures on the bigger lots I believe is 10 feet for Sleepy Hollow. Ten foot for accessory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and you're going to be -- for Page 112 December 18, 2008 height, or that's setback? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the height? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't have -- this is older, it didn't have a number in there for height. It did for principal, which was 30 feet. So I would presume they could go to 30 feet for accessory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, would you mind limiting your accessory zoned and actual height to one story with the exception of pool cages? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm afraid I might miss something, Mr. Strain, so I'd rather -- since they have 30 feet and we've agreed to go 30 and 40, that, you know, if it's good for them, it should be good for us with the additional buffer that we're committing to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what is the accessory setback on the PUD boundary? MR. YOV ANOVICH: For them? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For you. Now. What did we come -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We just went with in have a lO-foot wide buffer, it's 10-foot. In have a IS-foot wide buffer, it's 15 feet. Depending on what product. Ifwe do the multi-family product it's a required IS-foot Type B buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I want to fight the height, but all of -- I'm going to hurt myself here is that 10 feet away from our property line a 35-foot high structure is not comfortable. But go ahead, let's move on, Mark. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, we'll have to come to conclusions in discussion. This is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, a question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- just -- go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If that structure were a pool cage, would that be the problem, or -- Page 113 December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't think any neighbor wants a pool cage. But if the other neighbors can have it, then why can't these guys have it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now let's go back into the height. We had a -- the applicant offered 30 feet for zoned and 40 feet for actual. How does that sit with everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it doesn't sit with me. You know, the actual height is tops, chimneys, cupolas and stuff. Alls you're really doing is stripping off the roof structures of a building. Naples has really pretty roof structures. We -- Donna, I know your answer is nobody's doing that, but nobody really has an actual height requirement. That was a definition we put in. Very few projects actually carry that requirement. And 35 feet has been single-family probably all across the countryside for years. So why that isn't working here, you're going to explain to me. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's been closer to 25 feet with 35 as the actual. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. COMMISSIONER CARON: And -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute. COMMISSIONER CARON: And beyond that, I think you have to look at this particular infill parcel. This is not all of Sleepy Hollow where you've got plenty of room and you can spread these things out and height isn't an issue. Now you're going to cram onto this one little six-acre plot buildings that are in excess of 40 feet? That doesn't make any sense to the neighborhood. And you certainly ought to know what that neighborhood looks like when you drive down that road. Page 114 December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. I drive by that road a lot. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, we never -- there is no requirement of25 feet I've seen for single-family. And the actual dimension is a new dimension that's -- I don't think it's even in the -- so there isn't the 25/35. And again, my only concern, and it's as a concern as an architect, is aIls you're doing is flattening roofs down. And Naples has some really pretty buildings with pretty roof structures. To bring them down to a lesser slope to meet a requirement that we're just guessing at here, you know, I mean, I don't get it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, what are you trying to suggest for square -- height and zoned and actual? I think -- well, then, I'll ask Donna and we'll just have to go with discussions -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I think we should do is like all the zoning around it, we should just get rid of actual height off the table and go with the zoned height of 35 feet, like conventional zoning for single-family, like the projects I'm sure surrounding it all has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna, where's your-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I live fairly close to an area of conventionally zoned homes. And what you run into with this is the exact same problem we're having everywhere, and that's the McMansions and the mega-homes that are on pieces of property that they are not appropriate to. And they overshadow normal one-- single-story homes. And I'm not comfortable with it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So what's the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's not a matter of roof -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- number? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to have to go into discussion on a motion. That's probably the way we're going to have Page 115 December 18, 2008 to resolve this. So if your best suggestion is 30 and 40, then we certainly will take that into consideration in discussion. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I just want to say it again, is that the 30-foot zoned height is what Sleepy Hollow has. So -- and they don't have an actual. So we're suggesting an actual. And I would hope that that would be appropriate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, how about this? And again, I'm not going to vote against it. You're just limiting yourself below what I -- is why don't we just go with an ac -- with a zoned height of 30 feet, match the neighborhood, and get rid of the actual height. The actual's the thing that scares me the most, because that means, you know, people designing chimneys and getting separations, the roofs could have trouble. The actual height -- you know, the zoned height is the midpoint of the roof. So you're only talking about stuff that's way back on the building anyway. Unless again it could be a chimney on the wall. So why don't we just go zoned height of 30 and drop the actual requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, just so you know, I've been doing architecture review for single-family homes for a project now for 15 years, and we've had homes submitted from 400,000 up to $3 million. The standards are 35 feet. I have never found one, even with the embellishments on the roof, to exceed or even need to exceed that 35 feet. And they've done chimneys, cupolas, dormers, little bell things, every weird thing you can think of to waste money on it, but I've never seen them get needing past that 35 feet. Now-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is the midpoint of the roof in the zoned requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I'm talking to the top of the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're saying you're not even getting Rich's -- Page 116 December 18, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're not even getting -- so at 40 feet I think that you'll get what you want. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, whatever. Let it go, let it go. Move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm not sure -- but I know Donna's not in agreement with even 40 feet. But I think it's a better compromise than 45. But I still think you get the embellishments you want and you still give the applicant the zoned height that he needs to build up to two stories if he wants to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ifhe doesn't mind, I don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's all of the list that I have. Does anybody have any -- want to bring anything up that was missed? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You did have the maximum length of the townhouses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I said that earlier, yes. And I'll reread them all during our discussion, but I want to make sure we at least discussed them with the applicant's input. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, just to be clear, we're still leaving those three options open: Single-family, attached, detached and townhouses; is that the way I understand it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on the motion it can be modified. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It could be modified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But right now the applicant isn't voluntarily removing -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's not volunteering. Well, I'm going to suggest that he maybe volunteer to help us so that we don't have that argument going forward. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What's the market going to be Page 117 December 18, 2008 in two, three, four years? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, let's get a response to Mr. Murray's question first. Did you want to have any -- offer anything up? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have the authority to give up townhomes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, you mentioned that before. I apologize. I forgot. You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just saying, I think we ought to keep the options in there because we don't know what the market's going to be when these things are built. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And honestly, if you -- if you -- I don't think that you having a townhome product of 20 units next door to -- with the heights we're talking about -- next door to single-family homes is incompatible. It's in -- look at all the nice subdivisions throughout, or PUD's throughout Collier County, and you see it all the time. It doesn't affect anybody's property value. So I think from a compatibility standpoint, we should have some market flexibility. And it's going to be -- with the height limitations, I would hope that we can have the flexibility to have all three types. COMMISSIONER CARON: The only-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti was next, then Ms. Caron. Go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree with Mr. Wolfley, we don't know what the market's going to be in three, four, five years. And when this first went to the neighborhood information meeting, they were worried about, what was it, 75 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: 75 units. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- units. Now we're down to 20. And I can't see a problem with the 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Page 118 December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, my only comment is that these 20 units of townhomes or whatever they end up being, I mean, it's still a little shoehorn infill situation. And as we just saw during discussions, we don't even know what it's going to look like. Because -- I mean where pool cages are going to be. So I guess we've taken the planned out of planned unit development. But be that as it may, I think that it would be a smart move on our part to take out townhomes for the neighborhood. That's not what's around here. It's primarily three-quarters of the way around this property and across the street single-family homes. So to do a single- family detached or attached is probably what should be on this piece of property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, one thing that might help resolve it, would you be willing to limit your townhome length to four units, which is 140 feet, so you get four-unit buildings instead of six-unit buildings? Because that's what you're looking at. And your interior units won't sell anyway, or they're going to have to be a reduced price. So you want to minimize and -- maximize your corner outside units. So from a marketing perspective you'd be farther ahead. Anyway, think about it. Let's take a break so Cherie' can have a little breather here. Because we're not going to take lunch, because we should have this done quickly. Can that hold until we get back from break, Brad, or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just on townhouses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just real quickly, your developer's from Massachusetts. While the Florida Building Code is based on the International Building Code, we do have a Florida Attorney General's requirement that three or more units is a multi-family unit, thus it really triggers a lot of the nasty stuff he's not Page 119 December 18, 2008 used to up in Boston or Massachusetts. So he might -- we might be doing him a favor to get rid of the townhouses. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I know you have to get out of here, but Cherie' needs a break. So we're going to take a IS-minute break -- five-minute? Well, let's just make it 10 minutes and we'll come back at 12:10. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, when we left we were trying to finish up discussion to go into a motion. I think -- Mr. Schiffer, did you finish with your questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, you had yours? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Richard, do you want a rebuttal? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, but you asked me a question. You had asked me about the 140- foot -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- length. And I'm going to take a chance and agree to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And hopefully that will be -- I think that's, you know, four-unit buildings is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that produces a building that could be comparable in width to a single-family house in some regards. So maybe this doesn't appear that bad. But I appreciate that, and we'll move on with our discussion. We heard the public, so therefore we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? Page 120 December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to approve. And I think in addition, the only two situations I'm not really clear with is the new 140-foot building, is that what we're agreeing on? And what did we come up with for the height, 30 and 40 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what they offered. You're the motion maker, so -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. No, but that's what we left off, 30, 40 feet -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- is what I'd like to see. And I'd like to see the 140 feet. In addition to just about everything you put down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what I'd like to do then is ask for a second to the motion so we can go into -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- re-itemizing the details. Mr. Murray seconded the motion. Now -- and Ms. Caron, did you have something to say before I start? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, I was just going to -- go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's start off with staff recommendations. There are four of them. And we'll get a consensus as we move forward so everybody knows where the motion stands so they can say yea or nay at the end and we're done. Number one is the issue on the native preservation. Do we want to stay with the .15 that the -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- petitioner is arguing, or do we want-- the motion maker says yes on the .15. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: .15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept it? Page 121 December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Petitioner's argument. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any discussion on that issue? Mr. Midney, we know where you stand. Are you still standing in your same position? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm not going to change, because I think I'm right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you actually -- okay. And from the county attorney's perspective, did his dissertation on record previously in regards to that issue -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's going to be easier if you just state your reason now, Mr. Midney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm convinced that that originally was intended to have been intended as preservation. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Never said that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what I'm suggesting here is if you're going to vote no on this motion, the BCC has been very strict in wanting to know why we vote no. So if you're voting no for the reason Mr. Midney stated, and this is your issue, you need to state it so that everybody knows at the BCC level why you voted no. Okay, so right now the motion is to accept the .15 acres as the preserve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Are we still talking about the number one or are you just asking the motion maker? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm asking the motion maker. Do you have some discussion on one you want to get in? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I do. I don't think it should say native vegetation, I think it should be referring more to the buffers on the property. And so I think I'm right. I just have an issue with changing it to buff -- I don't think it was the intention initially because of what was written in both of the Page 122 ,...... ....m. _._..._..___.__._ "a~_.._,...__...._~........"U__,__~__~~_,_.__.._.........__~.___,~~....."~,~~~c'__.,._,,__,,~....'__~"_"'~~_~__~.._ December 18, 2008 documents and the diagram and in the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's boil it down to the nuts and bolts. Are you going to vote for the motion -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for approval? Okay, let's just get into issues that are going to change someone's vote so we know what message we're sending forward. So right now, with the exception of Mr. Midney, we're all in favor of dropping item one. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Item two is the analysis of the FAR to come up with a revised square footage as a recommendation from staff. Is that to stay or to go, Mr. Vigliotti, in your motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It should stay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No? Where are we? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on number two of the staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I realize that, but I don't remember where we left off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what we discussed is that staff came up with what they thought was the right product for the property to be most compatible in the area. Justification of that was a new methodology introduced I think for the first time here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can go with that as a compatibility standard -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so number two is out. Does anybody have a problem with that? (No response.) Page 123 December 18, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're in agreement there. Number three, they're looking at a setback to 25 foot along the western and southern boundaries. That has been expanded to all the boundaries except for the eastern boundary. Is everybody comfortable with that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we would have -- we strike staff request number one and we accept the .15 acres. We strike request number two of staff. Number three we modify to provide 25 feet around all boundaries except for the eastern boundary. And number four, I could not figure out what that means. So maybe staff can explain. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Why don't we just take it out? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Strike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's just strike number four for lack of clarity. MS. DESELEM: Do you want me to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're going to stand up and tell us what it means, that would be helpful. Otherwise it doesn't stay in. MS. DESELEM: For the record again, Kay Deselem. Number four is basic language that we use in a recommendation, and it just says that you are adopting the PUD ordinance and the PUD document. And anything that's incorporated in there is accepted as part of your recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, but this says furthermore, approval is subject to the conditions of approval that have already been incorporated in the ordinance and adoption. We made a lot of changes here today, so how can that apply? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. I would just say you're adopting the PUD as amended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, aren't we doing that by accepting Page 124 December 18, 2008 MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then let's strike number four. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As the motion maker, I'd like to strike it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, number four is struck. Anybody have a problem with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just for clarity. Okay, back to the other issues that we talked about. They'll be all one type of product. Is that acceptable to the -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- motion maker and the second. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, one type. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any problem? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number two, we wanted -- well, let's discuss the product. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Type of product, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the first question was it will all be one type, no matter what it is. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now it's the type of product. We have three products introduced: Single-family, single-family attached and townhouses. They've agreed that the townhouse will be limited to 140- foot in width, which is four units per building. With that caveat, does anybody have any needed corrections to those three uses? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm good with it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I agree. Page 125 December 18,2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, question. Do we have the authority to actually eliminate townhouses at this time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we can stipulate anything we want. We just -- they don't have to accept it and they could go on. Just like they could ask for multi-family and we could stipulate we don't agree with that either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then at the next level, at the commission, they would try to bring it back in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I would suggest we do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do what? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Eliminate townhouses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion maker and the motion accepted the townhouses at 140 feet, if I'm not -- but leaving them in. Is that the motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark, I -- Brad, I don't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine, don't worry about it. Go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any comments about townhouses? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to basically the new table that was submitted, we would be accepting the new table and then we had the following corrections to the new table: The minimum floor area under table one, which is your residential tract development standards for single-family attached went up from 750 to 1,000 square feet. We would have a restriction that the -- nothing can occur closer than 25 feet, whether it be principal or accessory, to the PUD boundary along Orange Blossom. The maximum zoned height was offered at 30 feet and the Page 126 December 18, 2008 maximum actual height was offered at 40 feet by the applicant. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And on accessory structure table, the PUD boundary limitations there will be changed to match the buffer widths, with the exception of that one along Orange Blossom. And that the maximum zoned and actual heights there would likewise correspondingly change as they were in the first one. Is that where everybody's at? COMMISSIONER CARON: So in other words, you're talking about single-family detached at 10, single-family attached at 10, and townhouse at IS? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever the -- yes, I think that's what the site plan culls out for, yes. Does everybody -- does the motion maker -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and second accept those? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the other item was that we would restrict the common area clubhouse and recreation facilities to the east side of the driveway road that enters the property. Is that acceptable to the motion and the second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: There's one question about we had no residents being closer that what is it 25 feet to the road, Orange Blossom? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I said on -- when we discussed the table. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I may not have picked up on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the applicant agreed to Page 127 December 18,2008 provide a Type B buffer and a Type A width on all locations within the property. So that we'd have the hedge and tree combination to help protect Mrs. Cox and the other neighbors in the area. Is everybody in agreement with that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the motion maker and second agree with that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, now, we've had a walk-through of the items for the stipulations for the motion. Is there any further discussion on the motion by the planning commission members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll do this by acknowledgement of voice and hand. All those in favor of the motion as stipulated, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any of those opposed? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me motion (sic) indicate that only-- the motion passed 8-1, Mr. Midney opposing. Okay, with that, we will finish up our public hearings and move on to the next. Thank you. Page 128 December 18, 2008 Item # 10 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item up is the -- under old business, I think we had to revisit the mileage issue. I had a notation on here. I just want to make sure -- Ray, was there something you had wanted to talk about on that? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I had Sharon Phillips send you the mileage form as you requested at the last meeting, and I have another copy of what you should have received. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need it. MR. BELLOWS: That's all. I just wanted to make sure you got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Item #11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other new business item, I just wanted to mention to everybody, and Ray, I'd like to ask you, I found that there's a -- I couldn't understand how some of our Board of County Commission members knew ahead of time what we were discussing at our meetings. But I understood they got a memo that highlights certain controversial projects. And I know one board member had been getting that memo. And I think out of respect for everybody, we all ought to get a copy of those, when and if they're issued. I forgot -- I think they're called a controversial memo or something like that. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we asked planners who are working on their petitions for the upcoming planning commission meeting if they Page 129 December 18, 2008 know of an item that could trigger a lot of Board of County Commissioner interest, whatever the controversial issues are, to try to define what that is, and so commissioners can watch the planning commission for that controversial petition if they -- you know, if it's something that's in their district that they're interested in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think just so that we know what they've been highlighted to, that would be nice for us to know if we get a call what it's about. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, there's no problem. I'll make sure you get that in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The letter we get advising us of a controversial issue is usually -- is delivered either today or the day after our meetings for us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I never got one. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Oh, yeah, I get one all the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I never have. I know you were the only COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You got a deal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were the only one I believe that got them. That's why I'm just saying, if you're going to send them to one, send them to all. MR. BELLOWS: Sure. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, you'll get it probably Thursday or Friday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Happy holidays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was just going to say the same thing. Merry Christmas to everybody and thank you all for a great year and we'll look forward to a challenging 2009. Is there motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. Page 130 December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded said by Mr. Wolfley. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are adjourned. I think that's unammous. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:22 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Page 131