Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/15/2009 R January 15,2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida January 15, 2009 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 Kolflat (Absent) Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School Dist. Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 15,2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 330 I T AMIAMl TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORJDA: 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 MATERJALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERJAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRJOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARJNG. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MA TERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRJATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARJNG. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20,2008, REGULAR MEETING; DECEMBER 4,2008, REGULAR MEETING; DECEMBER 9, 2008, HORIZON STUDY MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - DECEMBER 2,2008, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: VA-2008-AR-13601, Okeechobee Inn, LTD, represented by Gina Green, P.E. of Green Engineering, Inc., is requesting a Variance from LDC Subsection 4.02.27, Specific Design Standards far the Immokalee-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. The 9.04-acre subject property is located on the west side of State Road 29, just north of the Lake Trafford Road intersection, in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, 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 Brewer 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.I.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, AICP) 1 C. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-12930, Collier County Coastal Zone Mauagement represented by Laura DeJohn of Johnson Engineering, Inc., requesting a Rezone from the RMF-6 (Residential Multi-family) and C-3 (Commercial Intermediate) zoning districts to the CF (Community Facility) zoning district to provide overflow parking for the Bayview Park hoat lauuch. The +2. ] 3-acre subject property is located in Section 23, Township 50 South and Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, 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. Y ovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich & 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 H acre property is located ou the south side of Orange Blossom Drive approximately Y, mile west of Airport Road (CR 3I), in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, The Covenant Presbyteriau Church of Naples, Inc. and Florida Community Bank, Inc., represented by Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., are requesting a rezone from the Residential Single-family (RSF-I) Zoning District to the Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as Heavenly CFPUD, which would memorialize the existing church uses and would permit redevelopment consistent with a master site plan to a maximum of 100,000 square feet of houses of worship, children and adult day cares, a Pre-K through 3" grade school, and various accessory uses; and an additional 20,000 square feet of children and adult day cares, Pre-K through 3rd grade school and accessory uses contingent upon Conditional Use approval. The 15.93-acre subject property is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard, and comprises the entire block bounded by Ridge Drive, West Street, Myrtle Road and Trail Boulevard in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East of Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) READVERTISED FROM 11106108 B. Petition: VA-2008-AR-13756, Lee Wyatt, represented by Lauren Barber of TUITell and Associates, is requesting a front yard setback Variance for principal structures in the Mobile Horne (MH) Zoning District from 25 feet to 16 feet, as required by Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.02.01, Setbacks for Base Zoning Districts, to permit a nine-foot setback; and a site alteration Variance to impact mangroves, pursuant to LDC Subsection 9.04.02.8.1. The approximately 0.14-acre subject property is located on Lot 77, Otter Avenue, in Plantation Island, of Section 24, Township 53 South, Range 29 East Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) C. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-11320, Semhler Family Partnership #42, represented by Robert Mulhere, AICP of R W A, Inc and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire, of Roetzel and Andress, requesting a rezoning from Rural Agriculture (A) zoning to Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as McMullen MPUD. The 19.32 acres Rural Agricultural zoned site is proposed to permit a mixed-use development. The rezoning petition allows for a maximum of 122,000 square feet of medical office and medical support facilities, and up to 48 multi-family dwelling units, with allowances for modifications of commercial activates and residential uses for additional permitted commercial uses. In no case shall the commercial square footage exceed 185,000 square feet. The subject property is generally located one- half mile east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) on Rattlesnake-Hammock Road Extension, the south one-half of the Southeast one- quarter of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) CONTlNUTED TO 2/5/09 10. OLD BUSINESS II. NEW BUSINESS A. Distribution of the Collier County Sign Code draft revision to remove the elements declared unconstitutional by the Eleventh Circuit Court. The presentation will include an 8-10 minute explanation of the basic constitution law concepts that protect free speech in signage and which guided the revisions. (Coordinator: Catherine Fabacher, AICP) TO BE HEARD IMMEDlA TEL Y FOLLOWING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 2 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 1115108 eepe Agenda/RBlsp 3 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the January 15th 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 Roll call by our secretary, please. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Present. 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, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I'm going to have to be hunched over here. There was a change in the BCC chairmanship last meeting, and they're trying to reconstruct underneath the podium here the new commissioner that Page 2 January 15,2009 sits here, so all the wires are a little shorter. So the speakers may not work right, but we'll bear through it. And the keyboard's sitting on top. So all this stuffs got to get fixed at some point. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda today. First of all, Item 9.C, which is the Sembler MPUD on Rattlesnake and 951, if you're here for that item, that item is being continued to February 5th and will not be heard today. And then Item II.A, which was a distribution of the -- and a briefing on the proposed site ordinance. It wasn't going to be an opportunity to really comment on it but just to tell us why it was being redone and preparing us for the actual hearing in the following month. That whole process has been postponed until February for the briefing and March for the meeting. We'll go over that in one of our February meetings, as far as the dates go. Probably we know those today. Joe, we did set on dates, didn't we, March? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, those dates are set. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, maybe we could find out and let the commission know what dates those are, if we happen to have them handy. MR. SCHMITT: No, they're not -- I'm looking them up. And it's -- 2nd of March is what I thought. But I've got to check it. It's not showing on my calendar right now. MR. KLATZKOW: March 2nd and possibly March 3rd. MR. SCHMITT: March 2nd and 3rd was the dates -- 8:30, March 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it will be in this room. So those on Page 3 January 15,2009 the commission, hopefully we can all make it. March 2nd and March 3rd. First on March 2nd is 8:30. It could be a two-day hearing. But at least that will be the dates we set right now. So unless -- anybody have any problem with those that they know ahead of time? COMMISSIONER CARON: When will we get the revisions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: February 5th we're supposed to get the package and a briefing from Catherine Fabacher on the whole issue. So that's what this was postponed to. Also on -- I want to remind everybody that on Friday, that's tomorrow, we have a CIE and lO-year water supply plan review in this room at 1 :00, from 1 :00 to 5:00. And then our carryover for that is Tuesday at 2:00. Now, first of all, does anybody know if they're not going to be here tomorrow at 1 :OO? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how about Tuesday? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, because the Tuesday is the day we actually got to take the vote, I believe, because the advertisement was a little mixed up, and it looks like we can't vote until Tuesday. So even if we finish with it tomorrow, we will have to reconvene on Tuesday just long enough to take a vote. That will be interesting. I'd like to remind everybody on January 28th and on January 30th starting at 8:30 in the morning, both days, we have the two-day meeting for the rural land stewardship area committee report. It isn't the transmittal, it isn't the adoption, it's purely commenting on the committee's report. That's a little bit different animal than a transmittal hearing in which we review data and analysis. This is mostly what the committee has come to gather for their report, which we probably got yesterday. At least mine came yesterday or last night. MR. SCHMITT: They were distributed yesterday. Page 4 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the rest of the month, that's the schedule for the rest of January. I hope -- anybody know that they cannot make it on the 28th and 30th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, for the record, Mr. Kolflat contacted me, he has some issues he had to resolve today, so he wasn't able to be here. He most likely will not be here tomorrow either. Now, approval of the minutes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We have the 26th on here for the floodplain ordinance. Is that on or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Good point. No, that's been continued indefinitely -- or it won't be that date, let's put it that way. It wasn't -- the committee is reconvening. There's been new information they're digesting. They're going to come back with a whole new proposal -- I shouldn't say a whole new, but with some modifications to what they've already proposed. So they haven't set a date yet but we'll get another date to be set for that in the future. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 26th is off. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; DECEMBER 4, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; DECEMBER 9. 2008. HORIZON STUDY MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that leaves us with approval of minutes. And the first set of minutes is November 20th, 2008 regular Page 5 January 15,2009 meeting. Does anybody have any clarifications, corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to recommend approval? To approve, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, did you already say second? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Did you want to vote or you have some comment? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, I seconded it. I didn't hear him say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. The December 4th minutes. Now, these are different. I know it's hard to improve on perfection, and Cherie' does an absolute fabulous job, but unfortunately on the December 4th there were two small errors that we need to talk about. Page 6 January 15,2009 And she's -- I prepared her early for this so she wouldn't faint, have a heart attack. Page 51 of those minutes, about two-thirds of the way down the page, it says well, this was acknowledged in testimony, it's developed policy, so that's inconsistent with CCME Policy 12.2.7. The word developed policy, it should be developed property. And that was the word change that needs to be there. And this was in the stipulations to the motion. On Page 52, about a third of the way down, the comment was that traffic is going to be increased on Danford Street, either by quantity of votes or by way of getting in and out of the parking lot. The word votes needs to be changed to boats. So Cherie' was -- almost as always, your stuff has been perfect, but a couple of small changes there. Anybody else have any comments on that December 4th meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Ms. Caron. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Page 7 January 15,2009 The last one is the December 9th meeting on the Horizon study meeting. Does anybody have any changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron this time, Mr. Vigliotti second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - DECEMBER 2,2008, REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC recaps, December 2nd. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on January 13th, the Board of County Commissioners heard two petitions. A variance for -- the Oster variance, which was a 14- foot rear yard encroachment for a screen enclosure. And they also heard the conditional use for the Naples Baptist Page 8 -'-'""'-~.~""---"'--' .._........~-_......'"._"--~-,--_. January 15,2009 Church. Both were approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chairman's Report. There's a couple of items I want to mention. First of all, everybody in the audience who wishes to speak here today, please fill out a speaker slip. They're out in the hall. They're a little small piece of rectangular paper. Turn it in to Ray over here. And then when you get up to speak, you'll have to identify yourself, we're going to swear you in, just as we get into the subject. And I'll ask that everybody try to keep their comments to about five minutes. We're not hard and fast on that rule, but that makes it fair for everyone. As far as the process for today, this has been continued -- I'm talking about the Heavenly PUD. The Heavenly PUD has been continued back and forth I think four, this may be the fifth time, and it started back I think in June of last year. Just recently, and this Planning Commission and staff as well, received quite a bit of strike-throughs, underlines and changes to the document, I think it was Monday or Tuesday of this week. And it was the first time staff had seen those that I was aware of, especially all staffs departments. The extent of the changes was the first time I had seen them too. I had talked with the applicant and I had met with the civic association's attorney many times and some members of that association. This last round it was my understanding there'd be a few minor changes that we normally can make at a meeting like this, mainly a reduction in height or an acceptance of an elevation. I was surprised when I saw the changes because there were a lot Page 9 January 15, 2009 more than just that. And yesterday I called the applicant up and told them, I told their attorney that this was more than what he had expressed to me in the earlier meeting. And of course his comment was that they're trying to respond to the neighborhood. I also called up Mr. Pires, who represents some of the folks in the neighborhood, explained to him what I'm explaining to you all now, with the comment that we may not resolve this today. One of the things that was important to do today is get this to a point where everybody has got -- knows where it's going, has all the issues on record and we can work out an acceptable document so it isn't continued and continued and continued, because that takes all of our time up. I don't mean this board, but you as citizens have to show up each time it's scheduled and try to make arrangements to be here. And so to try to bring this to a head, even though the changes were extensive, even though the county staff cannot comment on those changes in full, they need time to review them. If the changes stay as extensive as they are, most likely this will have to come back for another meeting to finalize it. But at least today the objective would be to hear everybody's concerns, get the parties to listen, and hopefully come out of this with a resolution direction that works and then come to a final document. I wanted to kind of brief everybody on that process before we get going so that this is going to be more of a working process to get to a resolution today, and hopefully we will. Okay, with that in mind, I'd like to go through the consent agenda items. Item #8A PETITION: VA-2008-AR-1360L OKEECHOBEE INN, LTD Page 10 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first one is Petition V A-2008-AR-13601, the Okeechobee Inn, Limited. And it's the access to State Road 29, just north of Lake Trafford Road. Staffs provided us with the resolution. Are there any correction, changes, or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And ifnot, we need a motion. Anybody? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfley. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Item #8B PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13639, CORPORATION OF THE Page 11 January 15,2009 PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second petition is CU-2008-AR-13639, Corporation of Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Golden Gate. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, does Commissioner Wolfley actually have to fill out the conditional use petition? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Had to bring that -- had to be the first one too, didn't it? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just didn't know if we were legally sufficient if you didn't check in the boxes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll do that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We want to make sure you can do it after the fact. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I meant to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just used invisible ink, we know. Mr. Klatzkow, what had occurred, the findings of fact for the conditional use petition have check boxes in which we're supposed to check four different positions and sign our name to it. Mr. Wolfley got the part about signing the name, but he didn't get the part about checking the boxes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Hey, come on, I'm first timer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that something he can do after the fact or is it just well enough -- is the record clear enough to leave it well enough alone? MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, he can do it after the fact, because he was here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. Page 12 January 15,2009 MR. KLA TZKOW: So that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So would you mind sometime today turn a corrected copy in to the court reporter __ COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I will. I'm really happy you brought that up too. I'm just thrilled. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't bring it up. MR. KLATZKOW: You just can't change your mind, that's all. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There you go again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, other than that comment, if there's no others, is there a motion to recommend approval for that petition? MR. VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Item #8C Page 13 January 15, 2009 PETITION: RZ-2008-AR-12930, BAYVIEW PARK BOAT LAUNCH, COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item is Petition RZ-2008-AR-12930, Collier County Coastal Zone Management for the Bayview Park boat launch. Any corrections, comments for the record on that one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait, can we recommend approval on something we denied? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're recommending approval of the petition that's been presented to us in the staff report. That's what we're recommending approval, the staff's presentation of it. MR. SCHMITT: You're recommending approval of your motion to forward as a recommendation for denial. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a -- MR. SCHMITT: We make that clear. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak made the second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 14 January 15,2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Item #8D - Discussed & continued to later in the meeting PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12026. SAVANNAH PLACE RPUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last one is Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 Steven 1. Lockwood, Trustee, for SLJ Realty Trust, the Savannah Place RPUD. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I had a couple questions on this one. Under permitted principal uses, B says single-family attached dwelling units. Do we need to say -- the discussion at the meeting was that these would be duplexes. Do we have to say duplexes in here or is that implicitly understood? MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I -- for the record, Kay Deselem. I'm sorry, I didn't exactly follow your question. You're on Page 1 of 7 of -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I am on 1 of7, under principal uses, B, as in boy. And it says single-family attached dwelling units. And the discussion had been for -- about duplexes. Do we need to say duplexes or -- because right now it could be a fourplex or a sixplex or whatever, as long as they -- MS. DESELEM: What this was to clarify -- I don't know that I still understand your question -- but what this was to clarify was that they couldn't intermingle the types of uses they had gotten approval Page 15 January 15,2009 of. They got approval of single-family attached, single-family detached and townhouses. They had to pick one -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And Kay, the discussion at the meeting was that those single-family attached units were duplexes. So I just want to know whether we need to say that. MS. WILLIAMS: I could try and clarify. For the record, Heidi Williams with Grady Minor. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard raised his hand and said I do, just in case. MS. WILLIAMS: The single-family attached unit is different from the duplex unit in how the underlying ownership is derived. They would appear as a duplex unit because they would be two side-by-side dwelling units. But the single-family attached designation means they would each have an underlying plot. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Deed. MS. WILLIAMS: Fee simple ownership -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Does that allow you then to also build a fourplex or a sixplex that way? MS. WILLIAMS: I believe the development standards table would control. And if you look at the side setbacks, there's zero or six feet, and -- for that particular unit type for sides. And our master plan also has an indication of what the single-family attached lot layout would look like. So I do not believe that the duplex units would be permitted. And Rich is reminding me that the Land Development Code also has a definition of single-family -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's fine. And I had two other things. On Page 3 of7, under the townhouse designation, why is there no front yard or rear yard setback? MS. WILLIAMS: Townhomes are a little bit of a blend of fee simple designation and multi-family designation. That was not Page 16 January 15,2009 included because staff felt that would be covered by site development plan. The front yards and -- the front side and rear yards would be controlled by the PUD boundary setbacks rather -- and building separation, rather than any platted lot lines. Because if you plat this -- if you plat a townhome, the footprint of the lot matches the footprint of the unit. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Explain that a little bit more. The unit has a building footprint. The lot will generally go deeper or shallow -- or deeper in both front and rear than the footprint of the building would. So it doesn't seem to fit the statement you just said. MS. WILLIAMS: That actually is correct, Mr. Strain. The townhome process is a little bit of a hybrid between platting and -- for lots and site development plan for multi-family. So the development standards are a bit of a blend. We think that the PUD perimeter setbacks and the building separation setbacks would provide the development standards that create the community that we've discussed through the public hearing process so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under any circumstance what is the-- under the -- any circumstance, what is the minimum rear setback that a townhouse would have? MS. WILLIAMS: The accessory structures would be covered under Table 1.1 from the perimeter of the PUD. And so those would be on the -- they'd be 25 feet from Orange Blossom Drive and 20 feet from any other boundary. And for the principal structure it would be 25 feet from any boundary except for the east side where it would be a minimum of 15 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you're saying is, there will be no -- there could be no occasion on this PUD where the townhouse would Page 17 January 15,2009 be not up against a perimeter boundary. MS. WILLIAMS: That's correct. The perimeter boundary setback would control in any event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the front goes, how is -- what is the -- what restriction regulates the front setback and what would be that minimum regulation and worst case scenario as we might look at it? MS. WILLIAMS: Again, the front yard from the unit, there'd be a few things that control. There'd be a setback from the PUD boundary. We're not turning buildings so that they're facing the exterior of the site, but there's also a stipulation that the garage door has to be 23 feet from the edge of pavement or sidewalk. And so there are several different factors that would control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we just say that then? Why don't we say under front, see note one. I see that. And for the rest of them, it says 20 feet, 20 feet. Where it says townhouses, why don't you say 20 feet or 23 feet, if that's what your intentions are. Do you intend to go less than 20 feet with a townhouse? MS. WILLIAMS: I don't believe so. But because I'm not an engineer, I'm not exactly sure where the lines always fall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see a townhouse is a residential structure, just as single-family attached and detached are. And if the intent of this PUD is to regulate setbacks at 20 feet for the others, I'm sure that the intent of this board would have been to assume that that was for the townhouse as well. Although this is the first time that I think we may have seen it. And the same for the rear. If you've got rear setbacks of 15 feet for the other two, why wouldn't you have a rear setback as a minimum on those? I don't understand why you couldn't do that. MS. WILLIAMS: I don't think that we have an issue with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the side setback goes, you have not applicable. How would you address side setbacks to Page 18 January 15,2009 townhouses in groups of five as you show here? What would be the minimum side setback? MS. WILLIAMS: I believe the minimum would have to be zero, because if they're attached that would be a zero feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the building? MS. WILLIAMS: Between the units there would be zero feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Between the buildings? MS. WILLIAMS: Between the buildings we have a minimum distance between structures listed as 15 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So no matter how many units you put in this townhouse, you still would be 15 feet minimum. MS. WILLIAMS: Between structures, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, I really think that as a correction on this consent agenda we ought to put in a minimum for a front and a rear, if there's no objection by the County Attorney to see that happen now. MR. KLATZKOW: I'd welcome it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any problem -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask a question. Heidi, as shown on the visualizer, there is a property line for the townhouse. If you did put a setback, it would be an additional setback from that inner lot. In other words, what you're saying is that based on the drawing on the screen the townhouse could fill that whole square that's shown as townhouse. MS. WILLIAMS: At this point it would -- that is the unit outline. So that particular image would have to be revised to show more long and narrow lots with additional setbacks. Traditionally, say that that diagram shows the whole property and then the units are within that. So that diagram would no longer be accurate with these new designations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point I'm making is that Page 19 January 15,2009 what you want to do is be able to outline the unit itself and say that is the ownership of that unit, that is essentially its lot line. If you do add a setback, you would start measuring from that new line. MS. WILLIAMS: We would have to change the way that we measured the lot for a townhome unit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. One thing too, Mark, something you said earlier, I kind of agree. Normally a townhome does have backyard, essentially not the footprint of the unit, and does have a front yard, essentially not the footprint of the unit. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to go back to your original question, if this townhome had a side setback of seven and a half feet, then the distance between the structures would be 15 feet. But in case you had a scenario where you're building a townhome and you want to -- you could hug it up to the property line. One townhome could be zero right on the property line, then the next one could be 15 feet over, under just -- if we left it like it is with the minimum distance between structures. MS. WILLIAMS: I think in any event the PUD boundary setback, the most restrictive setback will apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any objection to retaining a seven-and-a half-foot setback on the sides of these buildings? MS. WILLIAMS: I think we need to make sure that the way it's phrased indicates that any middle units would still be allowed to have zero setback on both sides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where it says side for townhouses, you could put 7.5 feet for building. And then you know it's for the building and not for the unit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The problem with that is that Page 20 January 15,2009 that would then put the area between the buildings in ownership of the two townhouses on each side. I think what they would rather do is have that be common area, thus have a zero on both sides, even though it's the end. I mean, to me it's clear from a design standpoint that there's nothing limiting the length of the building. But once the building stops, the next building starts, it's 15 feet away. And that-- MS. WILLIAMS: That would be-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- should be common area. MS. WILLIAMS: That would be the most -- I have seen it both ways. That would be the most restrictive development standard in that instance, the building separation being 15 feet. Whether we had a zero or a seven-and-a-half, it would -- the minimum separation would still remain at 15 feet. And I've seen plats for townhomes done both ways, where the end unit does have a side yard area. I've also seen it where the townhomes are completely surrounded by common area. It may seem that they have a front yard and they have a backyard, but if you look at the actual property ownership, it's surrounded by common area. But again, there are probably many ways to do that. And if it's the pleasure of the planning commission to have a front and a rear yard, we can adjust to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think as a minimum-- COMMISSIONER CARON: That certainly was my concern was the front and the rear, not the side, because the structure setback was stated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does any -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Heidi, wouldn't that -- essentially you get the same building. You would just -- when you plat this thing, you would have, for example, the distance from a property line, you may have the ownership dotted out into that distance from the property line. Page 21 January 15,2009 So in other words I actually think the way it's worded kind of works. I can't see how you could abuse it because it's going to give you the same product at the end. MS. WILLIAMS: I agree with your statement that whether we change the development standards as we were discussing or if we leave them alone, the end result -- the only difference will be the paper underlining the development orders. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is there any reason, though, why for sake of clarity on a document that will probably be pulled up and reviewed every time a permit is requested, that instead ofN/ A, which who knows what new person may be reviewing this at the counter in the county, they may see N/A as not really meaning anything and could get mixed up by it, why don't we just, if you don't have any objection to it and this board doesn't have a problem, why don't we just put numbers in the two, front and rear. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only down side I see, Heidi, is if there is ownership of the land front and back of the townhouse that's not common property at that point, and then thus what kind of maintenance and all that becomes different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but how they set their building isn't the way they have to sell the property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if! owned a townhouse, essentially I could go into that area that you're creating. The way it is now it wouldn't be there. Now you're saying let's make it 20 feet in the back or something. I could go in there and do whatever I want because I own it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if the reference wasn't there and they were able to -- I'm trying to see how to protect the neighborhood, especially the project behind them that was so concerned about the closeness of these buildings to their properties. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're going to -- the worst Page 22 January 15,2009 case, they're going to put the building right on the perimeter setback. They're going to do that anyway. They have that option, no matter what we do here. So all's we're doing here is putting the ownership of the land and the front and back of the unit in the ownership of the unit or in common property. That's all. That's all we're achieving. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Physically, geometry, closeness to property lines they're not doing anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only difference -- the only thing I was concerned about, Brad, is it's certainly understandable that if new people get hired when the county picks up steam again and they pick up these old documents and go to read them and they don't see a setback for front and rear there, some people may not pick up the other issues on here that would provide for that setback to be protected. So if we list it and it's no different than the others, I'm not sure who's at harm by it. It just makes it clearer. MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Strain, could I make a suggestion that instead of having N/ A, we could write another footnote that expresses the PUD boundary setbacks control in those cases. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be -- yeah, that would work, that clarification. As long as there's something. N/ A to a lot of people means there is none. And I would hate to see this -- MS. WILLIAMS: So for the front setback and the rear setback, we would add a new footnote that says the PUD perimeter minimum setbacks apply. And we would do that in the principal structure table, as well as -- actually, I guess it's not an issue in the accessory structure. There are numbers in there. So we would add that footnote to both the front and the rear. And then the side we would have zero or 7.5? COMMISSIONER CARON: How does that help the front yard? Page 23 January 15,2009 I mean, I see how the perimeter helps the rear yard. MS. WILLIAMS: Right. I think we can also -- I mean, we have note one. We can add -- we have note one referred to front yard already, which refers to the 23-foot setback for the driveway -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so you'll say 23 -- MS. WILLIAMS: -- from the edge of pavement or sidewalk. We can also add it's from perimeter, just in case there's some kind of layout issues. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So front, under townhouses, instead of N/ A, you're going to put parenthetical see note two. And note two is going to say PUD perimeter, minimum setbacks apply. MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't really like that, because if again we're designing this for a staff member that's probably not too swift, so I would look at that and I could say well, that means that the perimeter setback that you've established, you have to put on each individual townhouse lot. I think the thing -- let's go to footnote two. Instead ofN/ A but -- and then state there that no buildings are allowed within the perimeter setback. And then that might protect us from that errant staff member better. Because once you establish a setback, it will now come from the outline of the townhouse property line. When they say not applicable what they're saying is that townhouses, you don't have to worry about setbacks, because we're going to put the ownership of the property line, the lot line underneath the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The setback is going to be measured from the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To the closest property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Now, if it's the perimeter boundary of the PUD, that's where it's measured to. Page 24 January 15,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So why is that bad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if it's not the perimeter -- let's go back on the front. The rear makes sense. Let's go to the front setback -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're just on the -- the footnote. Let's just stay -- let's stay with the rear first. The footnote that we're talking about is a new note two that said PUD perimeter, minimum setbacks shall apply. And you have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And here's why I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we're trying to understand what your problem is, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The problem is that there's a boundary line that's the perimeter of the project. And we know that we've established the setback off of that. Within that, a subset of that is another boundary line that is the perimeter of this townhouse. Now, it could be, you know, interpreted that you should add that distance within that boundary line also. The definition of setback, it's measured to the property line. So -- and again, we're designing this for somebody who's not here today. Is that -- I mean, Kay and Ray, your staff, would somebody ever -- I mean, I would rather you state something that no buildings are allowed within the perimeter setbacks, and that would mean that there's no way you could design a situation that you're trying to prevent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't understand where your thought process is on this, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's two setbacks here. One is within the perimeter boundary of the unit itself. And then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. In the unit is what the setback's to. The unit is the building. So how do you get another -- Page 25 January 15,2009 how do you set back itself from itself? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Look at this thing on the screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The inner squares, the inner lot lines, those are property lines, right, Heidi? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, those are building-- MS. WILLIAMS: They are one and the same when it comes to townhomes in most cases. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're of the footprint of where the building's going to go. MS. WILLIAMS: The way we originally drew it, they were the footprint of the building, a generic footprint of a building where -- in which the lot was the same. So I can understand what you are saying. If the lot is the same as the building and we create a square lot line, and then now we're saying this note is a setback from that new created lot line, it could be confusing. But I think given the nature of this type of development, hopefully a staff person would be familiar with how the townhome process worked and would understand the intention. We could, between now and the Board of County Commissioners, make sure it's clarified. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason you put N/ A is because it doesn't matter in a townhouse, because you're defining the unit with the lot line. If you add a number in there, then from that lot line you're now going to have to increase that lot line to take that number in. So essentially you are providing setback from that. MS. WILLIAMS: Very technically, the setbacks would be zero from our lot lines. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly right. MS. WILLIAMS: But the building has a setback from the PUD Page 26 January 15,2009 perimeter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you -- go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead. But I mean, I just want to ask, you've got a layout here, but that's not anything final or set in stone. MS. WILLIAMS: No, it's-- COMMISSIONER CARON: So you could increase the size of this structure from the outer line to the outer line in the front and back and then there'd be no setback. MS. WILLIAMS: I can understand that concern. But again, the first note we were talking about, the PUD boundary setbacks can't be -- they also must be met. The list -- it's not a pick and choose. Every setback in the list must be met. So the building itself has to be set back from the PUD perimeter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What you've done, Donna, when you do that, is you've taken what they probably would want to keep as common area and made it the ownership of that townhouse unit. COMMISSIONER CARON: I haven't done it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute. When you do a townhouse, you're saying that the dotted line becomes the property line of the person who buys the townhouse for ownership. And what Brad's saying is that by putting in a note that there's a setback to that property line, it could be construed as to the property line of that townhouse ownership. Is that a fair statement? MS. WILLIAMS: I think so, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now you've created -- now if you changed the townhouse and made it smaller, you still would change that dotted line. That means no matter where you put that dotted line, if you were to interpret this code as we're suggesting that it change, that the setback is from that dotted line, it would be Page 27 January 15,2009 impossible for you to build anything, because you'd keep increasing your self-imposed setback to a point you couldn't build a building. So how practical is it to take that kind of an avenue for anybody? MS. WILLIAMS: Well, I think that's the confusion. Because if we're creating a lot line to match the building footprint, there should not be a setback from the building footprint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There couldn't be; otherwise you couldn't build a building, you'd keep squeezing the building smaller and smaller and smaller because you'd keep changing the line to coincide the townhouse salable point to the building point. MS. WILLIAMS: That's the exact reason we had N/ A in there, because it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's the exact reason why it doesn't make a difference. No one -- you couldn't get -- it's an impractical conclusion. You couldn't get there. You couldn't build a building, you couldn't submit a project showing that scenario. I don't know how you would. Kay, is there -- or Ray or somebody. We've had townhomes in other projects. I've always remembered them having setbacks in them. Have we ever passed a development standards table that didn't have setbacks for townhomes that you know of? MR. BELLOWS: That is a correct statement. We have setbacks. And I think they have them here. But I think it's just written in a way that's a little more confusing. I think if we just say the townhome structure which comprises the individual lots making up the units shall be set back the minimum PUD boundary distance, and what's that, 15 feet in the front? And we can make it from any tract or PUD boundary line. I think that clarifies it in my mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not comfortable, and I'm glad Ms. Caron pointed this out. And some of us may not be with the Page 28 January 15,2009 language that it is right now, it's rather confusing. And I think it needs to be cleared up. It's not the first time this product was invented in Collier County. So however we've done it in the past where it's been fairly clear, why don't we take a look at that. Mr. Y ovanovich, you're the master at doing things, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know I always like to make it crystal clear so there's no argument in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, like retain flexibility, huh? COMMISSIONER CARON: While retaining maximum flexibility, I might add. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I drew some lines on this exhibit basically I think consistent with you -- and what I've always thought the way it was done for townhomes is you did in fact create a lot that goes from the front that borders the street to the rear that borders usually the edge of the development. So what I would suggest is we just put that exhibit there that we would have the typical front setbacks from that and we would have zero from the sides and then we would also have to keep the minimum of 15 between buildings. And I think -- and we can take care of the common area issue through the master association documents. We can just -- we can have every yard, whether they own it or not, have maintenance through the master association. And I think in my mind that simplifies it, and I don't think it hurts the development. And that's my suggestion, and -- instead of having this floating priority line like you were talking, that could be interpreted to squeeze itself to zero at some point if we don't do it the way I'm suggesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: This is a common type product. We've done this in the past. My suggestion would be staff gets with the applicant here and just gets this clarified so this now reads like anyone of the Page 29 January 15,2009 numerous ones we've done in the past, and then come back later at this meeting. MR. SCHMITT: I would agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, that can be done today. We can schedule you at the end of this meeting. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. As long as it's done today. I don't want to lose our board date because we have to do another consent agenda. Which is fine, Mr. Strain, I'm just saying we're okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the priority is to make sure it's clear so we don't have a neighborhood that is inundated by something it didn't expect in the future. So let's get that resolved today. We'll continue this item to the last item on today's agenda. Does anybody on this board have any problem with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll just -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And I have one other thing before we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 4 of7, under the preserve tract development standards, it says no development standards are required since no structures are anticipated. It should be no structures are allowed. Because it says earlier in here that you cannot put structures in the preserve. So while Mr. Yovanovich may like ultimate flexibility, it's really not allowed in here. And so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe -- I thought I said I like -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So we can anticipate whatever we want, but it's not allowed. That's all I've got. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, this one will come back and we'll add it to lO.A, old business. Actually, lO.A.D. So we'll handle it at Page 30 January 15,2009 that point towards the end of the meeting. With that, we'll end our consent agenda items and we'll move into our advertised public hearings. Item #9A PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, THE COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NAPLES, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First petition up today is PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, the Covenant Presbyterian Church in Naples at 6926 Trail Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to remind those wishing to speak to please fill out a speaker slip and provide it to Ray over here on my left, your right. Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I went to the Pine Ridge Civic Association December 7th meeting -- or December 12th meeting, 2007. Sometime in December. The February 13th, which I believe was the second NIM, I was at that meeting. I've talked to various neighbors, but essentially Al Jones, Sally Parker and Georgia Hill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any others? Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich, I had spoke to Tony Pires in his office. I spoke to one member from the association, I don't remember his name. And my son Page 3 1 January 15,2009 is employed there as an outside contractor on a part-time basis doing the audio work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I had conversation with Mr. Pires and two of the civic association members, and a very brief conversation in general terms with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I too spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, then Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I've spoken to Mr. Y ovanovich, I've spoken to Mr. Pires, and to members of the civic association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I had a conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, don't you want to say anything? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've had conversations with Mr. Y ovanovich, I've also had conversation with Mr. Pires. And with Mr. Pires, I also at the time met with George Buonocore and Sally Barker. Those were numerous instances and numerous meetings, as well as the ones with Mr. Y ovanovich. Also, I've talked to representatives of the Covenant Presbyterian Church, Ms. Heather Moll, Kip Scofield, and our infamous Cherie'. So with that, we will move into the public hearing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner and two property owners, Covenant Presbyterian Church and Florida Community Bank. With me today are John Hunter and Bill Potter, they're representatives of Covenant Presbyterian Church; Wayne Arnold and Mike Delate from Grady Minor Associates, the professional planner Page 32 January 15,2009 and professional engineer representing the project; Rob Price with TR Transportation, who did the traffic analysis. Andy Solis (phonetic) and Susan Hansen are here on behalf of Florida Community Bank. I'll be making the bulk of the presentation, and any questions that I can't answer, anybody on the -- that I just listed can jump in and help me answer any of the questions. I do -- Mr. Strain had mentioned that we did provide to the county and ultimately to each of the Planning Commissioners a strike-through and underline version of the PUD. The strike-through and underline version is to the October 14th document you have in your packet. So we tried to make sure we were all working from the same document in discussing changes that we've been working with the association, as well as members of the community since one of the few continuances that have occurred. I have extra copies if any of the Planning Commissioners don't have a copy of the strike-through and underline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just for clarity, is that the thing that was e-mailed -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: By me -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- couple days ago? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't have a hard copy of that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Does anybody else need a hard copy? Three of them, four? The extras can be for anybody in the community who needs it. It's nice to finally be here to discuss the project. There were some continuances through the way, and frankly I think that worked to everybody's benefit to have those continuances, because it gave us more time to meet with the association, as well as members of the community, to explain and further clarify what we're requesting. On the visualizer is an aerial of the existing property. The Page 33 January 15,2009 property is approximately 16 acres. It is located on the east side of U.S. 41 between Pine Ridge Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. It's on the outskirts of the Pine Ridge community. The Pine Ridge community surrounds it. There are two tracts, and I'll explain those in more detail when we get to the master plan. There are two tracts. One is a 14-acre tract owned by Covenant Presbyterian Church and one's an approximately two-acre tract owned by Florida Community Bank at this point. I'm going to put the master plan up next. And one notable change. You'll see in this master plan compared to what's in your packet is in the center portion of the development. Your packet has three buildings located in this area. We've reduced that to two buildings. And that will correspond to some changes that we made to the square footage and the conditional use portion of the PUD. We can go page by page. I'm going to give you a general overview and then we can go through page by page on the PUD and I'll explain the changes. And hopefully, although they appear numerous, you'll see that they're really clarifications and reductions from what you have in front of you and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, during the process of walking through the PUD -- is Mr. Pires here? You're so short, I sometimes don't see you, Tony. The reason I asked is, Richard, when we get to the point we're walking through the PUD, it's my understanding that most if not all these changes are the result of interactions with Mr. Pires and some members of the neighborhood. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so I certainly wanted to make sure he was here so we can get his comments when he comes up and discusses this. Thank you, Tony. MR. PIRES: I'm the same height as Rich, a little bit taller. Page 34 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good thing we're both secure in our physical stature. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think the term is vertically challenged. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, you know, it depends, it depends. It's easier to get clothes in our height. The request for the total project is for 100,000 square feet of church and church-related uses. And that's for both parcels cumulatively. The request is for 1,200 seats, again, for both parcels. And for a maximum of 220 preschool, kindergarten through third grade child day care and adult day care uses. Again, cumulatively for the PUD. And I'll go through that. That's further broken down. There was some confusion. Does that mean we can have 220 of each of those categories? And no, that's a total. So if we break down, we have 350 pre-K students, we would have 170 left for those other categories. So ifthere's any confusion there it's the total of 220 there. Again, there's two tracts as identified on the PUD master plan. Tract A is the Covenant Presbyterian tract and Tract B is the Florida Community Bank tract. We have broken down those numbers into allocations to each tract. Tract A, the larger tract, would get 80,000 square feet of church and church-related accessory uses. We would get 1,000 seats, and we would get 160 of the individuals I mentioned regarding preschool, K and day care students. Tract B would get 20,000 square feet, 200 seats and 500 individuals. Now, we have further agreed to phase those numbers in. And the phasing really applies to Tract A. Doesn't really apply to Tract B. So on Tract A we would be allowed a maximum of 780 seats right now and a maximum of 60 individuals in those categories right Page 35 January 15,2009 now. Tract B would have their 50 individuals and their 200 seats. To go beyond the numbers that I just said, the 780 and 60, we would do an additional traffic study to determine two things: One, would we need to extend a turn lane on U.S. 41 to accommodate the additional uses. And through the various meetings we've had with Tony and his clients -- we're Tony and Rich today, right, Tony? MR. PIRES: Today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. -- we had with them is we had committed at the neighborhood information meeting, the second one, the one that I attended, first one I attended, that we would do an additional study to measure the impacts of this project internally to Pine Ridge. We had made some assumptions in our traffic study that 10 percent of the trips would be coming through Pine Ridge to get to the church. The community was not comfortable with that assumption, so we said we would do another study when we got beyond the 780 on our site and the 200 seats on Tract B and the 60 students on our site and 50 students on Tract B to measure the internal impacts. If there were greater numbers than our traffic study anticipated, we would have to address appropriate traffic measures to address that impact. So that's where that phasing in, if you will, of the permitted numbers came about. Now, Mr. Pires and his client have raised an issue in their letter that they would like us to start doing those internal traffic counts immediately, and they would like us to do those traffic counts at Goodlette-Frank Road and Center Street, and Goodlette-Frank Road and Carica. We again would prefer -- we think that the appropriate time to do it is when we get to the thresholds we had agreed to. And we think the appropriate location -- and I should go back to the aerial real Page 36 January 15,2009 quickly. We think the appropriate location for the study would be at this intersection, which is Myrtle and West, and this intersection, which is West and Ridge. And our -- you know, it's our belief that if people are coming in off of Carica and Center on Goodlette- Frank Road, we don't really know where they're going. We don't know if they're necessarily coming to the activities on this church parcel. We do believe that if we measure the traffic impacts or increases at these two intersections, we do know who's coming and using the church or the school. So we think that that's the better location to do the additional traffic count studies. We committed to doing those additional traffic count studies and we think that's the better location. It gives a more accurate measure of the impact of the church and/or school day care and the like. So that is -- in Mr. Pires' letter that you received, there's very few things that we continue to not see eye-to-eye on. That's one of them. And I'll highlight as I go through the other two that we don't agree with. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, if -- for those of us who are not familiar with the maze of roads within Pine Ridge, they tend to get confusing, which is why I never take them. So I'm sure the neighborhood likes that. Could you show us from Goodlette Road to here the road system on some kind of a little bit broader map so we can see what you're trying to talk about as far as how the two entrances on Goodlette would impact this, versus the two intersections you're talking about? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have handy an aerial that's all of Pine Ridge. Does someone else have an aerial I can put on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony usually has details of everything. So he's coming up with something now. Page 37 January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me -- I'm going to have to, because this is so big. Let me work you from Carica, which is on the northern portion of Pine Ridge. Then I'll go down to Center, which is theoretically in the center, but I think a little south. Here's the Carica, Carica Road, Goodlette-Frank Road intersection. And obviously in the yellow is the church. If you're coming off of Goodlette- Frank Road, you would take Carica around and continue to West, take a right on West, follow West around, and then you would get to the West/Myrtle intersection -- I'm sorry, the West/Ridge intersection to get to the property. This is Ridge. Now, I guess theoretically someone could come in Carica and either take Sand Pine to Trail Boulevard or Banyan to Trail Boulevard and avoid that intersection. That's not the most direct route if you're going to be coming in off of Goodlette-Frank Road but, you know, we would -- we don't think that that's going to be an issue from the counts. Now, if you're coming in off of Center, you're going to come in off Center and you're either going to go all the way through -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, where is Center? MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is -- I'm sorry, here's Center. You're either -- and I guess the only time you would really use Center is if you're already on Pine Ridge Road. The most direct route is to continue on to U.S. 41, take U.S. 41 up, and you get to Myrtle and you would turn onto the property. So I guess -- I'm not really sure when you would use Center Street. I mean, Tony's done his little Google map, and I think on his Google map you come on Center if you're coming off of Orange Blossom. But we think we've accommodated that through our anticipation of 10 percent of our off-site to come through. But if you're coming through Center, you would either -- you would probably take a right onto Ridge and then follow Ridge all the way up to this intersection with the property, which is again Ridge and Page 38 January 15,2009 West. I guess you could continue on to West itself, take a -- this is West right here, it says West Street. You can't take a right there? Okay, so then you would probably take Ridge. You're right, Center's now blocked. I forgot that you can't cut all the way through. So you would go Ridge, which is a direct route, and we would catch that count at that count station. I just don't know how if you're taking Center you would avoid the count. Because I don't think you're going to come in Center, take a left on Ridge, head further south and then take Trail Boulevard or U.S. 41 up to the site. So we think that where we're proposing the counts will in fact catch those people who are coming off of Goodlette- Frank Road and not using either Vanderbilt Beach Road to U.S. 41 or not using Pine Ridge Road to U.S. 41 or Trail Boulevard. So that's why we believe that the locations that we're proposing in the PUD document will give an accurate count and take care of the community's concern as to the location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, thank you. I think that a more ofa whole overlook picture like this helps all of us understand it better. I know there will be more questions as we get into the traffic issue, but that gets us on the right page. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: As you could see -- I live in Pine Ridge, and it's confusing even to me as to some of the streets to do the cut-through. I forgot that Center Street had been blocked off so -- it's easier -- and I live on Myrtle actually, so I have a straight shot, so it would make some sense. So again, we talked about the phasing that we were going to do and the traffic study related to that phasing to increase the numbers. We've also -- going back to the master plan, we have also agreed that at -- there was concern about traffic lights -- I'm sorry, car lights after dusk on the neighbors. We agreed that on the Myrtle Road Page 39 January 15,2009 entrance to the project that at dusk we would close that entrance so you would not have a traffic light issue. On the Ridge entrance, that's the entrance for Florida Community Bank's parcel, so we couldn't also agree to close that, but we did agree that should Covenant Presbyterian Church ever acquire Tract B, then the same restriction would apply regarding the closure at dusk to address the headlight issue. The buffer that we've agreed to with the community, I have an exhibit for that. The original proposal was to have a 12- foot hedge and trees that basically coincided with the water management facilities for Tract A, which would have essentially had the 12-foot hedge stop here. We've agreed that the 12-foot hedge would run the entire length of Covenant Presbyterian's property, which would be from here on West, and then it would continue on Myrtle until we got to the entrance off of Myrtle. And then we would have in the orange -- or red; it looks orange to me -- would be a six-foot hedge. And then along on the blue we would have a three-foot hedge. And as your staff report indicates, those exceed the Land Development Code requirements as far as the hedge height and materials. And also width. The width of the buffer is greater than required in the Land Development Code. We have also agreed to plant -- the Land Development Code requires trees between 10 and 12 feet at planting. We've agreed planting at 14 feet. And we'll go through that when we go over the page by page. So we have -- we have been very sensitive to the impact on the community by providing additional buffers for the proposed project. And I think at this time, and I don't know how you want to do this, Mr. Strain, there are three issues that Mr. Pires -- or Tony raised in his letter that we don't agree with regarding additional -- regarding his comments to the PUD. Page 40 January 15,2009 The first one -- well, this isn't one of the three, but we do believe that the PUD process is the better process, considering this property and the two ownership issues and the lake issues and certainty in the future for both the current property owner and the community. So we think the PUD process is a good process to address everything that's needed to implement Covenant Presbyterian's plans for their property as well as for Florida Community Bank's process. That being aside, getting into the specific comments to the document itself, there are three things that we have not agreed to. One I already talked about, which is the timing and location of the traffic counts. The second issue that we have not agreed to is on Tract B, there was a request that there be no outdoor music. That's acceptable. The requirement to stop indoor music at 9:00 p.m. didn't make sense to us, because the windows and doors are going to be closed. Plus we did agree to hours of worship that they requested, and the hours of worship would extend till 10:30 p.m. And I don't know, I haven't been in a church service that didn't include music in it. And if it's acceptable to worship till 10:30, it would make sense that it would be acceptable to have music along with that worship. And plus the fact that it's -- we have to close the doors and windows, I don't see music as an issue. So we cannot agree to stopping music at 9:00 p.m., indoor music at 9:00 p.m. And then the final issue that we don't agree to, and if you need greater detail in the explanation of this one from our engineer, Mike Delate, we can do that. They're requesting that we do an analysis of all wells within a radius of2,000 feet of the lake. And we don't believe that that's necessary, because what we're essentially going to do, the existing lake is -- part of it's going to be filled in and we're going to dig another portion of it. But as we're phasing in the digging, it's not like there's going to be a complete fill-in and then a re-digging of a lake. You're basically going to be filling in a portion of the lake and Page 41 January 15,2009 expanding it to other areas on the property. And Mr. Delate assures me that from a potable water well perspective, it's a non-issue. And I believe Mr. Pires requested that we provide copies of any of the permit applications we need to make to do that digging to him in advance. I think he wants them 30 days in advance of our submitting that application. I don't think we have an objection to that. We've already agreed to provide them the water management permits application sets in advance, so it's not an issue for us to provide copies of those applications in advance. So that highlights the project, the buffers, and then I'll take you page by page through the PUD document. Because there were further revisions to the project that will -- that clarified and put certainty as to what will or will not occur on the property. And if that -- I don't know if you want -- if you want Tony up here at the same time, or you just want me to go by myself. I don't want to get into a point-counterpoint, but whatever is easiest for the Commission -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to talk to the County Attorney about that in a minute, but Ms. Caron had a question. So go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just a couple of things. I think you first need to, before we get into anything further, discuss the whole situation with the conditional use versus the PUD. There are some people that are very concerned that this should be going forward as a conditional use, as all other churches in Collier County, versus a PUD. So I'd like to have you address that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I would point out to the Planning Commission that not all churches have gone through as a conditional use. Most recently I did, with Mr. Arnold, the Naples Church of Christ, and that was a PUD that we most recently did. And I'm sure there's others, they're just not coming to my mind Page 42 January 15, 2009 immediately. First Baptist Church is a PUD. And those are two that I know right away. But most recently, the Naples Church of Christ was probably in the last two or three months, maybe a little longer because of the holiday season. So PUD's have been utilized for churches. And from our perspective -- the problem with going through the conditional use process right now is a conditional use is only good for I believe a year or two. Three years now? Okay, three years. F or Covenant, you can see there are two buildings on their property right now. Their fundraising efforts have raised enough money for the first building. And the second building is -- they're also trying to raise money for that. Through the conditional use process, if we don't finish both buildings within that three-year period, we lose the approval and have to go back to square one. With the PUD process, we have -- you have a sunsetting process that's involved for a PUD, and that would give the church an appropriate amount of time to raise money to do the second building. And what we did, and you'll see as we go through the strike-through and underline, the concern -- they said, well, how long is this going to take? Well, right now the church is planning on the first two buildings, and that's their fundraising efforts. And that's why the conditional use for the next 20,000 square feet has been eliminated from the PUD and it will require a PUD amendment. And that's why that third building has been taken off of the master plan. Because we've said to them, this is really what we want in the foreseeable future and that's why we need the PUD, because no guarantees we're going to be done in that three-year period. And then if you go through the conditional use process, there's a whole host of probable variances that you would need to do to the current code to implement the conditional use. So now you've got Page 43 January 15,2009 multiple documents you've got to look at instead of looking at one PUD document to know what the rules of the game are for the project. And it's a better way to coordinate the efforts between Tract B and Tract A than to have two separate conditional uses. So the PUD process has been used on other churches, and we believe through the changes that we've made to the document provide the assurances to the community of what we want and have not gone to -- gone too far out into the future for, you know, who knows what it will be. And provides those interim steps of if we want to go beyond the 80,000 square feet on Covenant Presbyterian Church, it's a full-blown public process hearing meeting all the rezone criteria. And frankly, there are more criteria you have to meet under a PUD rezone than you have to meet under a conditional use. So I think the review process is more strenuous on a PUD rezone that it is through the conditional use, because under the conditional use there's the assumption that it's an allowed use in that zoning district under certain criteria. So their focus is a lot more narrow on a conditional use than it is through the PUD process. And we've provided through the PUD I think the same level of certainty that you would get for a conditional use, at least certainly to Tract A. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. I just thought it was very important for you to explain that to the community and have it be on the record. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Secondly, I think it would be important to have your engineer up here. I know that the community is very concerned about the water issues. So perhaps to have him give some sort of explanation would be a helpful -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you want to do that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like to do, Donna, is I'd like to first of all ask procedurally for the County Attorney -- if I could ask Page 44 January 15,2009 Tony Pires to be at that podium. And as Richard goes through the changes to the PUD, at least get an acknowledgment from Tony Pires as a representative of the -- of some of the people here, that this is something coinciding with what they had wanted. Is that a discourse we can have here with any -- MR. KLATZKOW: That's like the old Point-Counterpoint. I think that would be a very good way to do this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if, Mr. Pires, you don't mind coming up, I would like you to acknowledge who and what you represent. Could you use this other table so you and Richard aren't slugging it out at one other one. MR. PIRES: That would be a draw if we slug it out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Although he is my height, he is significantly older than I am. I don't that it would be necessary. But he IS WIry. MR. PIRES: And with age sometimes comes wisdom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is two mics there, so maybe if you both use the mics, that works. I know there are water management issues. As we get to them in this document, if Ms. Caron doesn't mind, we'll bring them up in order. I want to get the document worked out, at least to some acknowledgment between the two of you. And Tony, for the record, can you tell us who you represent here today? You'll need -- there's a hand mic. there if one of you wants to use that. It's up to you. MR. PIRES: Can you hear me with this one or the hand mic? Thank you, Mr. Strain and members of the Planning Commission. And recognizing the sort of a little bit different procedure that we might be utilizing, I'd still like to make some introductory comment, if that's acceptable to the Chairman and the Commission -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly-- Page 45 January 15,2009 MR. PIRES: -- to get some items on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard did, you should too. Go ahead. MR. PIRES: Thank you very kindly. My name is Tony Pires, the law firm of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. And I represent the Pine Ridge Civic Association. And today you will hear from myself on behalf of the association, as well as some officers and board members of the association and a large members of the Pine Ridge community. And I think by the show of hands of those who were sworn, you'll see there's an extensive presence representation by the Pine Ridge folks today. I don't know if they all want to stand so the Planning Commission can see how many folks from Pine Ridge are here interested in this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Again, I think it's important, because this item has been continued for a number of times and they've persevered. I appreciate the Commission, the staff, Richard's client and Richard's efforts as well as the persistence and perseverance of the Pine Ridge community. In looking, as we all know, in the Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use Element requires that all new development must be compatible with and complementary to existing surrounding land use or surrounding land uses. And I think also a statement was made we need to protect the rights of the neighbors from unexpected activities. I think that's also an important consideration, especially dealing with churches, where churches nowadays have expanded their role beyond what was traditionally thought to be the role of a church. In our discussions with staff and with Rich and his client -- if I can call you Rich and sometimes Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whatever. MR. PIRES: Okay, thank you. Page 46 January 15,2009 The issue, for example, of the Goodlette farmers' market at North Naples, the United Methodist Church, has come up because that's become sort of -- it looks like a commercial enterprise in a church property. And they agreed to specific prohibitions against those type of activities in the PUD. As we go through it you'll see that. But that's one of the issues of concern to the Pine Ridge community is the level of certainty as to what will be on that site. They know what's there today. They know what has been there historically. There has been church uses, small day care. And the day care, pre-K, adult day care utilization is proposed to be substantially, significantly greater than what is there today. So we have a lot of the concerns flow from what will be the end result of those intensification of uses. And we heard about models. You will hear about models, traffic models, hydrogeologic models. Wall Street's heard about models because the models they used to forecast all these financial returns have crashed or met reality. And reality is harsher than what the models forecast. So that gets back into -- lead into some of my discussion, desires for various traffic studies to show what really is happening on the ground. I think it's important, and this application also stated, and again, getting back to the reason for this application, in that the Page 7, paragraph seven to Page 2 of 2 of the application, it says the primary purpose of the rezoning is to memorialize existing land use which was based on and consistent with the intent of the subdivision plat and associated governing document. So what's there today? Also, another purpose is to provide for the orderly, continued and future use of the 13 lots in this particular area. And again, gets back into the significant intensification of use by doubling the square footage, almost, and increasing the size of the day Page 47 January 15,2009 care, pre-care from what it currently is. And then what can be achieved or what can be done to make sure that this project as proposed is compatible with and complementary to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, before you go too far, normally on these hearings the applicant makes his statement, then we walk through the PUD, we get the staff and then we go into testimony. You would have come in in the testimony phase. What I wanted to do now was to cooperatively move forward with both you and the applicant to see if the changes in the PUD as a beginning point were in conformance with what the people you represent were thinking, at least on that part of it, so that we can get past the document. Then we would have our questions on the document. Then your rebuttal to their either overall project or the remaining issues you have opposition to would come at the end of their full presentation, which actually I asked you to participate in by doing a count -- point-counterpoint argument in regards to the PUD. I understand you're trying to explain things now, but I've got to ask that you limit it to the framework in which we're about to approach, and that is a discussion to the changes to the PUD. And I understand your general objections to general things, but if you don't mind trying to narrow it to that. Because at 10:00, by the way, we will take a break. We'll probably take a break now before we get into the PUD. So the next few minutes if you could wrap up, we'll take a break, come back, and then I'd like to get right into the PUD. Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Once again, my monitor is not working. Could we clue the A V people to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For those IT people watching us, Mr. Wolfley broke his monitor again. Could someone come in and help him fix it? Page 48 January 15,2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Why is everybody always picking on me? MR. PIRES: Mr. Strain, I appreciate that. And I apologize, what I was trying to do is -- so the Planning Commission can understand the basis for some of the comments that I made on behalf of the Pine Ridge Civic Association and some of the concerns as we go through the point sort of counterpoint, so it's not just in a vacuum. So there's a basis or predicate for those concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. PIRES: I appreciate that. And once again, the issue about complementary to, it's not defined in the Land Development Code, it's not defined in the Comprehensive Plan. There's one case in the State of Florida that talks about when a development is development is complementary to. And they went to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, it defines complementary as of relating to or suggestive of complementing, completing or perfecting. Complement is defined as something that fills up or completes, that fills out and makes perfect. And what we have, we have -- as Rich mentioned before, we have a surrounding residential long-established, low intensity, single- family residential community around this use and that could be greatly impacted by the proposed intensification of uses. And that's why we are -- if the Planning Commission is inclined to make any recommendation of approval, we believe there needs to be sufficient and adequate safeguards for the residents within Pine Ridge and the property owners with Pine Ridge. And with that, we'll do the point-counterpoint. In can just reserve some opportunity perhaps at a later point to get into some other issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pires, I thought that after we normally get done with our standard procedure, which we'll revert back to when we finish this point-counterpoint, then you're a Page 49 January 15,2009 registered speaker, I would assume, and you'd come up and make your normal presentation at that time. And J.D., as a member of staff, since there is an issue about the changes and the impacts that may entail, and staff mayor may not have reviewed those for those, as we get through each one, if you don't mind, we're getting to another speaker and let us ask you if that is something that staff needs to reevaluate the PUD for so that we know then whether or not we can either accept it today or it should be continued on the basis of that particular point. And then how many of those when they add up will basically determine how this meeting ends today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We all three can fit at the same, if it will make it easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's taller than the other two, so I didn't want to show a disadvantage to that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was not going to even try to argue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, however. I just want to make sure that we get the input as we move forward, so we're not re-doing it four or five times today. It's going to take long enough to get through this as it is. So we need to spend the time on it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, before you take the break, can I just make two quick comments and then we'll get into the PUD? One, I wanted to -- since Tony's audience is here, I wanted to make sure that I introduce the Minister, Bob Petterson, and the members of the church that have also come out here to show their support for their petition. And if they could just quickly stand up and let you know that it's important to them and they've come. Now, I have not asked any of them to sign up and speak. I can, if you feel like that's necessary. But I think that Mr. Hunter and myself and the rest of the team can adequately do that. But I just wanted the audience to be acknowledged, because they Page 50 January 15,2009 are here and this is very important to them, and I wanted their voice to be heard, just through that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Counter, point-counterpoint again. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then on the second point about the complementary, and then I'll-- we'll get into it as Mr. Pires brought up. The deed restrictions for the Pine Ridge community have always identified these properties as church related properties. And that goes back to the Sixties. So -- well, not always. There was an amendment in the Sixties to -- there was an amendment to add these properties as church parcels. And -- good point. So as far as I know, most of the people in this room bought pursuant to the amended deed restrictions that identified these properties as church properties. So I would say from a -- from was it intended that churches be on this property, I would say the answer to that is yes. Then the question becomes you get into the focus of is what we're proposing appropriate. But as far as completing the plan, I would say having churches on this property does in fact complete the plan. And then I think we should get into the specifics of what we're proposing, is it appropriate on the property. With that we can get into the details, as you said after our break. That's all I wanted to say briefly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we will take a break. We'll come back at 10:05 and we'll resume by going into the changes to the PUD. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, if you'll please be seated. For the benefit of the audience, we're going to walk through the changes or recommended changes to the PUD. They may not be something everyone in this audience wants. We're just going to make an attempt to get through the document first. Everybody will still have Page 51 January 15,2009 time to speak and say what they want to say about the conditions and discussions that we have here. I've got to ask, though, that if as the discussions go forward, please don't interrupt the speakers. Everybody will get time to speak on their own. And we just need to hear this out and get done with it, then we'll start with the next process. So with that, I guess we'll be starting with Page 2 of 22 on the new edition. And Mr. Pires, it's the one dated January 9th, 2009. I want to make sure you have the same copy. The Planning Commission, County Attorney, staff and Richard, everybody have the same copy? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hope I have the right one, since I provided it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but there's been -- you never know anymore. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I think what I'd like to do is focus on the cross-outs, the underlines, and each one, for example, A.I, it says the word house was crossed out and replaced by the word a house, and the "s" after houses was crossed out. I want to get concurrence on that and go forward. And then we'll just do each one like that. And if you want to walk us through, since it's your document, then -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll do that. And again, we'll start with the very first one as you pointed out. And the reason for that was is they wanted to make sure there was going to be one worship center on the property, on Tract A. And they also requested the same change to Tract B, which we have no objection to making that change to Tract B, to have just one Page 52 January 15,2009 house of worship on each tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go forward, I know this is a small little point, one letter taken off, but I want to make sure that we don't get caught up into something we didn't expect. Does staff see any concerns from their review in regards to that one letter taken off and that change being made? MR. MOSS: Believe it or not, yes. That's just not something that we typically do. If they want to restrict the permitted uses to one house of worship, then that's a stipulation that should be included in Exhibit H which, by the way, wasn't attached to this document. It was in your original staff report that I prepared for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's your conditions, is it not, Exhibit -- MR. MOSS: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't Exhibit H your conditions? MR. MOSS: That's my conditions of approval. And if they do want to restrict it to just one house of worship, that's where it should be included. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's a condition of your approval, wouldn't it be better to be included in the PUD itself? MR. MOSS: Well, if they want to put it, make a developer commitment, they can do that also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why couldn't we under principal use just say, ifit works, one house of worship? Then you're covered. And if they agree to it we're done with it and you don't need a condition. MR. MOSS: It's not something we normally do. But if Ray says it's not problematic, then of course I don't have a problem with it either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather keep it simple as we possibly can. Would there be any objections from either the attorneys? Mr. Pires, do you have any if it were to say one house of worship? Does Page 53 January 15,2009 that -- do you have a problem with that? MR. PIRES: Don't have an objection. We just have, once again, a preface to this. On behalf of the civic association, we still -- you know, our core objection to proceeding in the PUD format and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We understand-- MR. PIRES: -- request a denial. But if you are going to recommend anything other than denial, there are various issues that we need to have addressed. I think it's clearer to have one house of worship in the document itself as opposed to on a separate exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think we acknowledge, so you haven't got to repeat it every time, you have a standing objection to the process. MR. PIRES: And to any recommendation of approval, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich, do you? Do you have any problem with the verbiage being changed to one house of worship? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: And just for the sake of consistency, in A where it says principal uses, I would recommend that we delete the "s" off of uses and just have principal use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any objection from the other two? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, this is going to be painful today, but I don't know any other way to get through this document rather than make sure you all are in agreement -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was a little shocked that that first one Page 54 January 15,2009 was -- I didn't expect that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that one wasn't simple, the others-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Andy, I may not have told you the truth. The next change is to B, number four. And the purpose of that change was to make sure that it -- only students and individuals could come basically from Tract B to Tract A and not from Tract A to Tract B. They wanted to make sure that if there is a school or a day care, that the maximum school and day care on Tract B would be 50. And it could be more on Tract A. And the way that was worded with reallocated, we could have shifted some of the individuals from Tract A to Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pires, are you in agreement? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staff? Nodding heads. She can't write that down. MR. MOSS: Yes. For the record, John-David Moss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The next one, and this has come up in other hearings, is we have deleted all of the conditional uses from the document. That was something that in other petitions that you've seen, you preferred that there be an amendment to the PUD if you're going to change anything in the PUD document. So that's what that does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, B.5 has some changes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, that was the -- I'm sorry, that was the one that Mr. Pires talked about in his introductory comments. We clarified the accessory uses and the one concern that -- with the North Naples United Methodist Church. That's intended to make sure we don't do a farmer's market or something similar to that and call it a church outreach program, thus an accessory use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Yes, with the one objection or caveat that I've also Page 55 January 15,2009 requested in our letter, and I don't think it's been addressed, is that the petitioner should detail the proposed accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses to provide the Pine Ridge community a level of comfort as to certainty of uses to fully comprehend and gauge the PUD's impact. Right now I know it's been utilized in a lot of other areas, the phrase customarily associated. But again, trying to protect the community against unanticipated consequences or unanticipated future quote, unquote customarily associated uses. Again, the farmer's market. Some people may say it is a customarily associated use for the church. There are three churches in Collier County now doing that. And so I think -- I'd like to have a list from them exactly what they want as accessory uses so we can gauge the impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what uses you don't want to see? Just out of -- is there a -- MR. PIRES: We've gone through that based upon -- I don't want to get into all the past history of this document when it was in the -- with the whole issue about the possible fitness center and the parking garage. We've cleared a lot of that issue up. I don't want to go through all that. But the concern is what is customarily associated, you know, what happens five years from now that was not anticipated as being a church, customarily associated church. Rich mentioned from the deed restriction perspective, it's a church parcel. It says church parcel and affiliated uses. And the neighborhood anticipates it being a church and they understand they have community gathering functions, social functions of a small scale for various community organizations to meet. But again, if I hadn't seen or if we hadn't seen the issue about the farmer's market and all the full website for that and the vendor application forms for that, that would have been something that they Page 56 January 15,2009 could arguably have said a year from now is customarily associated with the church, and we wouldn't have thought about prohibiting it. So I'd like to put the onus on them, they're asking for the rezoning, to say what they really want to do there and limit it solely to that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, and right now, let's not forget, there's a church allowed on this property. Actually there's three churches that have historically been there. So you're going to have that issue regardless, whether this PUD gets approved or not, what is a customary accessory use for a church. We've tried to define it. My concern is if we put an exhaustive list in there and we miss something, then all of a sudden I've got to come through and I've got to amend the PUD. For instance, let's give an example. And I don't mean to -- we allow associations, community associations to use our facilities for community meetings free of charge. Someone could argue that that's -- if I didn't put that use there and something similar comes along, you can't do that. Boy Scouts meet there, Girl Scouts meet at churches. I just think that the church, as properly operated, they're not going to do anything different. The one issue that came up, which was the farmer's market, we quickly said hey, we'll put that in there, that's not what we're doing for outreach. I just don't know how to write the list to where it's so encompassing and know I didn't miss something that someone would say, you know, clearly that's a customary church use. And it's a church already. I mean, we have that issue regardless. MR. PIRES: I think the difficulty from the Pine Ridge perspective is you have existing square footage for approximately 58,000 square feet. You have an existing day care operation maybe 10 or 15 -- I'm just guessing, we don't know the exact number, operation. They are asking for substantial intensification of the uses beyond which has historically been there. Page 57 January 15,2009 And so when that happens, the potential for intensification of accessory uses not yet known is a matter of concern to the Pine Ridge community, my client. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and the way we're going to move forward is to take your input on both, get staffs input. I'll ask the panel in just a minute if they have any questions. We'll move forward, because we've still got public speakers we want to hear about. In the end these issues can come back and be revisited if we feel necessary, and recommend changes at that point. First of all -- go ahead, Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I had -- and I guess I had talked to Commissioner Caron on this section too, so if I can -- she had suggested some revisions to the document, and I'm hesitant to do that right now, only because we were talking about what has been discussed with Tony and his clients. Is this the appropriate time for me to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. Richard, if we don't get everything on the table today, you guys -- this will never get resolved, and the public's going to come back here for meeting after meeting after meeting. So let's just finish it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, I just didn't want to confuse the process. Under principal use, one house of worship, we discussed putting in parentheses at the end of that, see Exhibit F, Tract A, commitment number six. And that's the commitment that says we only get 780 right now. Because there was that confusion. So there was -- just wanted to have that tie to a later commitment in the document so there would be no ambiguity about the 1,000 and 780. So we would suggest putting that in. I hand wrote it, but you can't read my handwriting if I put it up there. The next thing under accessory uses -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, let's get the exact Page 58 January 15,2009 language down, make sure there's no objections and move on. What's the exact language you're proposing? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would say see Exhibit F, Tract A, commitment number six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, any problems with that? MR. PIRES: No, sir. Mr. Strain, if I may for the record, before I forget, I provided a letter bye-mail and I think by U.S. Mail to all the planning commissioners outlining the objections. I just provide one for the record and provide it to the court reporter to make it part of the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And maybe this helps a little bit, under accessory uses number two, we put -- it says social/meeting and it says activity center. Perhaps we should change that word to fellowship center so we don't somehow use the word -- activity centers as we all know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go to the next change, I thought you were going to still be talking about A.I. You gave us the language, Tony's acknowledged it. Does staff have any problems with it? MR. MOSS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Rich, I want concurrence on the record from every party, so that whenever we get to a conclusion, we can at least say this is why we've done it the way we did it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought J.D. had, so my mistake. Number two, under Item B, accessory uses, change the word activity center to fellowship center, because that's usually what churches have. And I think that's probably terminology we're all a little bit more comfortable with with the church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony? MR. PIRES: Subject to not conferring with my client, it seems to be reasonable. It seems to narrow it down. Page 59 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Now -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to the accessory use structure customarily associated with a permitted principal use, the changes there. Tony's expressed their concerns, you've expressed yours. J.D., where does staff stand with that added statement? MR. MOSS: This is with -- I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: B.5, the added underlined sentence. MR. MOSS: Oh, everything's fine, except there's a lot of unnecessary capitalization. But substantively yes, staff has no problem with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And at that point I'll turn to this commission, as I probably should have with each previous one, although I didn't think they may have raised any questions. But I'll ask you all, is there any comments that you have on B.5? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, since there's an issue here of trying to figure out what these accessory uses are going to be, I'm not sure, but aren't you sort of covered in two, in B.2? I mean, what you want for the rest of it with perhaps the addition of, I don't know, because you're going to have kindergarten school, I mean, is this where we have to put the, you know, you're allowed to have a tot lot or whatever they call them these days in there? But I mean, basically if it's not being used by the church for a church service, it's being used by other groups including probably some church groups, you know, choirs and whatever, for meetings. It's a meeting hall that you need, it's a fellowship hall, it's a meeting hall is really the accessory that you want other than perhaps a playground for the kids. Page 60 January 15,2009 I don't know, I'm just trying to help and move it along. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can we table that one and let me -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- think about that? That may -- I hadn't thought about that as a potential solution, so I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, make notes of this and we'll keep -- we're going to be on this for awhile, so we can come back to it. The next thing on that page, Richard, is your cross-out of conditional uses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, do you have any problems with that? MR. PIRES: No, sir. We appreciate their consideration of that; they listened to the community on that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, staff is happy about that too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next page, 3? Temporary uses. Such -- in the underlined section, such uses shall not begin until the property owner applies for a building permit for the first new permanent building. And then there's some addition of time frame in there and a cross-out. Any objections from Tony? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, you won't have any because you wrote it. J.D.? MR. PIRES: You never know. Rich has been known to look at his work in the past. Page 61 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second guess his work. MR. PIRES: Yes. MR. MOSS: It looks fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody on the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4? This is Tract B. Who said ah? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I did. I wanted it put up here because this is -- I just hand wrote the changes we previously discussed so it would be, again, one house of worship. I forgot to cross out the "s". And then change activity to fellowship. And then it would be essentially consistent with Tract A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the rest of that page are the same changes we just talked about on the previous page. B.5 is one that's going to come back for a little discussion later. Anybody on the Planning Commission have any problems? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., I'm assuming you wouldn't have any with this either? MR. MOSS: (Shaking head, no.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Tony, you're okay with the rest of that page? MR. PIRES: Which page is that, Page 2? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4. MR. PIRES: Page 4? We are making that correction? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we're making the one house and change fellowship and be consistent with what we just did for A. MR. PIRES: That works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So everybody's on the same page on Page 4. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? Page 62 January 15,2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Where are we on number five with the different uses for the future? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll come back -- we need to think about what Commissioner Caron said regarding maybe just relying on item number two. We just need to give some thought to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As the day goes on, they'll come back. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5 is Exhibit B. It's table one for Tract A, development standards. First cross-out is the redevelopment program in the CFPUD is based on a 25-year build-out. That's been struck. Any problems with it, Tony? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard, I'm not going to ask you if you have any problems, because you're the one that wrote this, so I'm assuming you're okay with your own writing. Does the Planning Commission have any concerns with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Get into the table itself, minimum yards. And the change was from right-of-way with additional words, says line abutting the property. Anybody have any concerns? Tony? MR. PIRES: No, that was our suggestion. We appreciate that. Because before it seemed to be something that wouldn't work. But that works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The side yard for the principal uses has been changed from the -- it used to say the greater of 15 feet or half the zoned building height, now it just says 30 feet. Page 63 January 15,2009 Anybody have any problems with that from Tony's perspective? MR. PIRES: No, sir. And for clarification, that's between tracts. I believe that's -- the side yard just to tracts only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that staffs understanding? MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: Not the perimeters, because that's taken care of elsewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staffs okay with that? MR. MOSS: Yes. It would probably be helpful to have that indented so it's clear to the person who's going to be reading this down the road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You'll get a clean one. MR. MOSS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which indented, the word side? MR. MOSS: The word side, yeah. I think that's what makes it confusing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's two other changes. Maximum zoned height, the 50 is struck to 35. The maximum actual height, the 70 is struck to 50. As far as those two go -- and Mr. Schiffer, I'll get you in just a minute -- Tony, you have any problems with those? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reductions I wouldn't think you would have. J.D.? MR. MOSS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And J.D., if you see stuff here that requires more time for staff to review than we're going to afford today, make sure you tell us. MR. MOSS: Okay. Well, my one concern is that Susan Istenes, the director, is going to want to review the final document, which she Page 64 January 15,2009 normally does. And obviously not being here today, she's not going to have the opportunity to do that. So I would be reluctant to bless anything that she hasn't had a chance to review herself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, can you assist so that -- my concern is, staff can review it no matter what we do here today, because it's still got to come back in some form or other in another meeting, whether it's a full-blown meeting or whether it's consent. So there's going to be plenty of time to review it. But what I'm trying to find out is if there's something that's triggered by the changes today, if staff feels they absolutely need analysis time on this, not a review time, but analysis to see the impact, that's what I'm looking for. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. We'll let you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Mr. Schiffer, you had some -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think on height. And I guess go to your Exhibit G, that's probably the best place to look. I'm really confused as to what the height of this building is going to be. We have a -- I know what zoned height is. I know what actual height is. But we have a new thing we're inventing now that has an extension above actual height. What is the intent there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, that's not new, it's something we did for the Naples Church of Christ. It's for the cupola steeple that's above actual. Because we didn't want -- and one of the issues was, is if we went to an actual height for that, the actual height of the building could be 80 feet, as we're requesting. We wanted to make it clear that it was just that small portion of the building, the cupola steeple that could go what we're asking for, the additional 30 feet above the 50 feet actual height. That's so -- and we did the same, similar type language in Naples Church of Christ so that we couldn't have a building itself that could Page 65 January 15,2009 achieve an 80- foot height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're specific that it was the steeple and I guess the cupola. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you change one thing in footnote two? You have non-habitable. Habitable is a residential. Could you change that to occupyable (sic), which would-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, which one is that one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number two in the first line. It says non-habitable. If you change that word to occupyable, I'd feel a little bit better. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the issue on the mezzanines. Mezzanines aren't counted as stories. So essentially if we do go two stories and we're excluding mezzanines, which essentially would be excluded anyway because they wouldn't be considered a story, you could really have four levels in some of this stuff. So here's what I'm trying to picture. Could we -- in that sanctuary, are we looking at something that could have multiple mezzanines within that, and you'd start considering them story and mezzanine? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Pires, we're going to get to the next page where Mr. Schiffer is recommending these pages. We'll ask you about those when we get there. MR. PIRES: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, just to make sure I understand the terminology, is basically a mezzanine essentially a balcony? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Open to the floor below -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. And I think that we would Page 66 January 15,2009 be comfortable having just one balcony within the worship center -- worship portion of the building. So I think we're okay with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the way you'd get around it is I could start considering it -- it doesn't have to be a mezzanine, a balcony. I could start saying it's a story, so I could go above the first mezzanine and say that's a story and there's a mezzanine above that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I still have 35 feet is my cap on zoned. We brought the height down to the same single-family zoned height in Pine Ridge, so that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're kind of trapped in that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- we tried to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 35 -- let's go back to Page 5 then. Thirty-five and the 50 feet work for all parties? Is that where we're still at? Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Y ovanovich -- J.D., 35, 50 feet work? MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the reference to existing and then slash the word expanded added. Everybody comfortable with that? Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just go back on what Rich said. Just a thought. Rich, do you have any problem on footnote three to add only one mezzaninelbalcony within the worship service area? Because we design churches with multiple mezzanines, and that's kind of a -- I know that the height's an issue, but there's probably a way around that, Page 67 January 15,2009 so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question, though, Brad. If the height restriction is 35 feet, who cares what we do with -- if they put 100 mezzanines on the inside, it doesn't really matter. Why are we concerned about that if we've got the exterior, which seems to be the concern that the community is going to see, why do we want to penalize them on the interior? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the 35 feet is the midpoint of the roof, so you're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's finish up on that page. Under minimum square footage, the words conditional use if approved and 20,000 square feet have been struck. Mr. Pires, I'm assuming you would have no problem with that? MR. PIRES: Page 5? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5, yes, sir. MR. PIRES: No objection, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And J.D.? MR. MOSS: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we'll go to Page 6, and that's the footnotes to Page 5. Brad has mentioned a change on number two. There already is a change on number two. The maximum actual height may be exceeded by up to, and it used to be 20, now it's 30 feet. Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Twenty feet, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: That's good. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whoa, whoa, whoa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I know what -- you're agreeing to 20 feet. They have 30 in here. Does the staff have a concern either way? MR. MOSS: No, staffwas okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With either one? Page 68 January 15,2009 MR. PIRES: And I object. MR. MOSS: With either one. MR. PIRES: And my letter indicates our objection to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: We'd like to keep it at 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to note your objections. We'll ask comments now but there may be more comments after public speakers. Any comments from the Planning Commission on that issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: In regards to number two, the last underlined sentence doesn't seem to make sense. The maximum combined square footage of such building elements shall be 2,000 square feet. What are you measuring there? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 4,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4,000 square feet. MR. BELLOWS: 4,000. But how is that to be measured? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the cupola. MR. BELLOWS: Square feet, or volume? It's -- is that applied to a cross too, or -- MR. PIRES: I think Exhibit G, there's a graphic in the bottom part of Exhibit G. MR. BELLOWS: Maybe my recommendation would be or it is that Exhibit G show all the typical -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You want me to put the 4,000 square foot there? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you repeat what you guys just talked about, because I didn't pick up the response to your issue, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: One of the things that would be helpful, if the elevations showed exactly what that 4,000 square feet applied to. Page 69 January 15, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I just hand wrote an arrow on Exhibit G. So we'll put the reference to the 4,000 square feet there. And we'll make it including the cross and all that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get to Exhibit G, we're going to revisit this and we'll acknowledge it at that time. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I think Ray just said. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go too far, the word non-habitable being changed to occupyable, that was Mr. Schiffer's recommended change. Tony, do you have any problems? MR. PIRES: Would be non-occupyable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The word non-habitable would be occupyable. COMMISSIONER CARON: Non-occupyable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Non-occupyable, yeah. MR. PIRES: Non-occupyable I thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, non-occupyable. MR. PIRES: No objections, that's fine. I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason is they're saying they don't want to put bedrooms up there. I'm saying you don't want to put an office building either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any problem, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just -- we're leaving out a discussion for later of the 20 versus 30 feet -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- on that maximum height? Page 70 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're not leaving it out. Mr. Pires is objecting to it. Mr. Y ovanovich says it needs to stay in. Staff doesn't care. If you want to comment on it now or wait till after public speakers, that's your prerogative. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I actually was just surprised that Mr. Schiffer didn't want to comment on it, because he was concerned about the overall height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Schiffer usually pushes for higher things, so I'd be surprised ifhe wanted it lower. So -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just don't want anybody living in it, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ifwe want to bring it up for discussion now and resolve it or do we want to let it sit till later? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Personally, I don't want to resolve anything until we hear the public. But if you want to comment on it, you're more than welcome to now. If you want to have it resolved in your -- from your perspective, go right ahead. But myself, I'm going to wait until I hear what the public's got to say about the height before I get too far into that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine, I'll also wait for the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll move on to number four. The language that was added provided that in no event shall the square footage of all structures within the boundaries of the CFPUD exceed 100,000 square feet. Mr. Pires, any objection? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., any comments from staff? MR. MOSS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the Planning Commission? Page 71 January 15,2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number eight, we had two cross-outs, listed side setback -- listed setback is for -- and the word all was added, the word habitable was struck, the words conditional use were struck. Any objections from Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last one was an addition sentence. The sentence that was added, the child day care, pre- K kindergarten school use shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from the West Street, Ridge Drive, Myrtle Road. Anybody have -- Mr. Pires, do you have any problems with that? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next page is 7. Lot of stuff on this page. Let's start up on top with the buffers. The perimeter was struck and it now says all perimeter. Tony? MR. PIRES: No, sir, no objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number two has an extensive change. I'm not even going to read it. I'll let you guys decide if there's any concerns. Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: No objection. In fact, I appreciate Rich's client inserting language that was provided by one of the residents of Pine Page 72 January 15,2009 Ridge who is a landscape architect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. J.D.? MR. MOSS: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No comments. Number four, parenthetical A, and there's a series of parentheticals added. Talks about the hedges. Is there any -- let's take the first paragraph, we have a strike-through and then additions of a hedge row and more definition to that to that hedge row. Mr. Pires, do you have any problem with that first paragraph of 4.A? MR. PIRES: Yes. Page 2 of my letter in paragraph four, I referenced Page 7 of 22, which is the page we're at right now, in paragraph four. We're requesting that the first -- if this is to be approved, the first three lines should read, the hedge component of the continuous perimeter LDC Type D landscape buffer abutting West Street and Myrtle Road, parentheses, extending to the driveway on Myrtle Road, you know, shall be installed. And then go on with those various heights. This is so we have -- they have a more limited area as to where they propose to have this particular height of this buffer. And we want to have a longer, greater section of it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Tony, to make it easy for you, we don't have any problems with your paragraph four. We'll clean all that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So paragraph four that is going to be inserted here, who's got it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: He wants the words minimums in certain places and under -- we're okay with doing all of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, let's take 4.A. We're still on 4.A. He's recommended a change for 4.A. The change would come after the word West Street, and it would say, and Myrtle Street, Page 73 January 15,2009 parenthetical, extending to the drive entry on Myrtle Road, I think that's what it says. And then you would continue with the word and at that point. Is that correct, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: The primary change -- once again, it would read, the first three lines, as opposed to what's there now, would say the hedge component of the continuous perimeter LDC Type landscape buffer abutting West Street and Myrtle Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PIRES: Parentheses, extending to the driveway on Myrtle Road shall be installed with the minimum height of five feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, gotcha. Mr. Y ovanovich, any objections? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I didn't see what was different from what we had proposed, so we're okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. MR. PIRES: Only because it was -- you were saying -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hear -- I mean, it was the intent. So I'm okay. I've always told you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Planning Commission. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want to note that I'm going to discuss that when we get to the 9:00 -- the 10:30 noise thing. So I just want to throw that in, I'll be talking about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, the 10:30 noise thing? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The music after -- was it changed from 10:30 to 9:00? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on 4.A. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I understand. But I'm just saying I'm going to bring this hedge up later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to bring the hedge up Page 74 January 15,2009 when we discuss the noise? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Wolfley, their music issue doesn't even apply to Tract A, and that's what we're talking about right now. Tract B will be -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Maybe I just should have said nothing and bring it up later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, the Planning Commission is going to have all the time to keep commenting, so you don't have to wait -- you don't have to reserve time, David. We'll certainly want your input. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And I will check off everything that I agree with in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a concern with the last sentence: with the approval of the Pine Ridge Architectural Review Board, a suitable species with the ability to remain uniform in a changing insolation environment may be substituted. That is not the typical element that we see in PUD's. If you want to between now and the time this comes back have a private agreement for that, and you're going to have other -- I have other concerns with language that's been added that is way too specific, plus it needs to be consistent -- we need to be consistent with code. To those things that are beyond code, you guys can have private agreements. I'm not sure that we need to have in a PUD enforcement actions to any private organization, whether it be the Pine Ridge Architectural Review Board or any. So I'm a little concerned about that, Tony, and I'd like your thoughts on it. Because that's a stumbling block for me. We have historically not put the county in a position with having to enforce things through private entities, private groups. And I would rather not start messing that process up in this PUD. MR. PIRES: Perhaps -- and once again, and I'll consult with my Page 75 '-~--~'-"'-_.'~'---"--"""'-"-'---_._,- January 15,2009 client -- perhaps the concept could be similar to what's being proposed or agreed upon as to any permits to South Florida Water Management and/or dewatering that a minimum of 30 days prior to any submittal to Collier County of any landscape plan or any plan involving landscaping, that it will be provided to the Pine Ridge Architectural Review Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you worked that in a private agreement and you guys all sign that before the next vote, and part your approval is based on that, that's fine. But I don't think it's appropriate in a public document to defer review to a private civic entity of any kind and then expect the public to have to enforce that provISIOn. I think -- I don't see the need -- I don't see how that should be possible from a public standpoint. MR. PIRES: Once again, I think the concept of providing notice in a copy of the plans at least 30 days before submitting it to the county doesn't put them in a veto position vis-a-vis the county, but puts them on notice the application is pending so there can be a point of entry for the Architectural Review Board if they wish to intercede on behalf of -- in the county proceedings. That's what we're trying to achieve in a lot of respects -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, can I respond real quickly to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we have board members who want to speak as well. Go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We actually saw this language as beneficial to the church and to the association, because right now we've agreed to the certain species of hedge material. And what we're saying is they -- we weren't -- if something else better comes along and is also consistent with the LDC, and we talk to them first, we could change it. Otherwise, I have to come and amend the PUD to change the type of plant material. Page 76 January 15,2009 And this actually I thought provided flexibility to the property owner to do other materials that are allowed in the LDC, should something else come along, and provide Tony and his client the flexibility to do that. Because right now I'd have to amend the PUD, because we have been trying to be so specific to address a lot of the concerns of the community . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Rich, I think what Mr. Strain was trying to tell you is that the preference is that the language in the PUD more closely track our LDC and what's permitted, and that any private agreements as to what can go in there and whether it goes through an architectural review committee, the county would prefer that that go in either an agreement between the parties or some sort of deed restriction against the land. And this isn't the only area where it's a little bit more restrictive than what the county would prefer. And as you go through the rest of the items, those other areas would be identified. But that's what I think Mr. Strain was trying to tell you, which also reflects the staffs view as well as the County Attorney's -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. But I didn't hear any objections from staff or the Planning Commission regarding the identification of the plant materials. It was the process that we would follow to change the plant material. And what we're suggesting is the -- we put all this in there because, you know, the community has been craving certainty. And we're trying to give them as much as we possibly can, all the way down to the types of hedge material. So we've said we'll pick from this laundry list, but if something else comes along that's also consistent with the LDC, we would like to go to them first, and if they veto it, they veto it. But if they say it Page 77 January 15,2009 makes sense, then we'd come to staff. Otherwise I've got to amend the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What I don't like is the words with the approval of Pine Ridge. How about in coordination with, so that you still keep your shrubs and then you get to coordinate with them, but you don't necessarily need their approval? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, the point is that we should not in a public document be bringing in private organizations for recommendations, whether they are considerations, approval or contrary to or anything. This is a public document that has to be handled in the eyes of the public with the codes we put in place, not what a private group wants to do. I'm in favor of the Pine Ridge Civic Association's things they want to do. But we can't -- if we allow this for them, then every homeowners association, civic group in Collier County will want to be in on the PUD for approval and recommendations. And I think that's a horrible precedent for this county to be setting. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I was going to try and enter into it. I agree with you. I understand. And that came to my mind as well. But I was looking for a middle ground, and I started saying with the approval -- and hold off now for a second -- with the approval of the Pine Ridge Architectural Review Board and consistent with the LDC. But maybe the language needs to be suitable species consistent with the LDC and subject -- not subject, and with -- never mind, I'm not going to go there. Let's get that out of there. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Just take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: These properties, even though Page 78 January 15,2009 they're designated for churches now, they can be used -- are they still not part of an association? The Pine Ridge association? The Pine Ridge Civic Association, because they're in that property area? MR. PIRES: It's a voluntary association if! -- my recollection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you do have deed restrictions, do you not, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So wouldn't that be where this comes in? MR. PIRES: Once again, I understand what Mr. Strain and the Commission members are saying, but there are examples of PUD's, for example, if I recall -- I'm paraphrasing from the Pelican Marsh PUD. There's a provision in there with regards to -- example, I think golf course structures or even the maintenance facility that talks about the landscaping shall be in accordance with the Pelican Marsh design review standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, nobody on this panel was here when that was approved. And I can assure you, had they been, there would have been questions raised. So, I mean, it's fine you bring up the old projects, but the old projects are the mistakes in this county. And that's what we're trying to correct. MR. PIRES: Once again, an alternative might be if the Planning Commission is not inclined to have language that indicates the approval of the Architectural Review Board, later on you'll see in here we have provisions with regards to getting notice in advance of permit applications. And the importance of that is, do you have a viable point of entry into certain permit applications with other entities and/or the county, it's nice to know not to have to on a weekly basis monitor and find out what is going on. And I think that's -- so possibly -- and I haven't talked to my Page 79 January 15,2009 clients, the way to address this is that prior to submitting any plans to the county for any changes to the landscape material, that they will submit those or provide notice of the proposed change to the Architectural Review Board, like 30 days in advance. That way they can look at them. I think that's an appropriate governmental function. Heidi may disagree, but I think that's appropriate. It's merely a notice issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will be objecting to that when we get to it too, Mr. Pires. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Y ovanovich, do your clients -- since you've agreed to all of these changes anyway, do your clients have any problem with setting up a separate document that says we agree to notify the Pine Ridge Association of these things? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, again -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So you can set up a private document with the association. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. But that doesn't answer the question -- this is the zoning document. These are the rules of the game for this parcel of property. We've identified one, two, three -- I think that's right. It may be three or four types of hedge material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, she's saying we drop all the underline, we drop it. And then it all becomes subject to your agreement with them. And then they could come and object to things in front of this board and the BCC and anybody else in the future, because you won't work out an agreement with them. And then comes the methodology instead of putting in a zoning document. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just go and type a separate agreement that has exactly these things in detail, you know, the ones that I know are going to come up -- MR. PIRES: And I think part of the input by the person in the community, the landscape architect that suggested these particular Page 80 January 15,2009 types of material, was because the concern about making sure it's compatible with and complementary to these intensification of uses with the Pine Ridge community, that this specific type of vegetation was one that he in his professional opinion thought was appropriate. And so it puts Rich in a dilemma because we have someone who's saying okay, this is one way to buffer the intensification of use, and we'll agree to that, but gee, if we get caught in a pickle because of other circumstances, how do we modify that without having to come back to change the PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I personally would prefer, if! can't -- I'd rather have to just live with these materials then and not have the language in there. Because you know what's going to happen, Mr. Strain. We'll have an agreement amongst ourselves about what's going to happen. If something isn't enforced because of that, Tony's going to come to the county and the county's going to say that's a private deed restriction, that's not part of our responsibility to enforce this. I know it's unusual, but I think you can distinguish PUD from PUD to say hey, this is an unusual circumstance, it's a church in an existing neighborhood, and they've reached an agreement on the appropriate plant materials that should be in the zoning document so that the government can enforce it instead of having to go through a private lawsuit. That's what we're thinking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have we established in fact that the church and all of its properties are subject to the Pine Ridge Association? MR. PIRES: There are deed restrictions that encumber it. But it's a voluntary association. The Architectural Review Board, the review is mandatory. I don't represent the Architectural Review Board, that's a separate entity that was established by the original developer over 50 years ago. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted to ask, if! could, just Page 81 January 15,2009 point to point, because I'm trying to get to that where we can get rid of this, if we can. If they are subject to that association, must they not respect the rules of the association? And if they must respect the rules of the association and there are penalties associated if they don't, is not the Architectural Review Board part of that association and therefore has some authority to establish what criteria it wants? MR. PIRES: My understanding is the Architectural Review Board is not part of the association. It's a separate entity established by the original developer and appointed by the original developer. And I could be corrected by a member of it, Mr. Schneider, who is here today, former -- one of the county engineers in the past, and/or Sally Barker. And so once again they're separate entities. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If that being the case, then who are the architectural review board people? Who do they represent? MR. PIRES: Mr. Schneider can probably best address that. He's registered to speak. I don't know if -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It seems that -- MR. PIRES: -- now or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just curious-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It seems that since they are out of the association, what authority, what rights would they have? And I guess I do want to know the answer to that question. MR. PIRES: The Architectural Review Board's roles and responsibilities are outlined in the covenants, and Mr. Schneider can best address that. Once again, I'm not the attorney for the architectural review committee or review board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather we move forward with this document and we'll just leave these outstanding issues to be addressed by the public and us when we get into it. Ray? Page 82 January 15,2009 MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It's my opinion that the language in here does require review by our landscape architect, and I would request that this item be allowed to have staff review it and comment on it. And so we might have to come back to you on this at a later date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: And if they would like to possibly substitute the species that they have listed here. It seems like a good option maybe to just say, or some other suitable species as approved by the county landscape architect. And then we can let the county landscape architect, who is a licensed professional landscape architect, decide what would be the most appropriate species for this location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I think what we are probably saying is that A, one, two, three, four, and I would think five, six, seven, eight, would all be subject to the county staff review at this point, because they all are more specific than our code requires. They are very specific as to plantings and bubblers and things like that. And so I think that's all going to be deferred until we get back from your analysis and review. Let me finish one thing with Mr. Y ovanovich first. Richard, you said something earlier, which is exactly my point, although you were trying to use it to your benefit, and that's that the Pine Ridge Architectural Review Board or any others who are trying to enforce these things wouldn't be the ones to have the cost to enforce them now, they could just call the county up and say you enforce them. That's exactly why the taxpayers should not be in that position. This document should reflect what the taxpayers need for zoning issues. If that board or any private organization needs more than what the taxpayers need for zoning issues, that would create a position where we've got to enforce something that's going to be costly. It Page 83 January 15,2009 should be left to that board to do it as it is now rather than put it on the backs of the taxpayers. And that's why I'm so adamant against having private entities enter into these agreements in a PUD. I think it's wrong. Not just for the people in Pine Ridge's group, but every group in the county. As taxpayers, we're not paying for those individual fights, that's up to the neighborhoods to do that. So I'm going to stay pretty hard on that issue through this whole thing. So with that -- go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This is a question for J.D. and Rich also. Would you have a problem removing all the restrictions from the hedge row down to the end of8.A? All the special-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The answer to that is as far as what type of plant material. If you want to say the Land Development Code needs to address that, we've obviously agreed to limit what we can choose from the Land Development Code, and we're still willing to do that. But I think you've got to keep -- and maybe the bubbler stuff, the stuff that's clearly covered in the Land Development Code, the answer is if you want to do that, that's fine. But the other stuff, as far as planting of the heights of the hedges needs to stay in, because these are in addition to the Land Development Code, so that's got to stay in. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's got to stay. MR. MOSS: I would say even remove six and seven, not just all of eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, I marked this page up, and the whole five, six, seven and eight, this is not the document where you get into that kind of specificity. What kind of sod is there, what kind of bubblers, professionally maintained. Does that mean the guy can't go out and cut his own grass? Is every house in there professionally Page 84 January 15,2009 maintained? I mean, I just think this is going to an extreme in a zoning document. I don't blame the neighborhood for wanting it, and I don't -- and I certainly empathize with the right to have some kind of control. The government is the wrong way, the wrong institution to use that personalized neighborhood control for on items that aren't owned by the government. So I'm real concerned about that whole section A. And that's my take on it. I know that staff now has to go back and review it. Why don't we as an encompassing item, all of Section A, which starts on Page 7, go to Page 8, if there's any other expression of concerns by the Planning Commission that would like to be made now, please let me know. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I agree that it seems much too specific and we should just go by the county standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Just a quick statement. It seems as though the association would like to rewrite the LDC. And we have a good amendment, we should stick with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just reemphasizing my view. It's the same as yours, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. With that, I think there's enough direction given for that one. Staff does their review, and Mr. Pires and Mr. Y ovanovich, you might want to take that into consideration when this comes back to us. We'll certainly listen to public speakers, but that's kind of where this issue is going today on that number eight. Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean if it's going to be the Planning Commission's recommendation that this language come out Page 85 January 15,2009 and we deal with it through a separate agreement, there's no reason for staff to review it and to delay the hearing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. If you guys need to get your heads together -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not saying we're going to agree, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense if you're going to direct that this come out ofthe document -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we by consensus already directed that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- then there's no reason to delay a public hearing for staff to review language you say shouldn't be there in the first place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's the consensus so far, but we still have to hear from the community. And if there's any changes after that, we'll go forward accordingly. Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Just for point of clarification, I understand what the discussion has been with regards to, I'll call paragraphs five, six, seven and eight, and Pages 7 and 8 of Page 22, but -- and the discussion at the tail end of Paragraph 4.A, but is the discussion that all of A will be discussed and being removed, including the 4.A, B, C, D? Because 4.D provides for enhanced type of buffering, 4.C provides for intense type of buffering without naming the type of vegetation, as well as 4.D. And that gets into the whole issue about compatibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't have any -- I don't think we have -- in the past we have regularly modified buffers to create a better compatibility scenario between uses. 4.B, C and D, or 4.A for the front part of it and B, C, and D do nothing more than that. And had this been left that way, the objection may not have been so encompassing. And I would suggest that those points, the hedges, the intensity of the hedges, are acceptable in most projects to be modified. We're not saying that. It's the specificity of the material, the Page 86 ".---...,.--.-.-- .. -, '-"'---.-.-- January 15,2009 bubblers, the sod types, the maintenance, those are not items that are normally in a zoning document. MR. PIRES: I just wanted clarification because it seemed like all of it was going out as opposed to just those areas that they articulated a concern about private covenants, as well as detail of material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we move on to Page 8, does anybody have any questions left on Page 7? MR. MOSS: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, J.D. MR. MOSS: Let's see, number 4.B, it should begin with the word along rather than add. It makes it sound as though the hedge is just at the intersection. So along West Street, and same with C, along Ridge Drive. And then D is just an LDC requirement. There's no need for that to be in this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest, if that's __ MR. MOSS: Trail Boulevard, planted 24 inches and maintained at 36 inches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it hurt? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't have to be maintained at 36, I think it has to be maintained at two, correct? MR. MOSS: No, it's 36. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You have to maintain it at 36? MR. MOSS: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Then if that's the LDC, then that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you come back with your analysis on what's left, if that doesn't need to be in, then they should take it out. MR. MOSS: Okay, I'll let you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pires, from the word along on B and C and the possibly removal of Item D, do you have any concerns? MR. PIRES: As far as along in Band C, I did suggest that, I Page 87 ~_^N_"~_ ___.____ January 15,2009 have no objection. As far as keeping D, I'd like to keep that in there, because if the LDC changes or lowers it. I mean, that's why I suggested the words minimum be added before each of the listed heights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I don't have a problem with it-- MR. MOSS: So would you like me to leave it in then in that case CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That just enhances the-- MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that part of it. It's not a material change. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to Page 8. First change on that page is Item E. There's a strike-through for which does not meet county standards for lake cross sections associated with slopes and littoral zones. Mr. Pires, do you have any problems with that? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody from Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next paragraph, quite a few strike-throughs and a new sentence added. Are there any comments? Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Ifwe can go back. Mr. Strain, my correspondence -- and I don't think Rich had any objection to it. In the first full paragraph of E that we just went through, if we can add a third sort of category. In other words, as far as what type of capacity would be required. That the project shall provide the greater of the capacity-- Page 88 January 15,2009 greater of one, the capacity required by water management design standards for a three-day, 25-year storm event. Two, the capacity of the existing lake. And then we added or three, the capacity required by water management design standards at the time that development order approval is sought. Because if we have changed standards greater than what's one or two, we'd like to have whatever the greatest is. So we would add three categories. And the third one would be the capacity required by water management design standards at the time that development order approval is sought. And the last sentence, capacity may be met in part, with dry water management areas will be retained. And I think Rich was comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you'd have to do that anyway just to get your South Florida permit. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We were comfortable with adding that. I guess what Tony is saying, he didn't want me to be able to argue that this PUD exempted me from future capacity regulations. MR. PIRES: Yeah, because say for example South Florida was to delegate it back to the county for water management, and it met three-day or capacity of the lake and there were some other criteria that was -- some other water management designs. We want the greater of it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Our engineers have looked at that and they're comfortable with Tony's revision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. J.D.? MR. MOSS: The county engineer is okay with that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the first paragraph ofE, water management. So basically the strike-through is acceptable and the proposed language addition by Mr. Pires is acceptable. What about the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. Page 89 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The second paragraph, we have a complete cross-out and then a rewrite. Mr. Pires, comments on that, any? I know the words Estates after Pine Ridge you suggest striking because it isn't Pine Ridge Estates. MR. PIRES: One thing that -- I'm not sure this is the appropriate time to make the comment. The language as added and struck through is appropriate. The discussion with regards to any impact on possible potable drinking water wells in the Pine Ridge community. If you recall, Pine Ridge is on residential development and the community is on __ they're on individual potable wells. And we're trying to ensure -- and the issue was raised about making sure that the excavation activities and the fill activities associated with, I'll call it locating the lake, as it's discussed, do not adversely affect those wells. And my suggested language -- we had some discussion, Rich did initially in the beginning. We suggested that before that occurs, relocation of the lake occurs, there should be a detailed study assessing the impacts of proposed activities on the potable drinking wells in Pine Ridge within a 2,000-foot radius. So Rich may want to have some testimony as to that. I think that's what he indicated. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we said we would -- we object to that. And Mike Delate's here and can explain the process of what's going to occur with this relocation of the lake. And we certainly don't have any objections to providing you notice of any permit application we make related to the relocation of the lake. MR. PIRES: Including any dewatering permits? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As Ms. Caron had indicated earlier, this might be a convenient time for your water management expert to Page 90 January 15,2009 come up and explain to us the possibility or the not possibility of the activities in this lake affecting nearby wells. MR. DELATE: Good morning. For the record, I'm Mike Delate from Grady Minor Engineers. I know there's a number of concerns, some of them are vague and some are specific, as to the effects of this proposed development on adjacent water users and wells in this instance. If I might address just some of them, as I understand the general concern out there. First was the possible effect of dewatering activities during what we call the relocation or reshaping of the lake on-site. The process for this reconstructing the lake or reconfiguring it would be to start the excavation in the, would be the southeast corner of the property and creating a cofferdam in the existing lake. Then the dewatering activities would commence in the new portion of the lake. The way the Water Management District requires dewatering activities to occur is obviously through -- after a permit is issued is that a trench is normally dug or created around the proposed dewatering area, and this dewatered -- or this water that's come from the excavation would be pumped into that trench. That would create a surface mound of water that seeps down through the soils, and in this case the quite sandy soils of Pine Ridge, creating a mound effect of water in that area. What it does is then limits the effects of the dewatering beyond that mound. In other words, off-site. So as the dewatering activities occur in the newly excavated area, water levels would go down within that, but a mounded area of water would be created around the excavation; in this case between the road and the proposed lake. Then the soil is excavated from the new lake area, will be trucked over to the old lake area, put into the -- and dumped into there probably with the water being in place, because there would be a cofferdam present. Any sediments at the bottom of the existing lake would then be Page 91 ."'-"--'--_.---. .._....._,........".~---,-- January 15,2009 entrapped or encased in that new soil material going into that lake. So this process will continue. I estimate probably two weeks they could have that lake finished. The new lake then will be completed, the dewatering activities would stop and the existing -- or the new lake, the water levels would return to their natural condition. As part of the permitting process through the Water Management District, you have to show that you have no instantaneous, or excuse me, limited instantaneous drawdown effect on adjacent water users, in this case the wells nearby, the individual wells. And that instantaneous drawdown is only a tenth of a foot that you can have an effect. So it's quite stringent. The Water Management District review process is quite stringent when there's a legal user like this nearby. Those wells in that area are old. Probably most of the residents don't know where their wells are on-site. They have a general idea, and they probably don't have any idea on the depth. So during the permitting of this, the review, the Water Management District and the hydrological engineer will assume a worst case scenario, which would be water table wells, not wells that would be going below the confining layer. So that's -- the modeling technique then would be based on having all water table wells probably located on some -- on the lots that are nearby, we'd have to get a general idea where those wells are located, and then the computer model would take that into effect and show that there's no instantaneous one-tenth of a foot drawdown effect on those wells. So I understand the residents' concern on that, and I think the rules set out by the Water Management District are quite stringent in that effect. And the requirement that that application be provided to the owners beforehand is reasonable from the owners' perspective. The other concern that they had was the effect of having a lake Page 92 January 15,2009 that close to the wells, after the lake is constructed and any possible pollutant sources entering those wells. There is no statutorial requirement for separation from individual potable water wells and water quality treatment areas or lakes in this effect. There is a statutorial requirement of 300 feet for public water wells. But the assumption there is you're pumping hundreds of thousands of gallons a day versus maybe hundreds of gallons a day, so you have a much greater drawdown on those wells with a potential to pull some water from the lakes towards those wells. In this case with such a minimal pumping from those individual lakes, there's no statutorial requirement, because it's considered that the potential is very minimal. From a practical perspective, wells only have to have a 75-foot separation to septic systems, which are present in the Pine Ridge area. And that's considered a much greater pollutant source. In this case we're going to be separated at least a minimum of 100 feet. It's probably much greater than that from any possible well location, existing well. So the potential impact to legal -- excuse me, existing wells off-site is very minimal, if non-existent. I think those were the two primary issues. I'm not sure if there are any others, but I'd be glad to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you done your modeling? MR. DELATE: No, no modeling has been done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you done your soil testing? MR. DELATE: We have a general soil test and we haven't done any borings yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you do your modeling, the permeability of that soil testing will decide how fast the pumpage, or what rate the pumpage would need to come out in order to determine if there's any impact on the drawdowns. MR. DELATE: Absolutely. And the permit would limit the Page 93 January 15,2009 types of pumps that you could use out there for dewatering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In reverse, couldn't you also determine how much pumpage would have to come out of any individual well to actually have drawn water of a substantial nature from the excavation location to the nearest well? MR. DELATE: Yes, it would be a different process and a different model, but the same thing could be performed. That hasn't been requested by the owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I'm just saying, all that modeling is -- South Florida could request it. South Florida is going to demand some of it when you submit your permit. MR. DELATE: Well, they would require it for the dewatering, the wouldn't require it for the lake excavation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, you got into the area I wanted to get into, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: These are not potable water wells, are they? Aren't these just for landscaping? MR. DELATE: No, there's potable water wells in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on stormwater at this time to Mr. Delate? Ms. Caron, you're satisfied? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Now, with that, Tony, the added language in the bottom, and with the exception of striking the word Estates after the words Pine Ridge, do you have any problems with that? In the first -- actually, the second paragraph at this time. MR. PIRES: The second to last paragraph at the bottom of Page 8? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 94 January 15,2009 MR. PIRES: Striking Estates? No, sir. And if we could add language with regards to comparable to what's on the next page, that the association or the individual property owners will receive notification 30 days in advance of any application for dewatering permits or lake excavation permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not to the next page yet. Let's just talk about the second to last paragraph and that last sentence that was underlined and added. Do you have any problem with it once the word Estates is struck? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., does the staff have any problems with it? I see he's shaking his head no, Cherie'. For the record, that shake was a no. Okay, I have -- the next paragraph, do you have any problems with that, Tony? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question. If the first one says that the surface water management system, including adjacent roadway swales to the north, basically it's saying you can't -- your surface water runoff and discharge can't be directed to the roadside swales or to the existing water management system to the north, east or south. The surface water management system in the last paragraph shall be zero discharge or discharge shall be routed to the west or existing or new facilities on Trail Boulevard. Now, I'm vaguely familiar with some of the routing of the stormwater that used to go under U.S. 41 and go through some outfalls in Pelican Bay. But I'm wondering if you're going to have zero discharge and you're not going to have to worry about discharge into Page 95 January 15,2009 any adjacent swales, but the swales along Trail Boulevard, does anybody know where they end up discharging to, if that's what you're going to discharge into? MR. DELATE: I have a little exhibit for that. Maybe you could zoom in on the church in this low area. In essence, the discharge from Trail Boulevard, there's a couple of large sized pipes that go under u.s. 41 that discharge to Pelican Bay. There's a little swampy area right adjacent to 41 as you drive south from the church. And that flows into the lake system of Pelican Bay and then out to the spreader swale in the Gulf of Mexico. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your outfall is continuous then. That's what I was trying to find out. Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pires, do you have any problem then with that last paragraph? I think you said no. MR. PIRES: That's correct, no objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., any problems with the staff? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody's in agreement on that one. Page 9, third paragraph on that page, there's a strike-through and add-on. Mr. Pires, any problems? MR. PIRES: Page 9, third paragraph, no, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go too far down that page, the first three paragraphs, any comments from the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and I had mentioned this to Mr. Y ovanovich. On paragraph one where it talks about Tract B being Page 96 January 15,2009 integrated into the master water management system if and when it's redeveloped. Right now Tract B I believe is part of the master system. They use Cardinal Lake like everybody else does. So I don't know that they can wait for redevelopment, since this is just a bank-owned piece of property. It could sit there for another 10 years without having water management here. If you change and move that lake, you're moving it further to the south and away from Tract B. And maybe I don't understand this, but MR. yaV ANOVICH: And I know we talked. I -- the light went on just a few minutes ago as to why I remember we put this language in here. This language is in here -- the answer to the question you asked me is yes, we're going to allow the existing facilities on Tract B to flow into the new facilities on Tract A. The reason this was in here was to make it clear that when Tract A redeveloped, it didn't have to provide its own water management system, that they would be relying on what's on Tract A. So that's what that language is there to accommodate and make sure that, you know, Tract A is basically getting a two-acre developable site and their water management would be taken care of through Tract A. That's what that language is for. And yes, the answer to your question was yes, we're accommodating what's there in the new system. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So as you start to redo Tract A and redo that water management system, it will never disrupt Tract B. MR. yaV ANaVICH: It will not cut off -- correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And along the same lines in that same paragraph, since Tract B is reliant upon Tract A, the parking lots, the structures, the runoff from those will be funneled, I imagine, into catch Page 97 January 15,2009 basins; they'll be turned into underground RCP that will take it to a lake with a head wall. The routing of that RCP and the placement of that head wall will be on Tract A's property, because that's where the lake is. At what point, J.D., will staff insist -- or will staff need language in this PUD to insist that cross easements be developed and maintained in order for Tract B to have perpetual easements to get in and maintain their outfalls into Tract A, if needed? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Stan Chrzanowski with . . . engmeenng reVIew. That would happen at the SDP process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we're assured that it doesn't need to be in the document, you guys will make sure that's done during that process. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. You're going to ask him to spell his name, aren't you? THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am, I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Stan. Ms. Caron, anybody else have any other questions on the first three paragraphs? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tony, we're into the fourth paragraph at this point, and it's a brand new one. MR. PIRES: The one that starts at West Street roadside swale? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one. You have any objections to that language? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., is there any problems from staff perspective? MR. MOSS: No, sir. Page 98 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, this wouldn't apply if you have zero discharge? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry? MR. MOSS: The fourth paragraph. MR. PIRES: I think that's going to take place anyway. The redesign of the West Street roadside swale? I think that's going to occur regardless. So that can take it into the site, I believe. And Rich can correct me. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we're taking the roadside swales in whether we discharge or we don't discharge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next paragraph is an entirely added paragraph. It's all underlined. I understand, Mr. Pires, your concern. Again, this isn't an issue where the county should be put in a position to monitor whether or not a landowner notifies a private organization. You can register with South Florida, you can have this agreement that you will apparently be working out. I suggest that this belongs in that agreement as well. That's just my comment. Anybody else on the Planning Commission have any comment on it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, I notice you nodding your head, yes. I would suggest you all add that to your site agreement so that it stays with the parties it's intended to stay with and not drag the taxpayers into it. The rest of that page doesn't have any changes. Any there any other questions on Page 9? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What do you think the intent on F is for the flat roof? And Ray, I guess I'll start that by -- is this going to be subject to the architectural standards -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just to get you to ask a question, that's what it was all about. Page 99 January 15,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it worked. First of all, there is no flat roofs in a perfect world. But what is the intent to do, to avoid large parapets or something? Because theoretically right now you could build a 50-foot wall being the perimeter of the building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to take a stab at this. This is the example that Tony always gives me about what he doesn't want to see happen. MR. PIRES: Or what the community doesn't. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I agree with him, and I agree with the community. There's a church, and I don't want to name the name of the church, but on Ben Hill -- Ben Hill Griffin, right? MR. PIRES: That's correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Up by the Florida Gulf Coast University that has basically a flat roof and doesn't look -- it looks kind of like an office building, a very commercial type building and not what I've come to regard churches would look like. And this is to make sure that that doesn't happen on this piece of property on A or B, because the same requirement or prohibition is on both tracts, so we don't end up with the church I'm describing within the Pine Ridge community, because it would be out of character with the Pine Ridge community. MR. PIRES: I'll name the church if you don't want to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You can. I just -- MR. PIRES: It's the Summit Church. It's on Treeline just south of San Carlos Fire District. A building -- the gray and black building that looks like an office building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Tony, I don't think this would do that. Because theoretically you could build a wall around the perimeter of the church 50 feet high. So I think if you do want to do something like that -- well, firstiof all, let me ask Ray. Page 100 January 15,2009 Ray, does this go through the architectural standards? MR. BELLOWS: You mean a church? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Based on its location, yes, it would. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then Tony, why don't you try to limit parapet heights and then put in a minimum slope? There's no roof that's flat anyway, so somebody that's going to play with the words is going to -- we don't have them yet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're hoping that the massing document that's Exhibit G that applies to this property, to Tract A, addresses that, Commissioner Schiffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you don't want a contradiction in your PUD document. So Brad's absolutely right. And if your Exhibit G does what you're trying to accomplish through F, they should coincide in their language. And you don't want a contradiction in their same document. I suggest when this comes back that somehow you reword F so that it meets the intent of what you're trying to do in G. MR. PIRES: That's a good suggestion. I think also if we could make sure we have language in the document, following up with what Ray said, that this does have to go through the architectural review standards, because it's not stated in here clearly. And I don't know if we've had that discussion. But I think it's important to put in the PUD that this will be subject to the county's architectural review standards and review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think a way to get the roof you want is limit the parapet height and limit an eave height. In other words, start the wall where you want to get the slope and just prevent somebody putting a very large parapet on that. MR. PIRES: Appreciate the suggestion, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that is probably okay with the applicant, I mean, limiting parapet height -- getting to that intent. But I Page 101 January 15,2009 wonder if there's any question based on Richard's facial expressions in regards to the architectural review standards component that was suggested being added. Do you believe you're not subject to those? Because let's get it on the table now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm not saying anything. What I'm saying is I thought we have historically said that the law is what the law is. So if the LDC requires us to go through the county's architectural standard review, then we'll go through the county's architectural standard review. If the LDC doesn't require that, then we won't. I don't know the answer to that, but based upon the comments we're been hearing throughout is you don't want to duplicate what's in the Land Development Code in the PUD document. That's the only reason I'm reacting the way I'm reacting. It is what it is. I don't know the answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting into one item of architectural review, and that's flat roofs. And flat roofs are not-- they're not good-looking, but they are allowable in different portions of the code. All we're saying here is I think that all you originally said is you're not going to have flat roofs. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're saying define it better-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm okay with that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the same time, if we say that you're coming under the architectural standards of the county and you already do, what's the concern? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know i[I don't and I don't know if I do. And if the LDC changes at some point in the future that says it's not necessary for churches to go through this review process, why would we be applying a different standard to us? Page 102 January 15,2009 I'm just looking for consistency with the comments that have been made at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, when you review -- when you did your review and the organization you represent did the review, were they relying upon the county's architectural standards in the LDC? MR. PIRES: No, that was not part of the discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you didn't know until today that staff may look at it like that. MR. PIRES: That's correct. We had some discussions. No one was sure whether it would or not. And it's the first time, so -- if it does in fact apply, I think it's important to reference it. But getting back to what Rich was saying, you know, when he made his introductory comment, he said if we were to go through the conditional use process we would need to have -- number one, you'd have to come back because of sunsetting issues potentially. Number two, we'd have to ask for a number of variances. And so we have a PUD document where they are asking for a number of their own typical kind of PUD development criteria. So I don't see how it would be inappropriate to specifically say that they have to comply with architectural review standards. Even if they may not. I think it's important -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, and your concern is that-- MR. PIRES: -- because they're asking for a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the process changes in the future, then you want to go with the process. So why don't we -- what's wrong with some language referencing the architectural review standards as they apply through the LDC? That way if the LDC modifies it in the future, then that's the way it applies. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if it doesn't apply to it right now, it doesn't apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't apply to it. Is that okay, Tony -- since Tony hasn't counted on it in the first Page 103 January 15,2009 place, I'm not sure why it would have any impact either way. MR. PIRES: Well, I guess we need clarification from Ray. Ray is of the opinion they do apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, don't hang your hat on something you just heard today. You've done your review. And if your review is consistent and you like what you see here today, don't push him through the eye of a needle over something that has yet to be known, Tony. I mean -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me -- the people much smarter than I behind me have said that the current LDC -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a wall behind you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- it does apply. So he's protected. I don't think you need to put that in the LDC -- I mean, in the PUD document, because it does apply. Today. MR. PIRES: We have it on the record from Ray. Once again-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, I have no problem. MR. PIRES: I'm not trying to push anything. I'm just -- sometimes you learn something every day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're going to rewrite Exhibit F to coincide with the intent of Exhibit G a little bit more, as Brad Schiffer had suggested. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rich, you're relying on Exhibit G. So would that state that the bearing height or the outside edge of this is at 20 feet? If the midpoint's at 35, the top is at 50, you subtract 15 feet from 35, you're at 20 feet. So is that what -- can you add that to this drawing? Essentially -- and I think if you want to call it bearing height or something so that you could put a Glu-Lam on something on top of it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that this document was supposed to be that detailed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you said Exhibit G -- Page 104 January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- the community has -- we have some architectural renderings of what we're proposing to put on the building. And the community asked us, come up with a document that is similar to what you're telling everybody you're going to do. I don't think the community said to us we don't have a finally-designed building. I mean, we haven't gotten to that level of detail. But they wanted to make sure that the brochure that we're utilizing is reflected in an exhibit to the PUD document. MR. PIRES: And part of that discussion, which I think you all indicated you didn't want to do, where you talked about having some level of articulation and openings, and you all said you did not want to do that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. At this time. It's too early. MR. PIRES: Right. It's not totally what we're asking for. This has less detail than what we had requested. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you didn't object to it in your letter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me make the point though, with the regulations we have -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have a revised -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, one at a time, now. Come on. Otherwise we can't move forward like we're trying to be here. So go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the regulations we have now based on Exhibit G, we would expect somewhere around a 20-foot height bearing at the wall. The thing I'm concerned about is we don't want to build a 30-foot parapet on top of that, which has nothing to restrict that. So just make sure -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. We'll-- I'm going to rely on others to help write that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think you got the gist of what we're suggesting. Page 105 January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We got the gist. It's not the intent to build a parapet to get around the provisions that we've agreed to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move to Page 10. Anybody -- and there's no changes on Page 10. Does anybody have any -- from the Planning Commission have any comments at this time on Page 10? Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I had talked to Mr. Y ovanovich about this too, in terms of the hours of operations and their restrictions. The normal operational hours may be exceeded up to four times per month for accommodation of special functions for the child care and school. But that's pretty open-ended, you know. And I had asked him to talk to his clients about times and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is 9:30 for the four -- up to four time special events for the child care or school, per month. COMMISSIONER CARON: And is that seven days a week? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we're only allowed the child care and school Monday through Friday. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Okay. So that would be restricted there. Okay, thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that was our intent was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Tony, since you didn't have any objections to this page to begin with, then I'm assuming that making it more restrictive, you're not going to object to that. MR. PIRES: It sounds reasonable. And once again, that's 9:30 for those four times per month -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. MR. PIRES: -- for the special functions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No objections. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Page 106 January 15,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't hear what the numbers were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to limit the four times per month to no later than 9:30. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And then we had also talked about is it seven days for the adult day care? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, potentially. COMMISSIONER CARON: Seven days a week. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And number three says non-worship uses of the facilities. Is that also a seven day? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then I will ask you the question that I asked you, then why is there no effect on your parking count? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we did the parking calculations, you and I -- COMMISSIONER CARON: We think we did them. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We think we did them right, based upon the requirement of three parking spaces per seven seats and the overall project being allowed up to 600 parking spaces. And we also did that on our own tract. On this tract I think it was -- we came up with we would need 421 or 429 for this tract, that if we were to run them concurrently we would have 71 extra parking spaces on a Sunday, maxing out the number of seats we could have. But there's adequate parking to address both if they were running at the same time. If we had the adult day care during worship hours, there's 71 or 79, I can't remember the exact number, extra parking spaces over the code minimum. So it should address it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. I just wanted to make that clear for everybody that they're not subject to those parking for Page 107 January 15, 2009 additional parking, because they will have additional parking. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And there's no issue during the week, because church isn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move to Page 11. It's the table for Tract B. Development standards just like it was in A, so we'll move through that. The first strikeout is the last sentence. Tony, do you have any problem with that? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: I have a problem with something on Page 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought we were done. But let's go back to page -- go ahead. Now this is not changed language. So assuming if staff had a problem with it, you've already expressed it. MR. MOSS: They had -- well, staffwas never in agreement with this, and we had included a condition of approval for it. If you notice the last sentence of the paragraph at the top of Page 10, it says that this location is subject to jurisdictional agency review and approval. Well, it's already been reviewed and denied, and so this language is no longer applicable. And so I have language provided by our environmental review staff to revise this one commitment. And if you look at the -- I guess it's the second sentence of that paragraph, it says location of the 44 trees. If you delete is proposed to, put will be. Within the perimeter landscape buffer along West Street and Myrtle Road, period. And then delete the rest of that commitment. And the new language would be, the 0.12 acres of created preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. MOSS: Shall not be located in dry water management areas, due to conflicts between agency maintenance requirements. And staff would also like to have this sorted out on the master plan. It needs -- there's language in there that refers to the old Page 108 January 15,2009 language we've just stricken. And we'd like to amend it to make sure that the two jive with one another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you have any objections? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tony, do you have any objections? MR. PIRES: No, except just echoing what J.D. said, because I think the master plan does show a created preserve area, and it sounds like it's being -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's still going to be created, it just cannot be part of the water management system is what I understand staff is saymg. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any natural preserves left on this -- natural areas left on this site? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We've got some pine trees out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, are there any sections left with the layers of canopy that you would find if you were to walk out in the rural lands somewhere? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I don't think that you would identify this piece of property as having any real native vegetation as defined by -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is in the urban area along 41. Are there any endangered species on the property? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are there any endangered species on the property? Not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't mind the open space. I think if we required you to provide the open space, that's fine. You have -- your acquiescing to the requirement, so that's fine, too. Although I personally think it's a problem and we're creating a cost to someone to recreate native vegetation where it wasn't in the Page 109 January 15,2009 first place, especially in the urban area. It does no good. That's just my comment on that. I mean, certainly everybody's going to move forward with it like it is. But it just doesn't make a -- it's a waste of money for a lot of people and I don't see the need for it, personally. MR. MOSS: There was some native vegetation on the site. If you recall the supplemental staff report that I submitted, environmental had some issues because of a clearing violation that occurred on the site. And Susan Mason from Environmental is here to elaborate on that. MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason, Engineering and Environmental Services. There was a vegetation removal permit pulled a few years back for exotic vegetation removal on an undeveloped lot. It was approximately an acre or so. And they were only allowed to do hand removal on the vast majority of the site. Mechanical was prohibited because it had saw palmetto and the pines, and they would kill the pmes. Subsequently, mechanical removal was done on the entire lot and the saw palmetto that was there was removed and the pine trees died and were further damaged in storms. So while there's nothing currently existing out there, that's because there was a small area that was illegally cleared. So that's why there was a recreated requirement. And that's why they do have a lot more flexibility in the way of relocating than they do currently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Susan, this is not facetious, this question. It may sound that way initially, but it's not. Ifthere had been 10, 15,20 years ago pine and other saw palmetto and so forth and disease struck those down, they died, would you be advocating a replacement of those -- that's a natural course of events in life and death of plant species. Would you be requiring them to reinitiate? Page 110 January 15,2009 MS. MASON: It's pretty difficult to answer a hypothetical like that from decades of what mayor may not have happened. Staff would evaluate that. We do have photographs that were taken prior to the mechanical clearing on this site, so we do know what was there and that it was removed without a permit. So that's why the preservation requirements are based on those conditions, not something that happened decades ago, but something that happened a couple of years ago. And there are before photos that are part of the record. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So i[I understand you correctly, you don't want to deal with the possibility of life and death associated with plants on those properties, but in fact as long as you observed something at some picture some time ago, you would then want to reinitiate it. MS. MASON: Well, staff has to have evidence of something being done legally or illegally to make a call. And in this case it's quite clear, whether or not it was intentional or not. I have no idea if they intended to kill those pines, but they did violate their permit. And by violating the permit it's very clear in the code and on the permit itself that that permit becomes invalid. And since they're coming in for a rezone now, that rather than it being a code case where they would have to recreate what was destroyed literally on that property, because it no longer has a valid permit, they're merely having to recreate a portion that's required for preservation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we know how along ago that the destruction, if you will, occurred? MS. MASON: I believe it was-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a generality. MS. MASON: I think 2004 was when the permit was issued. But the dates may be even in that supplemental staff record. I haven't Page 111 January 15,2009 looked at that lately. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: What I'm trying to get at is would not code have cited them for that? MS. MASON: Only if there's a complaint or if it's observed. There's a lot of territory and a lot of vegetation permits that are issued throughout the county. There's not normally a follow-up unless we know there's a problem. And apparently it was 2005. And Summer Araque was the permitter who went out on the site, if you have specific questions for the site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm trying to get at is that if code fails to see something like that then in an event such as this, then there's a catch-up, there's a catchall and a catch-up. MS. MASON: Right. We actually have a procedure to divide out responsibility for issues if it's discovered and can be resolved as part of a rezone or an SDP type of process, that our section handles it. But if it's something that's outside the realm of normal inspections and reviews, then code enforcement will handle it based on the nature of the violation and different ways of coming into compliance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you for the information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are we done with Page 10, everyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN : We're on to Page 11. And I guess the first strike-through is accepted by all, so now let's move on to the table itself. The minimum yard section of the table, the cross-out of from right-of-way and the cross-out of the greater of30 feet or the zoned height of the structure and the letters SPS across that line. And up above where it crossed out and conditional uses. Tony, do you have any objection to those? MR. PIRES : No, sir. Page 112 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next one is minimum yards between tracts, that's been crossed out, and we have added language for distances of30 feet, 50 feet, and then a bunch of underlined addages (sic) to that. Anybody have any problems with that? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get on down to the side existing new structures, it changes to 20 feet -- from 15 feet to 20 feet and from half the building height from 30 feet. Does anybody have any problems with that? Tony? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Balance of that page, the footnotes are crossed out under maximum zoned height, and the maximum actual height's been changed from 55 to 45. Tony? MR. PIRES: No objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: None either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last says any approved conditional use language was struck. I'm sure there's no problems with that. Tony? MR. PIRES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The footnotes. Yeah, I was going to ask you, Brad, to kind of reiterate where your footnote concerns are and we'll go through them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number two, the word occupyable instead of habitable. Page 113 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, any problems? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any changes --let's go through the whole -- all the way down. Let's say -- MR. PIRES: In footnote three should we make the same change we made before? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: I think Mr. Schiffer suggested exclusive of mezzanine in your balcony -- the exact language I guess on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think he basically said, as I commented to him, as long as you're within the height, what does it matter what you do inside. So I don't know if any changes were ended up warranted for that section. MR. PIRES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so on number two, you're in acceptance with all the changes in number two, Tony? MR. PIRES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And J.D. is? MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number five. Tony? MR. PIRES: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: Looks good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number seven? MR. PIRES: Once again, with the standing objection, no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We know your standing objection. J.D.? Page 114 January 15,2009 MR. MOSS: I'd just like to add this used to be a stipulation for approval that was contained in Exhibit H, and I'll make sure to delete that from those stipulations now that they've included it in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And number eight. Number eight is a little -- I need some explanation on that, because basically what it's saying is if someone owns Tract B, the Tract A standards apply. Are there any standards in Tract A that if applied to Tract B become objectionable? And I don't know if you've looked at that in that regard, Tony, or how this got in here. MR. PIRES: No, and we discussed this at length, because one of the issues was the issue about additional height on Tract A. But then we have the additional setbacks for the Tract A regulations, so that counterbalanced in our opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're okay with eight? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And J.D.? MR. MOSS: I think I'm okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As it is now, we're going to have to come back with another hearing anyway, because staffs already put in on record they need to review the changes that are already been possibly coming out as a result of the landscape buffer issue, so you'll have further time to review this. But I want to make sure that you still -- where your concerns are. MR. MOSS: At first blush it seems okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? We're on number eight. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm just sort of concerned about the overall intensity on Tract B to begin with. It's far greater than what's going to be on Tract A, the larger tract. And I don't know, we seem to be shoving all this intensity over to this little tiny 1.9-acre plot that has to get their water handled by A, has to -- you know, but we're allowing them like 9,000 square feet an acre versus 5,700 for Page 115 January 15,2009 Tract A. I'm just -- I hope somebody's looked at that and you really are okay with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But doesn't the maximums of the PUD apply to the combination aggregate of the tracts? And would that solve your problem? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. All alone they get -- whether it's owned by the church or it's owned by somebody else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there's a maximum in here ofa hundred -- 80,000, 100,000 -- MR. PIRES: 100,000 square feet total for the entire-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But all you have to do is add up the square footage allowed on Tract B. 5,600 square feet for the church, 12,400 for an accessory -- oh, I'm sorry, that -- no, accessory uses, and 2,000 for storage. If you divide that by their -- add that up and divide it by their two acres that they have, you're talking about 9,100 square feet, you know, for every acre you've got. Versus if you add up all the square footage you can put on Tract A and divide it out by the 14 acres they've got, you're talking about closer to 57 square feet. So my concern is how much square footage we're dumping onto this little tiny parcel. And I don't think -- I think intensity-wise it's significant. I think that if it's owned by somebody separate, then the development standards kind of keep everything down to a more manageable level. If it suddenly is then incorporated into the church, then they get all their standards and -- I don't know, I think you're looking at an awfully intense use for two acres. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ms. Caron, if Covenant Presbyterian buys Tract B, the minimum building separation will be 200 feet. So there'll basically not be a building on Tract B. Now, the intensity -- so that's 20,000 square foot -- Page 116 January 15,2009 MR. PIRES: Any new building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What's that? MR. PIRES: A new building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: A new building, right. MR. PIRES: The existing building will-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The existing building will stay and it's -- MR. PIRES: -- 20 percent it could expand with a setback of 50 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So, I mean, if the concern is that somehow Covenant will buy Tract B and you'll have more intensity on Tract B, the exact opposite will happen, you'll actually be moving the intensity away from the neighborhood, because of the increased -- if a new building is built, that increased setback of 200 feet versus -- what is it now, Tony? On the road I think it's 50 feet or 30 feet, I forget. MR. MOSS: Thirty. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But anyway, you get a better situation for the community if Tract B is acquired by Covenant, wouldn't you agree? MR. PIRES: Yes. And once again-- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's fine -- MR. PIRES: I think Ms. Caron's concern might be a standalone utilization of Tract B with 20,000 square feet on approximately two acres. I think that's what is being articulated. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And square footage, I don't know that that's necessarily a good indicator of intensity for a church. I think it's people. And right now there are no fixed seats in that building in Tract -- the existing building in Tract B. And they can put 150 to 200 chairs in there today. And we've kept it at that number. So from an intensity standpoint, people coming to the site, we basically have kept what's there today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Tony, you're okay with eight? Page 117 January 15,2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: They're okay with it. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And J.D. is. And we'll go on if we need to. And nine. Do you have any problems with number nine, Tony? MR. PIRES: Footnote nine at Page 12? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on the same page, yes, sir. MR. PIRES: No objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we got through over half the PUD. We got through the most intense parts of it. There's a lot more to come, but not quite as much as we've been through this morning. We normally leave a little bit early for lunch because of the lineup downstairs, so we will take lunch and come back here at 12:45, quarter of 1 :00, and resume the walk through this PUD and then we'll get into public hearing after that. With that we'll take a nearly one-hour recess. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good afternoon, everyone, and welcome back to the meeting. I hope you all had a good lunch. And we're going to go back in to where we left off in just a moment. Item #8D - Continued from earlier in the meeting PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12026, SAVANNAH PLACE RPUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have one housekeeping issue to take care of. And Heidi, it involves Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12026. That was the consent agenda item that we deferred while the applicant corrected a table. And the table I understand has been corrected, it's been passed out. I don't know how many here have it. Page 118 January 15,2009 Does everybody here have a copy of it? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I was going to move approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just want to make -- Commissioner Schiffer brought up most of the concerns. Did you by chance be able to talk to him about this at all? (Sic) MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, there he is, speak of the devil. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There he is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather not make a motion until he's agreed with it, too. Brad, the new table for that prior petition on the Savannah Place, any problems? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I looked at it. It's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to recommend approval of Petition -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- PUDZ-2007-AR-12026? The motion was made by Commissioner Murray. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Page 119 January 15,2009 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We appreciate your patience in getting it done today. Item #9A - Discussed & continued to later in the meeting PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NAPLES, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we get to deal with the attorneys again. Okay, we left off on -- we finished Page 12, so let's move to Page 13. We'll continue along the same path as we had before. And the first one there, and this is -- Page 13 is just those issues pertaining to Tract B. So the first one is A, buffers. Tony, there's a change, there's a sentence added. Any concerns? MR. PIRES : No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard, again, I will assume, since these are your documents, you don't have any concerns about your own document. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's a good assumption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number three has a change from the heights, four to six feet. Any concerns, Tony? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As we move down the page, item C has three words added and one word crossed out. Any concerns, Tony? Page 120 January 15,2009 MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the last of the changes on that page that are underlined or struck out. Does the Planning Commission have any comments on that page? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I -- number D, second paragraph it says, at the time of build-out or thereafter, the project shall provide/maintain a minimum of 40 percent of gross project area. This is the same language I believe that was in Tract A. And I'm wondering, does it fit for Tract B? It's referring to the project. And since this is a PUD involving two parcels, does that mean Tract B's build-out is going to be subject -- or Tract B's open space will be subject to the build-out of Tract A? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. The overall PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the property owner ofB is consenting to be regulated based on the performance of A. MR. YOV ANOVICH: At the end of the day when everything is built out, when you have the total redevelopment of A and you have B redeveloped, if it redevelops, the overall PUD will have a 40 percent open space. And the code requires 30. So it's above and beyond. So we're committing at the end of the day, when everything gets redeveloped, there will be a greater open space than the code requires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many acres is Tract B? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The first -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, wait. B as in boy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: B as in boy. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first sentence, the project shall Page 121 January 15,2009 provide/maintain a minimum of 30 percent gross project area, i.e., not less than 4.8 acres of open space. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because the total-- there's 16 total acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tract B doesn't have any separate requirement for open space as a standalone? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, would stafflook at it like that? MR. MOSS: We looked at it as the overall area. They're required to maintain at least 30 percent open space in the whole PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: And they're providing more than that. They're providing 40 percent at the time of build-out. But they have committed to maintaining that 30 percent throughout the phases of development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure under separate ownership there wasn't to be a separate allocation that had to be noted. That's fine. MR. PIRES: Mr. Strain, i[I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Unless I'm misunderstanding, the last sentence of-- the last paragraph on Page 13, it just says the minimum open space requirement for Tract B and its associated contributions towards meeting the gross PUD minimum open space shall be 20 percent of the gross area of Tract B. So it does appear that some of the open space has to be on Tract B. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But it doesn't have to meet an independent 30 percent standard. MR. PIRES: Correct. But at least 20 percent of the overall 40 percent. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Page 122 January 15,2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll move on to Page 14, the water management. The first paragraph has a strike-through. And I believe -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: These are identical to what we did for Tract A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So should we just make all the same changes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree with that. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have a problem? Tony, is that consistent with what you would-- MR. PIRES: It is consistent, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So same changes as Tract A. And both parties agree? MR. PIRES: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: County agree? MR. MOSS: Yes. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sorry, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Okay, so let's move on to Page 15. It would be item F would be the first -- well, there's no changes on that page except number four, and it's the house of worship hours of operation. Tony, any concerns? MR. PIRES: In the Tract B regulations, I guess the question is, is this the appropriate place for it with regards to hours of operation? And one of the concerns outlined in my letter to Rich was that there should be language prohibiting outdoor music, requiring that when there is music associated with any activities that the music cannot extend past 9:00 p.m.; and that music only be performed and confined to a fully enclosed building with all the windows and doors closed so they cannot be heard from outside the building. Page 123 January 15,2009 It's my understanding there have been sometimes activities have occurred past 10:00, 10:30, 11 :00 at night where there might be music or entertainment -- or music, excuse me, as part of worship or activities. And then when people are spilling out of the church and/or it continue on, it has an adverse affect on nearby property owners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your objection is not just outdoor music, but you're objecting to indoor music when the doors and windows are closed? MR. PIRES: That they -- when they have the indoor music, they need to keep the doors and windows closed to try to the confine that to the inside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure how we regulate that. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Didn't we just go through a noise ordinance that would cover that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure what the noise ordinance covered, even though we spent I don't know how many days on it, to be honest with you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That was going to be my point about the buffers, as well as the noise ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we did go through a noise ordinance, it is going to -- it may have already been approved. It's ambiguous in a lot of ways. It's concerning. But if we can strike a balance here where the applicant agrees to some restrictions that are reasonable, and the neighborhood agrees, it may not be a bad thing. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It talks here about -- this is B, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Tract B. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It talks about worship. And I thought the only house of worship was going to be on Tract A. Page 124 January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, each tract will have the ability to have its own house of worship. Because right now they're owned by different entities. Covenant Presbyterian Church owns Tract A. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why did we change it from houses to house of worship? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because the way it was written, we could have -- each individual tract could have had multiple churches, and we had committed to just one church on each tract. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, maybe the city will give them a permit for entertainment. I don't know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And this is what we had raised earlier about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I walk my dog by this site. This is a house that was converted I think into a church. It does make a lot of noise. I mean, it's -- I've noticed noise coming out the windows that I think are old louvered windows, and it is pretty loud out in the center of the street anyway. So if we did limit -- unless the neighbors who live across the street have no problem with it, I would think we have to be careful with the building. At least the existing building. MR. PIRES: And that's the concern, Mr. Schiffer and members of the Commission, is that as to Tract B, that structure is closest to the residential community. It's at that corner of West and Ridge. And it does have -- they do conduct worship activities where they have music, that it gets loud and people coming and going. And it's just a matter of not trying to prohibit it from inside, just to regulate it so that it doesn't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. PIRES: -- create a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the noise does get out of there pretty good. Page 125 January 15,2009 Now, you said it's owned by a bank now, right? I mean-- MR. PIRES: Correct. But I think they're leasing it to another church, if I'm not mistaken. They're currently leasing it to another church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Tony, if the noise was restricted from the outside and limited to the inside with the windows and doors closed, you still have an objection to that? MR. PIRES: Yeah, I guess the problem that's tough to regulate is when they're coming and going, though, and the people leave the doors open as they're exiting. I don't know how you regulate that activity, though, that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me say -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a limit -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the noise -- it's interior noise that I'm listening to in the middle ofthe street, so, you know, enclosed or not, it's making a lot of noise. And I know what you mean, when the doors are open, you can hear the difference. Anyway, I think that, you know, it's up -- maybe the neighbors that live across from that are here and they'll testify. But I think that 10:30 number I'm suspicious of. MR. PIRES: Yeah, we had a 9:00 number was what we were suggesting, because they've heard of activity at 10:30, 11 :00 as the time there's been music. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's wait and hear from the public then and see ifthere's any kind of input or compromise we can get to. Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, I just want to point out that all we're trying to do on Tract B is keep what's already there. And there already is a church with absolutely no limitations on hours of worship, music, anything. And we looked at this is we were asked would we agree to limit Page 126 January 15,2009 worship from 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m., which we agreed to. And I don't -- again, I don't know of any -- I've never been to a worship service that didn't involve some form of music in that worship service. To now say to this church that's been around for a long time that you're going to tell them that they can't have music as part of their worship service after 9:00 p.m. just doesn't make any sense. We'll agree to the outdoor music. But the indoor music? The door's closed. People will leave, yes, that happens. But I think we've gone a little beyond what's a reasonable regulation applicable to a use, a church use that already exists on the site. So we would hope that that could be taken into consideration. Because you're not getting any benefit by trying to impose a limitation over something that already exists. MR. PIRES: And members of the Commission, i[I may, just briefly, again, the applicants are here because, as I understand, part of the issue is they cannot expand the existing structures because they're nonconforming. And this document gives them the opportunity to take that existing structure on Tract B, which is closest to existing residential properties, expand up to 20 percent with a 50-foot setback so they can engage in expansion activities. And so I think there's an opportunity for protection for the neighborhood when they're asking for something that they're not allowed to do at the present time as far as having increased size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this would only apply when they expanded their operation? MR. PIRES: No, I -- no, it would apply over all. But I'm just saying as part of the process, where Rich is saying historically that has been utilized and there hasn't been any such regulation. But they're asking for a significant opportunity to significantly expand this facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm afraid we're going to be Page 127 January 15,2009 setting a precedent. We have a code in place. If people have a problem with sound, they have every right to call the county and say there's too much noise. Why are we restricting a church to things where a restaurant, for instance, or a sports bar is not restricted? I don't get that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You couldn't put those there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I understand. And that's what we're here for. But well, I'm sorry -- MR. PIRES: Possibly you could. If a project was coming in for rezoning to a commercial and they wanted to have a restaurant and have some entertainment, I think the board would be well within its right to regulate the ability to have any music, and as far as regulating the hours of operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chairman and Commission members, if I may make a recommendation on this. I think that what Mr. Pires originally proposed and what the applicant indicated they would agree to was the language limiting outdoor music and agreeing to keep the windows and doors closed during the worship service. And I'd recommend that that be the extent of any limitations that you place on the church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommend that it be what? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That that be the extent ofthe limitations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't want to get too far into-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Freedom of religion and issues like that? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And some other issues, yeah. So that would be my recommendation. That seemed to be what Mr. Pires was asking. And I believe I heard Mr. Y ovanovich said those limitations Page 128 January 15,2009 were acceptable. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, what I was saying is the agreement that there won't be any -- you know, you won't be conducting outdoor music and that you'll agree to keep your doors and windows closed during the worship music portion of the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Mr. Vigliotti was next. Then we've got to go further from that. Go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This reminds me of the last petition that came up. The last actually two church petitions. I'm kind of concerned about over-restricting churches where we're going to get in trouble with legal and what powers we do have and don't. To over-restrict a church -- I believe that there should be some restrictions to protect the neighbors, but I'm concerned about over-restrictions and how we might find ourselves in an uncomfortable position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, just to summarize, you're in agreement with the hours that are underlined and put in here? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're in agreement there be no outdoor music? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that you will limit the uses of the church and any music inside to when the doors and windows are closed; are you in agreement with that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we've got those three points. I think we can continue this after we hear more of the public input and see what other options are available. But that gets us at least to three points of agreement on that particular item. Page 129 January 15,2009 Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we should also put the 9:30 time restriction on the exceptions for child care. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The previous ones that we put on Tract A? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. For number one, child care was 9:30 p.m., I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, any problem? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: Same as Tract A. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I got it. No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move on to the master plan itself. And there's -- it's a changed master plan from what was originally provided for this project. Tony, have you reviewed that master plan from your client's perspective? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any problems? MR. PIRES: Yes. One is I guess possibly for clarification, and maybe it's being overly picky. But around the perimeter it has language on three parts: Along West, along Trail and along Ridge. And it says 20-foot Type D buffer. And I believe by virtue of the additional enhanced buffering, as well as some of the deviations, it may not be just a typical Type D buffer. And so I think it might be appropriate to -- you know, Type D buffer as per -- in reference back to the PUD. You may want to have a note to that effect. Because it's not just a straight Type D buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From staffs perspective, is that Page 130 January 15,2009 something that's needed in order for you to enforce the PUD on the master plan, or-- MR. MOSS: I'm sorry, could you repeat that, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What he's saying is the buffers that are pointed out on Trail, Ridge and West streets don't say that it's the buffer pursuant to the PUD, it just says it's going to be a Type D buffer. And what he's saying is the buffer's more stringent in the PUD language. How do we make sure it's incorporated into the master plan, I think -- MR. PIRES: And/or even some deviations. MR. MOSS: I don't think we have a problem with that. MR. SCHMITT: Reference on the master plan the paragraph in the PUD. MR. MOSS: Yeah. MR. PIRES: Just to avoid confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you have any problems from -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. MR. SCHMITT: Buffer in accordance with -- MR. PIRES: With regards to -- I'm sorry. MR. SCHMITT: Enhance the buffer as defined in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, if you're going to comment, unfortunately Cherie's trying to look at me and say how am I going to get his writing, so -- how am I going to get his comments down, so you need to get it on the record. MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, your next item? MR. PIRES: Yes. In the notes -- and I think the font size couldn't be any smaller, but it's okay. Optometrists are loving these fonts. In note one, one of my favorite phrases, and I may steal this for any future applications, is retained flexibility. And I think that's almost Page 13 1 January 15,2009 a code word for let's do what we can do and just be -- anyways, it lends itself to a level of uncertainty, and I'm not sure exactly why that should remain. We had proposed language for that note one that is much more restrictive. It just says, no SDP's shall be approved that is not in conformance with this master plan, except for realignment of depicted access drive locations from Trail Boulevard, if required by county transportation requirements. And provided that in all events a minimum distance of 330 feet shall be maintained from the north and south CFPUD boundaries. Again, the idea of a master plan I think is to give everybody an idea of where items are going to go, give a level of certainty. And I think by this phrase retain flexibility -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Tony, I understand your comments. Everything you just said I believe is already addressed pursuant to the rules of the LDC. Why do we even need note one at all? I mean, that might be a simpler way to solve the problem if that's in -- Richard, do you have a need for note one? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the concern was we wanted to make sure that the labeling of these buildings on the master plan, there needed to be a note on the master plan to reflect the text in the PUD that would allow us to redevelop Tract B and move an existing building to meet a 200-foot setback versus what's there today. If I don't have the note on the master plan to address the redevelopment of existing buildings, I'm concerned that I can't do that now without amending the PUD master plan. And that was the intent of that the note, it was to explain -- if you want to take out the words retained flexibility and say, except to address the relocation, and then the other issue, then that's fine. I Page 132 January 15,2009 mean, if the words retained flexibility are bothering people, then let's just say, except to address the relocation. Because that's what it was intended to do. If we wanted to move the existing building on Tract B, I don't want to be -- to me I might have to come in and amend the PUD master plan if I don't have this note. MR. PIRES: And I appreciate Rich's explanation, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, because I don't think we heard that before as being a basis for it that was solely related to Tract B. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it was. We talked about that -- I'm sorry . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, what I'm suggesting is, Tony, you've suggested some language. Richard's countering your suggestion. If you take out the words retained flexibility and it says, except for -- except to address the potential redevelopment of buildings, is that going to be a problem? MR. PIRES: Yes, because it doesn't focus just on Tract B. As Rich mentioned, if the focus is for Tract B, we could -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Tony, again -- and I'm sorry, let me interrupt you. But it talks about -- the note talks about except to address the potential redevelopment of buildings labeled on this master plan as existing. There's two buildings at the end of the day that are labeled on here as existing that might stay. MR. PIRES: Yeah, one's on Tract A and one's on Tract B. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Both of which, if I decided to move them, would put the buildings further away from residences. I don't want to be in a position where I've got to amend the PUD master plan. If we decide to move what's the Living Word building right now further away from West, I can't do it without this note. And what I'm trying to -- I thought that it's actually better for the community because I will be moving structures further away from residences. MR. PIRES: I tend to disagree, only because the written text Page 133 January 15,2009 says that if you build anything new on Tract B, it has to be 50 feet from there. And if you -- and if it's all under one ownership, it has to be 200 feet from West and from Ridge. So I'm not sure why this note even needs to be in the master plan. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because I again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's not going to be building anything new. He's going to take an existing building and moving (sic) it. And that hasn't been addressed anywhere. So it's not new, it's sort of not existing, it's being moved. But if it's being moved, it's got to be moved further away from where it is now so it's -- it can only be a positive, not a negative. MR. PIRES: And I think this is the first time I've heard this, and I think it's the first time my clients have heard that they wanted to move that building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, and that's a different -- I didn't know that either. I'm not saying it's bad or good, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not saying we do. I'm just saying we don't want to be in a situation where we would be prohibited from doing it because there's not a note on the PUD master plan that's consistent with the text in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think what you need to get your note down to, Richard, is what you're intending by the note. And if your intention is by the note to say that you can move these buildings as long as you move them farther away, and you don't know where you might move them yet, then say it in more plain English than the way that's written. MR. PIRES: And possibly label the buildings as, you know, like building A -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he did. MR. PIRES: -- and building B, existing A and existing B, and give a range of where you wish to have them located. I mean, that -- once again, it's the first I've heard that you wanted Page 134 January 15,2009 to possibly relocate those buildings and move them. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it only made sense when one of the provisions in the PUD document talked about the possibility of a Tract A owner acquiring Tract B. And if we decided to raze the building on Tract B we had to meet the Tract A setback standards, that's what this note was intended to address, is to make sure that there was no inconsistency between the text of the PUD. And I think if the words retained flexibility is what is creating the issue, I think that striking those words, it just says to have it say, except to address the potential redevelopment of buildings labeled on this master plan as existing. There's only two of them and they're both labeled. Those are the only two buildings that could potentially move, and they'll have to meet the 200-foot standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but this is a new scenario for the neighborhood to have heard. MR. PIRES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest that, and we'll hear the rest of the planning commission too, but I would suggest that maybe this is another item that you work out and come back with as a resolution. I think you can get to the resolution. From what I'm hearing, both of you are not that far off, it's just a matter of semantics in how you get there. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: If the bank sells Tract B to someone other than Covenant Church, then they don't have to be 200 feet back. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, they have to meet the new development standards, which is -- I forget; I already blanked -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is 50. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fifty, correct. MR. PIRES: And Mr. Strain, you make a good point, because I Page 13 5 January 15,2009 think in looking back at other sections of the document, they need to be revised too. For example, the idea of the ingress/egress driveways on Tract B that will be removed. It says, will be removed upon the reconstruction, replacement or demolition of the existing buildings. And I don't think it was contemplated as what would happen if they would be moved. Now that that issue has come up, that's-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me rephrase that word. I didn't mean physically lift the buildings that have been constructed. I meant wipe them out and build something new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a new thing. Why would you say move if you meant new? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm sorry. I apparently used the wrong word. In my mind I was talking about razing the building and reconstructing something new. That's the context that I meant move in. I didn't mean I thought we would pick up an old building and relocate it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Moving the location is where you were going? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I meant -- yes, I meant reconstruct a new building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you got existing buildings and you got new buildings. We have rules for both. All you're saying is this applies as if you demolish an existing building and you want to build a new building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So under that pretense is how we should be looking at note one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I meant, and I'm sorry I used the word move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Me, too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't think anybody would think that's what I meant. Page 136 January 15,2009 MR. PIRES: I listen to you, Rich, and you don't think I ever listen to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, Tony, assuming this is for new structures, and we can always add the word any SDP application for a new structure shall further conformance -- with this master plan and phase development of the plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved master plan, except to address the potential redevelopment of buildings labeled on this master plan as existing and their associated parking lot. What do you mean by redevelopment then, Richard? MR. PIRES: I didn't even know if we need it. I guess because the text addresses what happens on -- with setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PIRES: I understand the driveway issue. And there is no longer a phased development in the document, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is a confusing note. I pointed it out to you -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when I met with you. And Tony, I have to -- I certainly agree with you, there's a problem with it. I don't know how to fix it right now with the fact that it's referencing a redevelopment of buildings when we actually have existing and new buildings. So I'm not sure redeveloping a building, unless you want to consider an addition a redevelopment. But I think that paragraph needs to have some work, and I don't know if we can do that here today. But it's one area of focus that we've got to have. And maybe before the end of the meeting we'll have some suggestions. Anybody else have anything at this time on this one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the -- and just to be clear, Page 13 7 January 15,2009 that these secondary accesses, as you call them, they will be removed potentially in the future? If the use stays, the buildings stay exactly as they are, they are allowed to stay. But once that changes, they get removed? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If this building gets redeveloped, these access points go away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that what you were talking about, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How about the other guy up in the -- just to the right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This stays and this stays. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Forever? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've got a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as Mr. Schiffer's done, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. If they're under separate ownership, this one stays. If they become unified ownership between A and B, this one goes away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. And then the other thing I'd like to do, since we're coming back, is that the graphics on this drawing is to me a little misleading. First of all, the jumbo property line and all that's confusing. But the scale, the house of worship and the pedestrian, all the building areas you're allowed to build have more area than the lake itself, yet the scale of them shows them so small. So could somebody kind of rework this thing to show the buildings you're asking for in the size that's more representative of what you're asking for? Does that make -- what I'm saying? In other words, you're asking for -- Page 138 January 15, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We kind of inherited this master plan from way back when, and so we're trying to not reinvent the wheel, so to speak, in working with this document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern I have is the neighbors looking at these representation of buildings are smaller than the numbers that you're requesting. So I would like to see at least the campus area, for example, reworked to show. The 2.4 acres that you have for the buildings, which is about 100,000 feet, a little over, that's more area than the lake. So the graphics of the lake looks much larger than the buildings. Now, granted, the house of worship I'm sure won't be, but the other buildings might be two-story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, though not all the buildings are shown now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's not shown? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The house of worship is a two-story building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It will be a two-story building? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Both of those are two-story buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in the 35 -- so the sanctuary is going to be half of the 35? I don't think so. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, they'll be -- I misunderstood. We don't have a full second story on the house of worship. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. You would want a much larger space. And then the other thing is it looks like we did lop off one of the buildings. But I wouldn't want this to go forward making everybody think you couldn't do a symmetrical layout, so -- anyway, just a concern. In that campus area, which itself is about the area you're requesting for buildings, try to do the buildings to be more to scale, Page 139 January 15,2009 actual scale. I know you inherited the problem, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And one of the issues about having to put these buildings on, we were told we have to locate the buildings on the site development plan. And in doing that, the community says okay, I see the buildings, this is -- they scale it off and they see how far it's going to be from the street based upon this location. And one of the other reasons, this just came back to me, and Tony and I talked about this, is that if we had to shift the building 10 feet one way or the other because of, you know, we get into the final site design, am I now -- do I have to now come in and amend the site -- the PUD master plan because the building's not exactly where it is? And we wanted -- we need to have some flexibility in all of that. And so I have to put these buildings here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is you're showing anorexic buildings when the buildings are a lot fatter, let me put it that way. And show them the right way. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What do you mean the right way? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the area that the buildings are, the 100,000 feet, correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're 80,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Tract A. MR. YOV ANOVICH: On Tract A. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other ones too. But if you combine the 100 thou, that's more area than the lake. And the lake is shown to be much bigger than the building. So alls I'm saying, just have somebody -- Grady Minor can look at it and more accurately represent. I know that probably the flanker buildings will be two-story, so they're smaller in footprint. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Brad, why don't they just take the campus area and reference building -- area for house of worship and buildings, and then the whole cam -- anywhere in the campus area is Page 140 January 15,2009 going to be known then as your buildable area, and it solves the problem of their accuracy concern. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm at peace with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: If it's okay with the community -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't think the neigh -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- we're at peace with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time now. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think the neighbors realize that the area that they're asking for is the size of that whole shaded campus area. That's my point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's see where that -- Mr. Murray, you were next. You want to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ifwe've settled it, fine. But I was getting very disturbed with the redeveloping of building. I know you can remanufacture a product, but I don't see how you could redevelop a building. Is that a common term? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is, but not in reference to existing and new. So they threw it in as a new -- it's a fairly new term for this PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can see a building, you know, coming in and being modified. And if you want to call that redevelopment, fine, but it -- if he's really talking about razing the structure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you guys need to pay attention if you're going to be able to respond to the questions of the planning commISSIon. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sorry, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think if you're really talking about razing the structure, if that's what you intend to do, I would want you to stay away from redevelopment of the building. Or if that's what you intend to do, let's be very clear. Page 141 January 15,2009 Because when you had stated move, and I know that was in an error now, but that led me down a path of thinking process, and I want to be crystal clear on my thinking process now. Is it an intent to redevelop that building or to raze it and construct a brand new building? Do we know? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The intent of that note was if we decided to raze and reconstruct the building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. You're going to put a new building on. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We were going to put a new building. And if we did that -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You'd have 200-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- we have to meet the 200 foot -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 200 foot setback. I think it's moot then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we're trying to say. I just wanted the PUD master plan to be consistent with the text of the PUD. I'm sorry I used the word move. I didn't mean it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you don't want to use the word redevelop either. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, I'm happy to use whatever word everybody's comfortable explaining of I demolish and I build a new one and it has to move away from the residences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the consensus is the paragraph's got to change in the way it's referenced and what it really means. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Raze and construct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're going to do that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I would like some -- I want to make sure I get it as close to right as I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, there's -- I think what we were focusing on is Brad's comment and your concern about the location and the size and the shape of the geometrics that are in that Page 142 January 15,2009 campus area. And it really could be solved by just noting that the campus area is the building area. And is that a problem for you, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: No, I think we had suggested that at one time to give a greater opportunity for people to identify looking at the site plan where that 200-foot-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could go. MR. PIRES: -- and then where the buildable area is. And I think Rich explained -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I got it. MR. PIRES: -- and I understand it, they inherited this and it was difficult to try to modify some of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a problem with making that modification of this master plan? I think it works to your benefit, to be honest with you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, again, I heard what you said, Tony, I just misunderstood it when we talked before. We'll come up with a building envelope. I'm okay with that. MR. PIRES: Must not have been a moving statement that I made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that I think is a good idea. Anybody else have any comments from the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on the master plan, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: If I may, just for clarification. And my letter, in paragraph 10 of my letter referenced that the document should clearly state that only those proposed structures depicted on the master plan can be constructed. An amendment to the PUD and the master plan would be required if any other structures are desired to be constructed. And I guess that's a follow-up to what Mr. Schiffer was saying, that this -- you used to show it three buildings depicted sort of in the Page 143 ~._c_.,..~".____~_.~ January 15,2009 center of the campus and now it shows two buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, there is some stuff here that looks like it's further thought than this is representing. The point I was making is I wouldn't want that case. I would rather you still be able to do symmetrical buildings. But is it the intent that you're going to Phase I build probably what's shown here and then the ability in the future to come back and build that third structure? As long as it's within the square footage, why not? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, no, what we had -- the original plan was to put all three buildings on there for the full square footage. Then we talked to the community and said instead of the full 120,000 square feet on -- I'm sorry, 100,000 square feet on Tract A, we'll cap ourselves at 80,000 square feet and ask for the final 20,000 square feet through the conditional use process. And that third building that we took off was that 20,000 square feet. So there was going to -- the third building was 20,000 square feet, okay? So these two buildings that are here together with the Living Word center is the 80,000 square feet that we would be allowed on Tract A. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then I guess my point is, and I am seeing some sketches here that show two-story and all. Just to make sure that that's the actual footprint of the building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we've taken care of that now because we're now going to come up with just an area that's going to say building envelope in which we can locate this square footage. Unless I misunderstood again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think that's what Tony __ MR. PIRES: The building envelope, with the depiction of buildings, I think it also helps to get a generalized idea of sort of the __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we're getting into a problem. Because if you're talking about a depiction of buildings and Brad's Page 144 January 15,2009 wanting to be scaled -- accurately scaled, then they've got a problem with the master plan if they have to adjust those buildings when design dictates a movement of a few feet or two. They shouldn't be penalized to come back here for that. Most PUD's that come through here don't even go close to this clarity. I think it's good that it is and it helps the neighborhood, but at least have some flexibility to tell them that if you build within this envelope, we're okay with that. MR. PIRES: That's not a problem. That's not what I'm saying. We recognize it would be within the envelope, but also still get a sense of graphic as to how they will look. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can't be on the master plan, then, because then he's locked into it. MR. PIRES: That could be some -- you've got an envelope that they can build within. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. MR. PIRES: And also a generalized idea of sort of the footprint. I don't think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, a generalized idea of a footprint on a scaled drawing that Mr. Schiffer is looking for means it's to scale. That becomes a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't mind them being able to move it. We always state that these are conceptual, so I can't see how that would lock the location that precisely. I mean, obviously if they mirrored this site and put the church on the other side, that would not be allowed. I'm just saying make sure that the actual graphics are representing the areas that you're requesting so that the neighbors see the size of the building. It may be. It just doesn't look like it to me. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wayne tells me he's got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne's got it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: These guys are -- I'm not drawing this. Page 145 January 15, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't know he was an architect either, but that's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: He understands what Mr. Schiffer's asking for as far as the master plan, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he can take care of it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- also what you're talking about, he can take care of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you come back, we'll expect to see something on those lines. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will be beautiful. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Wayne rules. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair, before we go -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- could we see it at 24 by 36, not this small? MR. YOV ANOVICH: What do we normally give you guys? MR. MOSS: This eight-and-a-halfby 11. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Twenty-four by 36 it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, any other issues on the master plan? MR. PIRES: I'm not sure if we got past my comment or what the response was about that the documents clearly state that only those proposed structures depicted on the master plan can be constructed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Tony, if we're going to show a building envelope so that there's -- they can build within a certain area, they don't have to get into the scaled drawings that we're asking them for, and we put that note on there, then we're right back to messing it all up again with wanting specificity when they're not to that stage yet. As long as the community knows they're going to be within a certain envelope, what difference does it make? It's kind of like the height, if they're going to be 35 feet, what does it matter what's inside? Page 146 January 15,2009 MR. PIRES: I think it's important where the house of worship is versus the other uses within that pedestrian oriented campus from the community's perspective. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Commissioner Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tony, one thing you did do, that center half-circle shape kind of thing: They're calling that the campus. All the buildings will be within the campus. The only reason I'm against what you're saying is that maybe they'll look at this differently and it would be better looking symmetrical and then next thing you know they can't do it because you're going to argue that it represents the building. I think anything within the area that they're allowed that they build within the campus, the neighbors and everybody should realize it's going to be within the center, the western edge of that. MR. PIRES: We'll discuss it with them. I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Tony. You know, you're the best I've ever seen in detail. I don't know anybody better. And that's what worries me. Because you're going to come back -- you could come back and say that little corner, that was shaved off and moved three feet, they're going to need a new master plan. MR. PIRES: Only ifhe gave me a 24 by 36, which I don't think he will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to get into that, if we can help it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I was trying to avoid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just did want to comment that normally this is not the size that we get them. We normally get large Page 147 January 15,2009 size of these. Certain of us have requested it on everything, and this is the first time I've ever had to -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record -- yeah, Ray Bellows. Our requirements are to provide you with the larger copies for submittals. I think what J.D. was referring to, on the consent agenda you might get the small one instead. MR. SCHMITT: You had it in your packet, but not the newer version, unfortunately. COMMISSIONER CARON: The new version. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And we'll get you the new -- we'll make sure you get a 24 by 36 on the new. This is what I e-mailed out, so I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on the master plan from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on -- MR. MOSS: Oh, I have one, Commissioner. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, J.D. MR. MOSS: Yeah, there's a couple problems with the master plan. If you all recall, I dictated some text from Page 10 of 22 of the PUD document. It's the preserve language. We revised that together. That language is essentially located on the master plan at the bottom on the left-hand side where it says preserve notes. That text is going to need to be revised to reflect what we discussed earlier in the meeting. And then also, if you look on the master plan in the landscape, dry landscape -- what does it say, dry water management area, right above where it says Tract A, it says CP 5,227 square feet, that's going to need to be deleted as well, since they can't locate the preserve in a dry water management area. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can we deal with the location of the Page 148 January 15,2009 preserve at the SDP level? MR. MOSS: Susan Mason is shaking her head yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sounds good. So you'll know. Anyway, staffs going to get this again. You guys are going to have time in advance to review it, make sure that -- Richard, I know we got to reschedule after today. So I want to make sure this time that staff sees the final documents before it's scheduled to come back to us. I don't know how long it's going to take you to do that. On Page 17 of 22, there's two legal descriptions. They haven't changed. I can't see why anybody would have any objection to those. Mr. Pires, you never know. MR. PIRES: This is true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, this is true. Okay, Page 18 are the list of deviations. There are no changes on the list of deviations in the package in front of us. Does anybody have any questions about those? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. And I went over this with the applicant and I've also mentioned it to staff. It's number four. And the way I read this is they're looking for a deviation from the number, because it says that in the second aisle -- second sentence, drive aisles leading to main entrances must have at least a walkway on one side of the drive aisle to permit a reduction to a maximum of five. So if you turn to the master plan and you look at the layout of those drive aisles on the master plan, there are the number that they're asking for pursuant to the deviation, but they are no longer each one of them next to the drive aisles. So I really think the deviation is requesting two things out of that one section of the LDC: A reduction in number and a reduction in having those being required next to the drive aisles. And I want to make sure staff reviews it that way, and transportation and everybody has understood it to be that way. Page 149 January 15,2009 MR. MOSS: I looked at the staff report that I'd prepared for this petition and I did review it that way. It's mentioned in there just for some reason the language in the deviations portion of the PUD document didn't make its way there. But you're absolutely right, there are two deviations they need here, and staff did analyze both of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what we would have to do is change the language of deviation number four to reflect the additional deviants that they want in there? MR. MOSS: Yes, because they've only asked for one deviation in here. And like you pointed out, they really need to be asking for two separate ones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you have any problem with that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. MR. MOSS: And staffs recommending approval of it. I'd also like to mention that staff is not supporting deviation number one. They're actually trying to provide trees in lieu of sidewalks, and that's not consistent with the LDC. They need to either provide sidewalks elsewhere in lieu of the sidewalks that are required around the site, or they need to provide payment in lieu. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that was one I had also circled. And I would -- if we set a precedent -- right now the sidewalk and bike lane in lieu of is so that the money goes back in the program somewhere else. And that money becomes important because it builds more bike lanes and sidewalks. If we allow this project, as well as any other in Collier County, by setting this one as a precedent to move that money into other issues like landscaping and things like that, we've actually deprived the sidewalk and bike lane category from having any funding. So as much as I know that this is a good thing for the neighborhood to keep consistency with the royal palms, the precedent Page 150 January 15,2009 it sets for all the county is not a fair one. And I certainly don't think it's appropriate. I would agree with staff, that the deviation should be denied. Richard, do you have any concerns one way or the other? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, we've got to spend the money one way or the other. And I do know that the residents of Collier County have spoken that they really do like their landscaping along their roads. And especially in this area of the county, sidewalks really are not customary and, frankly, frowned upon by the neighborhood. And it made sense to keep the money local by putting in landscaping. And the county commission and residents have said they really, really do like landscaping. So we thought we were using the money in the right location. But if it's the will of the county to take the money from this area and spend it somewhere else through the payment in lieu of process, you know, we're not going to -- we're going to spend the money one way or the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You don't know that they would spend it somewhere else. You just know that this project wouldn't be putting in sidewalks and bike lanes -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know that they will not be putting sidewalks in along Pine Ridge, because the community made it very clear to transportation staff and to us that sidewalks around the project or even on Trail Boulevard was not something the community thought was a good idea. So I think the money would be spent somewhere else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Isn't that why you're having to do the extension -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not doing-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the sidewalk extension? Yes, you are. Page 151 January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're not. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're doing -- constructing a sidewalk extension from the campus to Trail Boulevard. And wasn't there another section that they asked you to go -- transportation staff asked you to do in lieu, right? Isn't that right? MR. MOSS: Yes, transportation asked that they build a sidewalk linking the site with the commercial center that's just north of it along Sand Pine. So that was the option, they could either provide the sidewalks there or provide payment in lieu. They didn't want to provide sidewalks there because it would have necessitated the removal of several of those live oaks that they had planted all along Trail Boulevard. So zoning staff suggested they do the payment in lieu. But I know transportation planning staff wanted either one, it made no difference to them. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, I thought you -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, that was clear of transportation staff. My recollection was it backed off the requirement of any sidewalk on Trail Boulevard. And I must have missed it in reading this, but it was not -- that was not an option. The options we had was payment in lieu from transportation's perspective, and we had proposed taking that money and keeping it at the campus level and the community level through additional landscaping. But as far as building a sidewalk on Trail Boulevard, my understanding was transportation staff really was not -- they may have left it in there, but they really were not pushing for that, knowing it would never happen. MR. PIRES: My recollection is the same as Rich's on that, and as well as when J.D. talked about they'd have to take the live oaks that were installed. The Pine Ridge community installed those live oaks. It's not the county that installed those live oaks. And the Pine Ridge community looks forward to the additional Page 152 January 15,2009 enhanced royal palms along Trail Boulevard, as opposed to paying for the sidewalk funds. We're in concurrence with that deviation number one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know you are, and I don't blame you for being that. I just -- it's a precedence that involves more than just the Pine Ridge area. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is kind of to Wayne, and you don't have to answer. But Wayne, when you do redraw that, would you change the line type on the perimeter? Because it's like 20 feet wide and it's hiding all the sidewalks underneath it in the graphics here. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Schiffer. I've been asking for that for six months, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, I'm suspicious as to what's really under that line type. The -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm glad you're at that podium. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way this is going to go, though, there will be a sidewalk from the -- on Myrtle from the entrance to the parking lot, correct? It will come, head west, go all the way down the western property of this project. And then does it turn east and go to the ingress/egress up there? You're referencing a sidewalk. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, there's one from Myrtle at the entrance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The western portion of the entrance that heads west. And then heads north to across the frontage of the property on Trail. Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it goes all the way up the frontage on the east side. And does it stop at Ridge, or does it turn at Ridge and -- Page 153 January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Stops at Ridge. Stops at Ridge. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It doesn't turn and go the egress, okay. And that's hidden underneath that line type. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's right there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are we going to leave this issue between the sidewalk bike lane requirements, paying in lieu of or replacing that requirement with a payment to or the cost of putting in royal palms? Personally, I don't think it's a precedent that we want to apply to everybody in the county that comes forward with a PUD. And this -- honestly, if we do it here, we might be obligated to do it elsewhere. That's a concern. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree with you, there's a really big need for sidewalks and bike lanes in the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I agree with the other half of your concern, is that people will gladly spend landscaping on their own site in lieu of sidewalks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a good precedent. Not that it's not better for the neighborhood, I don't disagree with that, it just isn't a good precedent for Collier County as a whole. So anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Mr. Y ovanovich, were you trying to say something -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not about this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and you changed your mind? January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it wasn't about this. It was another staff recommendation that I didn't want to forgot to tell you I objected to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron first, and then we'll get into the next thing. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to ask the county attorney, does anything that we establish in this PUD, which is custom zoning, set a precedent for anything else in the county? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, each PUD operates on its own. However, there may be an argument in the future that if you acted one way for one, why shouldn't you do it for us. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what was your next point, Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was -- and it's not related to the deviations, but I'm sure I'll forget, Mr. Strain, is there was a requirement from your transportation department that we fund a bus stop, a covered -- and we -- I just wanted to make sure it's noted for the record that we had objected to that and still object to that on the staff conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, do you understand the basis for that bus stop? Because after I spoke with you and you told me of your objection, I went and tried to figure out how they could justify that, what rational nexus they used to bring it in. And in talking with J.D., he indicated that part of the reasoning may have been the fact that you're in a TCMA and that there's a requirement to alter offsetting impacts if you have above a de minimis impact. And apparently when you get to your full build-out condition, you're above a de minimis impact on that particular project. And therefore you have -- and the rules in the TCMA are clear, they're in Page 155 January 15,2009 the LDC, there are alternatives you can put in place to offset that greater than de minimis impact. My comment to staff was then well, maybe we ought to be looking at it as a requirement for kicking in that Phase II, because Phase I is below the de minimis impact threshold. That seemed to be in agreement. Staff seemed okay with that. And that's a compromise I think is something that would actually justify your increased traffic, should it occur, once you get to that Phase II. So -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe ever get to that number, perhaps. But still, I still think it's a reach to say that our -- that our project in any way triggers that bus stop. Because none of our -- I'm fairly certain that anybody who's coming there to use the day care or the school is not going to be using public transportation. And I'm fairly certain that anybody who comes there to worship on Sundays isn't going to be using the public transportation. I understand staffs rationale, but I still -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're missing the point. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The point isn't the transportation mode as much as it is the alternative needed to offset the greater than de minimis impact on the transportation corridor. Let me read you a sentence that might help explain it: Transportation planning staff has determined that the project is located within the northwest transportation concurrency and management area, TCMA, and according to the traffic impact statement would impact U.S. 41 above a de minimis one percent amount. Policy 5.8.B of the transportation element of the GMP states that congestion mitigation payments shall be used to add trip capacity within an anticipated TCMA road segment, or to enhance mass transit or other non-automotive transportation alternatives which add trip capacity with the impact fee district or adjoining impact fee district. As such, Page 156 .".,--_...._._--_._._..__._---~ January 15,2009 staff has included the request of a bus shelter as a stipulation, Exhibit G. That's it plain and simple. And the reference is Policy 5.8.B, and there are alternatives listed. There are other alternatives, but this is the one that would seem to be served the best. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can you tell me what page you're reading from? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. I'm reading from a memo that was -- John-David sent to me after I questioned it yesterday. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Because John-David said it's somewhere in the staff report, so I'm -- MR. MOSS: It is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- looking for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know-- MR. MOSS: It's in the transportation section of the staff report, the original staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Richard, I wouldn't agree to it ifit was an extraction that is above and beyond impact fees. That wouldn't have been fair. But based on the fact that it's in a TCMA and that the threshold would be revised to be the Phase II construction, I think that is fair and I think it's a good compromise and one that works. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: John-David, the traffic study that we're talking about where it exceeds the de minimis, is that associated only with the day care? MR. MOSS: All that John Podczerwinsky, the transportation reviewer for this project -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me -- in furtherance of that, let me also say that I've heard Nick Casalanguida state that Sunday, they never use Sunday as a base for the number of vehicles, and so it Page 157 January 15,2009 must therefore then be associated with the day care in order for it to exceed. Otherwise the numbers don't reach, from what I would understand. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. This is John Podczerwinsky with transportation. I'll give you my card later. With -- the answer to your question, whether or not the first portion -- I'll say the first phase of this, whether or not that's over one percent, which would be the de minimis impact on U.S. 41, I believe it is. I have to take a second look in the TIS, but I believe it does go over 1.49 percent -- or 1.0 percent which -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is daily traffic and this is -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: This would be daily p.m. peak hour traffic, not Sunday traffic, correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And that's the number that will come and go from that area for day care? Because that's the only active -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It would be day care and also the weekday church uses. There is some amount of traffic that's associated with the weekday church use. So the combination of the two -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we know that that -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, it's-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- information is all clear? Because I'm concerned that it might be an exaction. I can see the desirability of having a bus stop there, that's not the issue for me. What the issue for me is justification for it, valid justification. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't think staff has any objection to going to Phase II for the requirement for the -- to meet the Policy 5.8 in the transportation element in the Growth Management Plan. Ifwe were looking at it for simply Phase I, I think we'd have to take a second look at whether or not Phase I is what puts it over 1.0 percent impact or whether it's Phase II that does it. Page 158 January 15,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I think it would be very important to have accurate information. We're talking money, we're talking a lot of issues. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if you're not sure. I mean, again, I think it's nice to have a bus stop there, that's very good for the community, but unless it's directly relatable, I think that's an exaction. So that may be something else you have to come back with. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Shouldn't we be allowed to choose amongst the alternatives? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what you need to do is get together before you come back and sit with transportation staff and see what alternatives there are you can choose from. I'm not saying you can't, that's what the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just saying is if one of the options is a CAT and let's just say another option's a bike rack, I don't know, shouldn't I be allowed to choose the bike rack? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the LDC says that, Richard, and I believe it lists the alternatives, you should be able to choose your alternatives. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So maybe we should say in Phase II we should pick an alternative that's avail -- an option that's allowed under the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you need to tell us where you're going to go in order to get the process approved. So by the time you come back, we need to have that laid out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have to pick my -- I have to pick my mitigation now, or -- what I'm saying, Mr. Strain, I'm agreeing with you. What I'm saying is at Phase II, when we trip de minimis, we, the property owner, have to choose from the alternatives available in the LDC. Why do I have to decide today that I'm going to do a CAT bus Page 159 January 15,2009 stop? Why can't I decide when we get there, if we get there, that if one of the other alternatives is to provide bike racks, to provide bike racks? You understand what I'm saying? I don't know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yes, I understand what you're saying, but transportation is a big issue for this PUD. And I would think you would want to make and provide as many assurances as possible that you've met the criteria so that the transportation issue goes away as best it can during the PUD approval process. If you want to take a chance and rely on us not knowing what that is but in good faith expecting you to provide that at the SDP level in some form -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: At Phase II. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you can take that chance. But you might consider it would be more comfortable for the neighborhood to know and for everybody here to know how you're dealing with your transportation alternatives prior to the ending of a public process that we're going to have here in the next meeting. So that's up to you. And I think that's it. Anything else on that issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the approximate cost of a bus shelter? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At last estimate that we had, it was somewhere between 25 and 30,000. That was with the purchase of right-of-way, though, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For a bus shelter? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the purchase of right-of-way. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: A bus shelter? Page 160 January 15,2009 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's for a full shelter with the awning, and I believe that's also with the purchase of right-of-way to accommodate that bus shelter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it serve food or anything like that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is it motorized? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: There are some core differences here on this site, though, as we've already got the available right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Members of the audience, you've got to lower your voice a bit, please. Go ahead. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We already have the available right-of-way within Trail Boulevard that would require only a right-of-way permit be applied for by the applicant at the phase -- probably second SDP phase that they're in for. There would be no purchase of land that's involved with that. So I think the cost would be less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope so, sir. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: And I'm not sure the extent to which that shelter would have to be a covered shelter or if it's simply a bus stop, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Seeing this is coming back, what I'd like to see is your justification numbers showing that at a certain point they're going to need to do it. So I'd like to see your traffic numbers, and I'd like to nail down a cost, now that you know what's involved before you come back. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That I can provide you with. Also, one other comment. I believe that there may be a little bit of mixing of apples and oranges. The TCMA and TCEA requirements that are listed in the LDC are specific mitigating factors to reduce traffic to a site. Things like bike racks, car pool parking, preferential parking for car pool people, Page 161 January 15,2009 those are a little bit different than the policies that are listed in the TCMA under objective 5. And it's under specifically Policy 5.8 where it discusses congestion mitigation payments and that sort of thing. I think they're a little bit different subjects. They're different requirements. The other requirements that I was discussing about the bike racks do not discuss whether or not you're going over a one percent de minimis impact. It just discusses whether or not you're banking on the TCMA to allow your impact. It doesn't discuss the percentage of the impact. So this is -- once you go above a certain percent impact, these become affected as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what you need to do is when this comes back, bring your justification for asking this and the cost of it and how that cost is justified by what you're asking for. Twenty-five, $30,000 I mean for a four-post and a piece of metal, that's a lot of money. If you guys have been paying that, I'm worried. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Absolutely. I understand, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something else you wanted to comment on, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's fine. If he's going to bring it back, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it will have to come back. COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to ask him to read through the other alternatives. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to take a moment here to do a bit of a side track. A gentleman has got a family issue he has to deal with. And he has to leave here shortly. He's been waiting all day to speak. He's a member of the audience. I don't even know what side he's going to be speaking on. But I told him I would let him at least speak before 2:00, because he has to leave then. Jerry Fisher? If Jerry's still in the audience, sir, if you want to come up to one of the podiums. Page 162 January 15,2009 Mr. Fisher, were you sworn in earlier? MR. FISHER: Yes, sir, I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then if you'll state your name for the record, and then if you could tell us what's on your mind. MR. FISHER: My name is Jerry Fisher, and I'm speaking on-- against the PUD. I'm a resident in Pine Ridge. And the two biggest concerns that I have, and I think I speak for a number of other residents, is the traffic and the density of the project. It was my understanding they were going to have a 600-car parking lot, and of course the 100,000 square feet, which I don't think is compatible or consistent with the residential community. Especially one like Pine Ridge which probably has one of the lowest density factors in the county. They're a minimum of 1.1 to five-acre lots, and there's maybe a handful that haven't been developed. But they're all single-family dwellings, except for a church. And it just -- I don't see how a 600-car parking lot and 100,000 square feet of building can be compatible with the residential community. And I'd like to read a letter. North Naples United Methodist Church, by the way, has a sanctuary similar to the one that's being proposed by the Covenant Presbyterian Church. Now, it's been in existence for, I don't know, seven or eight years. But here's a letter from our senior pastor, Dr. Ted Sauter. And I'm just going to read two quick sentences. It says -- and this was dated August 22nd, 2008. We are a seven-day-a-week congregation in which thousands of people participate in a multitude of ministries throughout the day, every day of the week. We not only serve the north side of Naples, but we are a regional congregation serving people from Golden Gate, Bonita Springs, Estero, Fort Myers and Marco Island. There's so many parallels between what this church hopes to be Page 163 January 15,2009 and what North Naples already is, that I see a tremendous amount of traffic coming in from Goodlette Road. If you're from Estero or Bonita Springs, you very well could take Livingston straight down to Immokalee Road. If you're from Marco or Golden Gate, you could be coming down Pine Ridge and you'd be entering either North Carica Road or Center Street. And you're talking about -- and they could have, since the chapel's going to hold I think up to 1,200 people, North Naples has three services on Sunday alone. So that could be 1,800 cars on Sunday alone. And I know there's hundreds of cars in the parking lot of North Naples every day. And, you know, it's a serious concern for a residential community to have that large of influx in traffic. It may not happen the very first year, but it will happen. And the other thing that concerns me is when they say we're going to use these buildings for church and other related uses. It's such an open-ended thing that they could interpret that pretty flexibly downstream. And we could be getting anything -- you know, we could be getting a bag of worms, so to speak. The other thing I wanted to mention is a lot of us who live in Pine Ridge -- I live right across from the PUD, I'm one house away from 41. But 99 percent of the time I go through Center Street and through the area to get to my house, because I don't want to go up to Pine Ridge and 41, deal with the backup of traffic, deal with the light and then, you know, proceed north on U.S. 41. So I think that it's going to be a serious matter of concern. Let's see if I have something else. And I think with these other uses, the school, the adult care center, it's all worthwhile, and I don't think there's probably anyone in Pine Ridge community that says it's a bad thing for a church to grow and spread the Word of the Lord. But I do think that they should move, because the physical plant Page 164 January 15,2009 that's going to be there will not be consistent or compatible. And I know that Temple Shalom moved, First Baptist Church moved, North Naples United Methodist Church moved, and Naples Christian Church moved, and they all moved to different locations. Shalom went to Pine Ridge Road, Naples Christian Church went to Goodlette, as did North Naples United Methodist Church. Excuse me, I'm pretty uncomfortable talking in public like this. And then the Baptist Church went out to Orange Blossom. And none of them retained their residential environment. And North Naples sold their church to another church. And I don't -- you know, it would seem to me rather than almost reinventing the wheel, it would be easier for them to sell their facility to a small growing church that could move in to there, and then they could relocate to a place that would be more consistent and compatible with the surrounding area. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Fisher. Appreciate your time. And good luck on your next meeting. MR. FISHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, we'll move back to the process we had already been into. And by the way, we'll take another break at 2:30 for the court reporter. Richard and Tony, we're on Page 19 of22. We're almost through the document. This is Tract B. There's been one change on Page 19. Prior to the issuance of the SDP for a new permanent building. Tony, do you have any problem with that? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the Planning Commission have any comments on Page 19? (No response.) Page 165 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Page 20, Exhibit F, list of developer commitments for Tract A. The first change is a strike-through on number three, and it's rewritten. Any -- Tony, do you have any concerns with that? MR. PIRES: No. Not as that reads, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. J.D.? MR. MOSS: Yes, I do. If you could insert -- the first sentence reads, for services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as determined by Collier County staff. If we could insert there, the church shall provide traffic controlled by law enforcement or law enforcement approved service provider, and then delete shall be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, is that okay with you? I know it's clear on what the intent was. I don't think -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, I don't think you'd object either. MR. PIRES: No, my only concern is by focusing on the word church. Somehow if we could just say that type of control shall be provided. But whoever owns the property may be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how about the PUD-- MR. PIRES: Or the property owner -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or the property owner. What -- J.D., what's a good alternative? Good point. If it's not a church, it -- well, it can't be much else than a church, though, Tony. MR. PIRES: I know, but they could have somebody operating the day care center. MR. MOSS: That's true. Instead of saying the church, the property owner shall provide. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Page 166 January 15,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, that presents the question of the word significant traffic generation. If the traffic study and all permission's based on the number of cars coming and going for the day care centers, then that represents the so-called background or ambient traffic. So the significant traffic would have to then be associated with services, would they not? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct, sir. Yes, it was associated with the Saturday and/or Sunday traffic, whatever the peak events are for the site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we may be beating a dead horse, possibly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says as determined by Collier County staff. So -- and the applicant's comfortable with that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think instead of the word church, put property owner, and then I think you're covered. MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Does that work? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, instead of that, why don't you put -- say the traffic generator shall provide it because -- MR. PIRES: There you go. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- why should the property owner or the bank provide traffic control, if that's the case? So whoever's causing the traffic, let them provide it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But this is related to our project. If it's an event that we're having on our project, we will provide traffic control. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You are the traffic generator. MR. YOVANOVICH: We are, yeah. It's not-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you're -- you know, you're assuming always that the property owner would be the one causing that traffic. It may not be the case. Page 167 January 15,2009 Anyway, my thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't the property owner, though, be ultimately responsible for it? If staff says it's needed, all they got to do is tell the property owner, no matter who's there, the property owner's got to make sure it happens. Isn't that the way it works? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. The county would have the leverage with the property owner to get that done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm now a little confused. The property owner of Tract A currently is the church. The property owner of Tract B is currently the bank, but there's a church there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So do we not -- Tract B generator can generate traffic. That could be a problem. But I'm trying to understand, are you trying to cover it all with Tract A ownership or MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the same language appears in Tract B. So if there's something that is going on on Tract B, the property owner would ultimately -- if they're leasing it out, they'd have to make sure their tenant is providing it or do it themselves. But I mean, the leverage for the county really is the property owner when you're going through code enforcement. It's really the property owner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Move on to number four. Before I ask you if you have a problem with this, Tony, I mean, I've already expressed a problem with it to the County Attorney and to staff. So maybe we ought to see where it's going to go first. Page 168 January 15,2009 I'm wondering how a PUD can dictate what the Sheriffs Department issues citations for. MR. PIRES: No, it's not dictate. If that's how it's construed, that's -- it can be rewritten. The idea is -- the attempt is, and I haven't had the opportunity yet to discuss this with the Sheriffs Department, is the specific language. I had initial discussions with the Sheriffs legal adviser a few months ago about how -- because the discussion occurred as to how could this no right turn condition be enforced. And the Sheriffs Department legal adviser said if it's a county ordinance. And then if you put in the county ordinance that the restrictions constitute a violation of county ordinances, the Sheriffs office may issue citations, then they may be able to. So it's a matter of working that language with the Sheriffs Department's legal adviser who I've not yet had a chance to coordinate with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What county ordinance do you think's in violation if they make a -- over this specific condition? Because I don't know of any ordinance we have in the county that's written about this project on Myrtle Road and Ridge Drive with no left and no right turn language. MR. PIRES: This is a PUD ordinance. This is an ordinance itself. And the concept is a violation of this constitutes a violation of a county ordinance for which they can issue a citation. Because the Sheriffs Department at times has the ability to issue citations for violations of county ordinances. And it's just a -- it may need to be rewritten or rephrased from a legal adviser to the sheriffs perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Sheriffs Department believes that if the 85 or 100 PUD's put a sentence somewhere in the PUD that says they'll enforce something, they automatically will know that and they will go out and enforce it? I mean, they have a section of ordinances and laws that they Page 169 January 15, 2009 have to look up when they cite somebody. How in the world would they ever know to look this up? I mean, I understand what you're saying, but it seems so impractical, and I can't imagine -- I know Danny Schriver. Is he the fellow you spoke to? MR. PIRES: Yeah, I had an initial discussion with him a few months ago, and we had that sort of a preliminary concept about if it's determined in the ordinance itself that the violation constitutes a violation of a county ordinance for which they can issue citations, perhaps that may give them the opportunity to issue the citations. I've not yet run this -- I mean, he and I have not discussed this specific language, but a copy of the ordinance will be -- believe me, will be provided to the Sheriffs Department after it's adopted, and if this language is in there, we'll highlight that for them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they won't be carrying these in their squad cars and sitting there reading 22 pages of an ordinance in order to give a ticket. It's not going to happen. MR. PIRES: It's not 22 pages, it's one page. And I think that we can work through the logistics with the Sheriffs Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, this is a troublesome one. Mr. Vigliotti has a question. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What is very troublesome too, don't you believe the sign enough is going to work? MR. PIRES: No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So then -- no, okay. MR. PIRES: I mean, to enforce-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But how could you expect the county to police it? MR. PIRES: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How can you expect the county to police it? MR. PIRES: We're not expecting the county. Once again, it's the Page 170 January 15,2009 Sheriffs Department. If it's reported, they may end up placing people there during certain events to make sure that the right turn prohibition is abided by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, do you have a comment? MR. PIRES: And that's the Sheriffs Department's call as to whether or not they place personnel. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, I would recommend deletion of the sentence that begins with a violation of these turn restrictions. As I'm understanding it, these turn restrictions are located on the private property and generally the county restricts public roadways. So I'd ask Mr. Pires to explore other alternatives and recommend deletion of the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Until we see other alternatives, I think that's a good move. Anybody have a concern? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tony, and wouldn't somebody then just shortcut through Tract B and come out on West and go north and south? MR. PIRES: It all depends on what access points are on Tract B after redevelopment, I guess. But getting back to the idea about the enforcement, that's a Sheriffs Department call. And if they feel that they can enforce it, why not have the language in there? I guess where's the harm and where's the fault? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They enforce handicap parking on private property. MR. PIRES: Yes. They enforce fire lane -- no parking in fire lanes on private property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fire lanes are written up in other more legal ordinances other than a PUD. A PUD zoning ordinance you don't normally find in a squad car. And that's my concern, Tony. Page 171 January 15,2009 MR. PIRES: We may provide them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, and I'm sure they're going to sit there in that squad car and every officer that changes hands are going to sit there and read that PUD. MR. PIRES: Perhaps the North Naples substation would get a gift of one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, enough said for that one. Anybody else have any comments on four? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to six. MR. MOSS: Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. MOSS: John Podczerwinsky had a comment about number five before you move on to six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's an undisputed one, but go ahead, we'll dispute it then. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, it's just one word in commitment five. It lists a southbound turn lane on Ridge Drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Ridge Drive is an east-west road. Should be a westbound turn lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so westbound is what it should read. Richard, any problem? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Rich, don't do east-west, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony? MR. PIRES: Are we on number five? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on number five. The word southbound lane, Ridge Drive is east-west. MR. PIRES: Yeah, we had some discussion about what that really meant. And I think it is the southerly most westbound lanes, if Page 172 January 15,2009 I'm not mistaken, Rich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- whatever. I'm not -- you're asking the wrong person about directions. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Don't ask him east-west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number -- let's move on to number six. Fourth line down is some added -- we have an added sentence on the bottom. Tony -- or actually the next page has got a whole pile of added information. Tony, do you have any concerns with these additions? MR. PIRES: Yes. Bear with me. From the bottom of Page 20 to the top of Page 22, one of the concerns again gets back to we have -- I'm not sure how many TIS's we all have had and reviewed during the course of all this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Too many. MR. PIRES: And these were models, and they're based upon assumptions, projections. And we believe it's important. And you'll hear some expressions of concern by the long-term residents of Pine Ridge that there will in fact be extensive cut-through traffic using Center Street and/or Carica. And that we don't believe that the location of the traffic counters at Ridge Drive and West and Myrtle Road and West will accurately capture all the traffic that will be generated by the new and intense uses on the site. We believe that there needs to, number one, be a base count performed during peak season beginning now, or beginning before any development occurs, so we have a baseline to really fully understand what the impact of this proposed development is real world, as opposed to just modeling. And in addition to the traffic counts outlined in the top of Page 21, we would also submit that the annual traffic counts need to be taken at Carica Road and Goodlette-Frank Road and at Center Street and at Goodlette-Frank Road during the first quarter of each calendar Page 173 January 15,2009 year. We would also suggest that the data will be utilized by the county transportation staff to determine if additional measures to minimize impact to the residential Pine Ridge neighborhood are appropriate and should be required to address the uses within the PUD. And after reviewing the data, the county would have the right, power and authority to require the property owners within the PUD to implement measures to minimize impact to the residential Pine Ridge community. And we're concerned again about the cut-through traffic. People will-- the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and U.S. 41, people say they'll take it to get to this property. That's not a very fun intersection. And people may come down Carica and may never hit the counters at West and -- excuse me, Ridge and West, but instead could ultimately come out on Trail -- we had that discussion -- and come down Trail Boulevard. And so they would not be picked up in this counter that's proposed in the language that continues over to page -- it starts at Page 20 and continues over to 21. So we think it's important to have traffic counts taken at Carica and Goodlette and Center and Goodlette annually, peak season and do those before they even have any redevelopment of this site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, would you put that map that Tony gave to Richard to use back on? It's the better one. Yeah, that's the right one. I guess it doesn't matter. Just along as -- there, that's good. See the -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Bring it out a bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Little bit to the -- yeah, that's good right there. Okay, the applicant's suggesting that the two corners in the yellow, the two that would be close towards the top of the page, would Page 174 January 15,2009 be the best locations. And Tony, the community is suggesting that over on Goodlette Road, that one and the one to the farther side of the page. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I've got several questions about the differences in those, but my very first question is why wouldn't you want one in that center road? You've got three roads that go out there to Goodlette. Why are you picking the two extremes when that center one lines up more closely with -- MR. PIRES: It's closed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MR. PIRES: It's closed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean it's closed? MR. PIRES: It's not open to traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why isn't it a road? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How did it get closed? MR. PIRES: I'm just saying, it's not open to traffic. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How did it get closed? MR. PIRES: Just as they mentioned, that's -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Years ago. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I believe a lot of that area was subject to traffic calming programs that the county initiated a few years ago, and some of those accesses may be restricted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how is it re -- I mean, is it gated? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: They have a barricade. There's a barricade. There's earth and as well, I believe, a concrete barricade as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a county road? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was done. It was done. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was done years ago. At least 10. MR. PIRES: At least 10 years ago. Page 175 January 15,2009 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Strain? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I've been living in Pine Ridge for 10 years -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. -- go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The county took formal action many years ago to close that opening, and it was, you know, at a board meeting and through public hearings and so forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The map doesn't show it. That's why I thought it was odd they were picking the two on the left and right side and not the one in the center. Okay, the theory is that people will come in those two entrances, somehow miss the two intersections that the applicant wants to use and come through the front of the property to get to the property; is that -- MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What do these traffic count stations consist of from a cost perspective? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Before Rob gets up here and tells you, we do have counts, peak season Sunday traffic counts, from March, 2008. So we've already done the background number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the cost -- he can tell you the cost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The dispute seems to be --let's take one item at a time. And right now I'm trying to focus on where the counts ought to be taken. So let's focus on that one. There's a dispute. How much -- these traffic stations, to set them up and use them, what's the cost? MR. PRICE: Typically to do a traffic count, you're talking about about 200, 250 bucks. You basically put somebody out there. You go to Goodlette-Frank, you're talking about having to maybe put two people out. But the intersections of West and Myrtle and West and Ridge, Page 176 January 15,2009 one person could easily count that traffic. And you're talking about about $200. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you've got to do traffic counts and the dispute is that somehow these people using Goodlette-Frank Road are sneaking by the two areas that they want to put the count stations at and coming in the count station where there's nobody at, why don't you put count stations in all four corners, if it's only that kind of cost? MR. PRICE: I mean, I don't think that's an issue, honestly. I think the biggest issue -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's one way to prove it. MR. PRICE: The biggest issue I think for us is that if we have to do counts at Carica and Goodlette-Frank, we're catching a lot of traffic that's not generated by the church. And so if there's improvements that are needed at those intersections, how are we to determine whether or not they're necessary as a result of the church traffic or as a result of the background traffic? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think all we're trying to do is make sure if there's traffic counts that they're true to what the church's generation is. MR. PRICE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you cover every four intersections and the cost is only a few hundred bucks per intersection, we're done. I mean, I can't see why that's a prohibitive issue for the applicant at all. I mean, Richard, do you know where the problem would be with that from your side? And I'll ask Tony if he's got a problem. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you know, the problem is it really makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't make sense. Forget the money, it makes no sense to put someone -- to assume that someone who's coming in off of Goodlette- Frank Road at Center and Carica are coming this way. So why do I need to do two when the one that really makes sense to count are the intersections adjacent to the church? Page 177 January 15,2009 Forget the money. It just -- at some point you've got to say does it make sense. And no, it doesn't make sense. And then two, what are we -- are they going to be -- which one is going to be right? I get 500 trips that come in off of Carica and Goodlette-Frank and 200 of them come through the intersection -- I'm making up numbers, it won't be that high. But which one's the right number? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, all I'm saying is you could end the dispute. Do all four corners. It's indisputable then. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But i[I do all four -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all I wanted to say was, Mr. Y ovanovich, listen, we're doing the four corners around your PUD -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Never mind. I thought you were talking about on Goodlette-Frank-- COMMISSIONER CARON: If you do -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- when you said all four intersections. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the four corners of your PUD, then you get it coming -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought you said four corners of -- I'm sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were talking about on Goodlette-Frank. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you really believe that you don't have a traffic issue there and that's the way you stand, for 250 bucks for -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- two more intersections each, I can't see why you'd think that question shouldn't be put to bed for that kind of money. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, I'm sorry, Mr. Strain, I was -- I missed what you were talking about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, you weren't even thinking of -- Page 178 January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was thinking four counters: One, two, three, four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It makes no sense. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand one, two, three, four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because then that's right -- that's by our property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody can get to your property without going through those counters. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. I understand that. I misunderstood. I thought the four still dealt with Goodlette-Frank. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, did you have something else you wanted to -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, that was my question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't want there to be a sticking point here, but didn't we, I don't know, seven years ago when we put some moratoriums on 41 and Davis and so on make about eight or 10 moratoriums on construction on roads, didn't transportation knock out peak season anyway? So why are we talking about peak season? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's important. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know it's important, but it was important -- I objected to it the whole time, that it should -- if you're going to knock out peak season, knock out the minimum amount of traffic. But it was just my -- a point that I wanted to make. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you're done with this topic, Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not sure we're done with it Page 179 January 15,2009 yet. There were several issues. I want to take them one at a time and finish them. Mr. Pires, the alternative has now been acceptable to the applicant. They would put four counters, one on each corner, up to the church. Do you have any objection to that? MR. PIRES: It makes sense. I haven't talked to my client, but it seems to make sense to be able to capture it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there ain't nothing else you're going to capture. I mean, you couldn't get a better deal than that. MR. PIRES: It indicates doing it peak season. Doing it before they begin any development activities so we have the baseline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, they already acknowledge they've already done some traffic counts in the before stage. But let's talk about what I just said first. So the four counters, one on each corner, that's acceptable? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next item, what's this base count issue -- oh, go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I want Mr. Yovanovich to explain what the actual counts he has from March of 2008 -- is that what you said? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sunday peak church time. That's the peak. And then we went back, and it was in June, we were asked to do weekday counts. We did the week days and factored them up for what peak season would be. Do I have that right, Rob? MR. PRICE: Let me clarify this real quick. Rob Price for the record. We have not counted the intersections of Trail Boulevard and Myrtle and Trail Boulevard and Ridge. We counted 41 in those two intersections. But we did count West and Myrtle and West and Ridge at the request of county staff. And we counted them on Sunday during peak season in March, Page 180 January 15,2009 and we counted them -- we went back and counted them during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours of the adjacent street weekday back in June. And we have adjusted those in our TIS to peak season conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony -- oh, I'm sorry, go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I was just going to ask him if that's -- I mean, it sounds to me like they've got at least a base for you to start with. MR. PIRES: It does sound like it, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the other complaints about that paragraph? MR. PIRES: Bear with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So far we've got a couple of changes. The bases have been done and now we're looking at counters on four corners. What else did you have a problem with? MR. PIRES: I think it was additional protection language, if you could bear with me, with regards to actions the county may take. If I can compare the language that's currently there. COMMISSIONER CARON: It says here, after reviewing such data, the county has the right, power and authority to require the property owners within the PUD to implement measures to minimize impacts to the residential Pine Ridge community. That's the line you're seeking to add; is that it? MR. PIRES: Yes. And once again, right now they're just saying they don't have to do that study until such time -- bear with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says first quarter of the peak season. MR. PIRES: They just say one year after the seating capacity is achieved they do the second study. It doesn't say there's a study thereafter. I think they need to have an annual study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the annual study would occur at what point? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Why? Page 181 January 15,2009 MR. PIRES: Just annually at the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they do the -- so what you're saying is Phase I goes in, then when we get to Phase II they do the study. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you want -- once that study's done you want the study done thereafter annually? MR. PIRES: Yes. Because once again, the seating capacity of -- it's 980 for the entire CFPUD. And recall, that's not the full maximum seating capacity for the entire CFPUD. And then one year after the 11 O-person facility is open, they do a supplemental study. But recall, they can go up to 220 ultimately. And so I think it's important to know what happens when they hit that maximum utilization of the property. There might need to be additional traffic mitigation that occurs after it's fully built out and fully utilized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's find out about this annual PUD monitoring. There is an annual PUD monitoring report required of every PUD in Collier County. MR. YOV ANOVICH: At our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have to do traffic studies for those every year. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have to do counts at our project entrances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what are you trying to get? Are you looking for something beyond that, Tony? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I believe -- and that is when you do new construction. The way I read Tony's request was for the existing uses, I've got to now immediately start doing these annual traffic -- MR. PIRES: Yes, so we have the baseline. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we already have a baseline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you have a baseline. Page 182 January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: So what I'm saying is I already have a baseline. Why am I now going to -- and I don't think, and correct me if I'm wrong -- where did John go? My understanding is is that you don't do -- you only do PUD monitoring counts is when you put something new on the property, you add a use, that's the change that was recently made. So if nothing happens on Tract B, why would Tract B trigger any -- you wouldn't be doing any counts on Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if nothing happens for a little bit on Tract A, you wouldn't be doing any counts. And we're saying we already got a baseline, we already got uses there. We shouldn't have to do anything above and beyond the annual PUD monitoring counts until we get to Phase II. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't know why -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we're suggesting. MR. PIRES: The difficulty is they don't have to do any new additional building to start increasing the number of students that they have at the site. There's nothing saying that they have to put them in a new building. They can go up to the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. But what I'm saying is that we agreed that we would cap our -- we were phasing in our students to 110 for the entire PUD and capping our seats from the 1,200 to 980. And then we agreed that if we wanted to go beyond that number, we'd have to do these annual counts to see if there's any existing issues within the community, any perspective issues within the community. We agreed to that, and we think that that's a reasonable requirement. And we'll do the counts at that point when those two numbers are hit, 110 and 980. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: But your caps that are agreed to Page 183 January 15,2009 here are not what exist today. The baseline is what exists today, correct? Because it was done in March and June. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What exists today as far as number of seats, on Tract A it can hit 200 seats. Living Word that's there today, 175. For the Covenant, that's 478. So existing today is 853 seats. We're asking -- yeah, for the PUD. And we're saying we just want to go to 980 right now. And we're saying if we go for that extra 130 seats, rely on our traffic study. When we get beyond that number, we'll do another one, and we'll do these annual counts, both externally and internally. We think that's reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: John, on to the LDC, the requirement for the annual count. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What days are chosen for counts? And is Sunday one of them? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: There was a recent revision to the LDC that requires that any time they come in for a new SDP or any development order on the site, there is also a requirement annually, I think it's annually, based on the adoption date ofPUD. And those are all adjusted for the peak season factor. So essentially what you're looking at would be the numbers for our peak season. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I don't think you answered my question. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to find out -- let's go on what is requested by Tony, okay. He wants counts every year. What does the LDC require for the count every year? And I'm going to give a hint. Does it include Sunday as a normal process? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Typically no, it does not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought. Page 184 January 15,2009 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It's aimed at p.m. peak hour. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So what would the count, if it were the satisfaction of Tony's desires for his neighborhood, what would you be providing him? Or what would they be providing with their count in compliance with the LDC? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: They would be providing -- and you have to forgive me, it's something that I don't normally take in. I believe that there's just an actual traffic count over a three-day period. And Rob, maybe you can clarify that for me. You've done some of these traffic counts. It's three separate days with the counts? PUD monitoring counts, three separate days p.m. peak hour? MR. PRICE: Typically the monitoring counts -- Rob Price for the record -- requires you basically just put a tube out on a driveway for three days, and it collects data for 24 hours each day. What I think we're getting at, in order to determine if there's improvements necessary in an intersection, you're looking at peak hour counts. You want to see peak hour turning movements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But that's not what the purpose that Tony is trying to serve. He's trying to determine whether or not there's an increase, an increase that represents a deterioration in the neighborhood through additional traffic. And I respect that, I totally understand that. But what I'm getting at by these questions is that I'm not sure that a PUD required annual recount will provide you the answer that you want. MR. PIRES: I tend to agree with that, Mr. Murray. Additionally, I'm not aware of anything in the PUD monitoring requirements that said if it shows that the traffic has increased and shows additional cut-through traffic that you need to have minimization techniques. And that's where you get back to this document as specific to the particular uses on the site. If you have increased traffic to the Pine Ridge community, you need to address it Page 185 January 15,2009 and take approaches to minimize the impacts on the community. The PUD monitoring requirement doesn't do that, doesn't trigger anything like that, to my knowledge. And that's another concern. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But this is an extraordinary request from the point of view of this type of thing and whether or not it will serve you. So if they were to take and employ the same technique that the county would require, which is the strip across that, and it told you there was a six percent increase in the number of traffic on that given day, you'd use that as proof that their census has grown. And now what would you expect in response? MR. PIRES: Once again, that's what the language would be in the document that would allow the county transportation staff to evaluate that and implement measures to minimize the cut-through traffic through Pine Ridge. That's the language we're proposing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- this is how it all came about. Our traffic analysis -- and Rob, correct me if I'm wrong -- assumed that 10 percent of the people coming to the site will come through and cut through Pine Ridge, correct? MR. PRICE: Rob Price for the record. Our traffic analysis assumed that we would get about 10 percent of our traffic from the east. Whether it was residents within the Pine Ridge community or cut-through traffic. I think it's important to note, there's going to be residents in the Pine Ridge community that might use the facilities at this church. So we're not just talking about cut-through traffic. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we -- what my point is, we estimated 10 percent. They're skeptical about that estimate. And we said when we hit -- in order to go beyond the 980 seats and 110 students, attendees, whatever -- for what use we put there, we will do internal counts. And if the numbers exceed what we expect -- because transportation's looked at it and said they're okay with 10 percent of Page 186 January 15,2009 the traffic coming through that community. Whether they're already living there or external to the community, they're already okay with that. If that number is exceeded and there's things we need to do to mitigate because the number's higher, we'll do it. We're not quibbling or questioning doing the counts or the studies. We're just saying we shouldn't have to do it until we hit the 980 and the 110. But we may not -- it may -- just because six percent come through at that point, I would have underes -- we would have overestimated the impact to the community and we would have said guys, now you can trust the study based upon actual counts, not a model. And this is intended to verify at a certain point that the model is correct. And if it wasn't, we'll deal with appropriate measures to address that. It's just -- it's not a question of doing the counts when they want them done. We've said we'd do them in the peak season. And I agree that the annual doesn't work. We'll do it at the peak season. The question is when. We say it gets triggered at the 980 seats and 110 students, they want it immediately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But immediately means the base counts you already did, does it not? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I'm arguing, the base counts should be good enough. But I don't know if the community says that's fine or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're operating right now with 853 seats and your base counts that you currently have done reflect 853 seats, wouldn't -- I'm not sure what another base count right now would accomplish, Tony. MR. PIRES: Once again, I'm not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it would be theoretically the same as what they've already got. Now, maybe your argument ought to be that when they increase from 853 seats to wherever they want to go, they do another study at Page 187 January 15,2009 that point and then do one before they go into Phase II to assure you that Phase I was consistent with the base counts and the maximum excesses that staff thought they would hit. And if that one comes through okay, then phase II goes in and you do another one there. But that might be a compromise that you could get that work, because it would tell you how above the 853 they're impacting the neighborhood, if at all. MR. PIRES: I think the question is to understand the base count. I thought I understood that it was taken at the project entrances, so I'm not sure if they identified where they were -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we did them at both 41, and we also did them at the two that I had originally said, the two -- Ridge and West and Myrtle and West. We have not done the two additional ones that you're talking about, but the base counts we have were March of '08 at those two internal -- MR. PIRES: Right, and-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- intersections and the U.S. 41 intersection. MR. PIRES: And I think to follow up with what Rob was saying, to eliminate the assumption that he -- he's indicated that some of the traffic was Pine Ridge residents, that's appropriate to do the counts at Carica and Center and Goodlette-Frank Road. Then you would know, you'd be able to eliminate the internal traffic from the outside traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We ruled that out already. MR. PIRES: No, but I'm just saying, he mentioned that some of the traffic was from internally from Pine Ridge. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And we've said that's fine. Your concern is how many people are coming to the church that normally wouldn't be coming to the church property, right? MR. PIRES: Day care -- Page 188 January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wherever they come from. MR. PIRES: Day care, adult day care, Pre- K. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But you don't care -- my understanding from the community was we don't care if it is our own residents __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- they wouldn't normally be coming here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put that map back on that Tony loaned you. At the scale -- and narrow it down, okay, so we can see the whole thing. Okay, just so we know. If you point to the two uppermost corners of that, right there, those two have had a base count done. And where on 41 did you do the two? Right out there, okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As of to day's discussion, we now would move those two out there to the inside. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, for the base count, Tony, for what they've got now at 853, I think you're getting a pretty good reflection by the four that they've done. But what I'm suggesting is that when they want to go above 853, we get another count. We institute those four counts that they now agreed to do at those locations in order to get the next stage put in, and then once more at Phase II. That means two more times you've got to do counts in that regard for the construction. What is unreasonable about that, Tony? MR. PIRES: What about thereafter, though? Once they've implemented the full Phase II and have the full seating capacity __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've already agreed to do annual repor -- their monitoring report requires them to do annual reports. But they will do them now during the peak season. MR. PIRES: They may do that. But what happens ifit shows Page 189 January 15,2009 that there's additional traffic? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, I want to get one thing done at a time with you. MR. PIRES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got five issues so far we've compromised through. And now the last one is the timing of these counts, because that was one of the issues. The timing of the base counts that we've got now. We're going to look at more counts when they go above 853 and another set of counts when they go above 980. Are you comfortable with that? MR. PIRES: I believe so. I'll consult with the client, but I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, your issue about reaction if the counts exceed what they're supposed to be based on the TIS that was submitted, or expectations. Can county staff tell me how -- you haul them off to jail? What do you do with them? MR. PIRES: What, the traffic counters or people driving through? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoever. I just want to get to -- I want to figure out how we control the process if it's proven to be inconsistent with the TIS based on traffic counts of actual happening. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The traffic counts that we would look at at the end of Phase I would then basically dictate any need for extensions of turn lanes, intersection improvements, or further directional or signage controls on any of the intersections or driveways. We might want to reroute traffic from the site -- I'm sorry, from the site driveways where they currently use it so they access to another intersection or a different direction at an intersection, say Myrtle and -- I'm sorry, say Trail and Ridge. We might rather have traffic approach from the south than from the -- Page 190 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all these enhancements, penalties, whatever you want to call them, corrections, they would have to be done in order for them to proceed then with an SDP of approval to move to their next level of construction; is that correct? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. As I understand it, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony? MR. PIRES: I'm wondering, does that also include traffic calming measures within the Pine Ridge community itself, in addition to -- it seems like a more narrow radius that John was mentioning. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's a good question. I'm not sure if traffic calming measures can be imposed the way that the PUD is written today. I don't think that traffic calming measures are listed in that. MR. PIRES: But it's possible that that's a minimization approach? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It is a possible mitigating factor that we could ask that they adhere to at the SDP phase. But it's not currently written into the PUD that I've seen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, here's the thing, though. We -- it's written in here that we're going to have a sheriffs deputy, we've agreed that that's going to be there. And I don't know if you need more than one. But I would think he'd be in a position to do some traffic calming as far as that's concerned. If that's the focus that you have, Tony, is on the Sunday is when you have the greatest number, or are you really looking for every day? MR. PIRES: Every day, we don't know. Once again, when they get up to full running capacity with their facility and if they have __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we do maximize at a certain point with the number of students, the number of people in day care. That doesn't get any higher. The only census that seemingly can Page 191 January 15,2009 grow is church attendance. Now, if you have an officer on duty and perhaps they'd have to go to two officers, would that not be enough ofa mitigation? Would that not be enough of a calming effect? MR. PIRES: Possibly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I mean, I recognize pork chops and the rest of it could even be put in there, but how much disruption for the neighborhood do we want to allow in order to contain what may be perceived as a potential problem? That's the balancing act I think here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now where we're at is they've agreed to a series of counts, and that we could add language in the PUD that traffic calming measures would be another alternative that could be sought for any kind of increased traffic measures. And I'm not sure, Tony, at this point there's anything missing from correcting that paragraph. It may not reflect the exact language you want, but the county does have methods in place so that when they come in, if the traffic counts that we're now requiring exceed the TIS anticipations, then they can instill additional traffic measures to bring them back into line. That seems to be what you asked for. We kind of got there in a different way. Is there a problem now? MR. PIRES: Yeah, I think in listening to what John was mentioning, it may not -- I'm thinking it may be helpful to have it in the PUD document, though. It possibly would give them a greater opportunity to point to something else and say we can direct other minimization or mitigation techniques as deemed appropriate by county transportation staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's what we're saying by including traffic calming measures, that any measures deemed by county transportation staff then. But I think we've got to a solution on this traffic issue, or at least a way that you guys can go back, put some language together and Page 192 January 15,2009 come back to us in the next round that should be very close to final. MR. PIRES: I think it does get close to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, let's take a break till 2:45 and we'll resume at 2:45. (Recess. ) (At which time, Commissioner Murray exited the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will resume their seats, we still have a lot to go yet. We want to make today as productive as we can, so I'm going to need the rest of the Planning Commission here too, at least. Okay, Cherie', let the record note Mr. Murray had to leave. So we're -- and Mr. Midney is here, he's just not in this room right now, so he'll be back. So we're down to seven members instead of eight. Before we go into the continuation of this process, we do have another case that we have to hear today. There are people here who have come from a long distance, they've waited all day to hear the next item on our agenda. And I want to make sure that we don't continue and miss that item today. It would not be fair. We've spent a lot of time on Pine Ridge. We still need to. It needs to come back anyway. There will be more time spent on it then. But for the folks that are here for that last item, I'd like to make sure we lock them in. Now, and I need two things from the board. How late do you want to stay today? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 5:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5:00 is only two hours, but if that's what you want. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 6:00? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say hopefully at least 6:00. We can try to get as much done by then. Is that okay with everybody? Brad? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 6:00 is fine. Page 193 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as looking at the case that's involving the Chokoloskee, I know we've got a lot further discussion on this one to go, we're in the heat of it now. Would it be fair to say that at 4:00 we'll start Chokoloskee? I don't think it will take more than an hour. Does anybody have any -- a lot of issues on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it takes even shorter than that, fine. And then we'll go right back into Pine Ridge. So there's going to be a break in there at 4:00 to give those folks here from Chokoloskee a chance to be heard and get home. We've made them wait all day, and we just need to get past that small one, so COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't we just finish this and then do it -- get them out. Why wait till 4:00? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that. I just didn't want to get everybody -- sometimes when I expect something to be quick and short, we end up three hours later still into it, and I'm amazed. So I want to make sure that we aren't getting into one of those scenarios. And if you all feel comfortable with it -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, my question is I'd like everybody to be heard today, both sides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both sides of what? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This petition. Everybody that's a registered speaker, I'd like to hear from today so we can get that resolved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we can get done by 6:00, yeah. But I'm saying we have a second item on today's agenda, it's a boat -- it's a house placement with some mangrove infringement on Chokoloskee. It should be a short item. There's folks here that have been waiting all day to hear it. When we started today, I wasn't sure how long Pine Ridge Page 194 January 15,2009 would take. But the majority of the people here today are for that project, so they obviously are certainly going to be heard today. I'd like to inject Chokoloskee's issue, get done with it and then go right back into Pine Ridge. You suggested a cut-off -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's only a suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I could stay here till 12:00 tonight, I don't care. You said you want 6:00. So the people may not get to be heard if they can't be heard by 6:00, based on that comment that you and the others made. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, I presumed we'd be done by 6:00, but if we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After this you're presuming we'd be done by 6:00? Good luck. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ifwe need to stay to completion, we'll stay to completion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's just play that by ear then. So with the consensus of this panel, if there's no problem, we're going to shift gears for a few minutes. And I'm sorry for the people from Pine Ridge, but we need to finish up a quicker moment right now. We've had six hours on your subject. I know there are people here who have been waiting all day, so let's move into the Chokoloskee one. Let me make the opening comment and announcement and we'll get on with it. Item #9B PETITION: VA-2008-AR-13756, LEE WYATT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The advertised public hearing would be Petition V A-2008-AR-13756. It's Lee Wyatt, represented by Lauren Barber of Turrell and Associates, and it's to do with the Otter Avenue Page 195 ..,.---.,""'-,-...-.....-..--..... " ""--.---- January 15,2009 in Plantation Island. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this issue, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll go into the presentation by the applicant. MS. BARBER: All right. Good afternoon. I'm Lauren Barber of Turrell, Hall and Associates, here today representing Mr. Lee Wyatt. We're asking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a -- for the people that are leaving from Pine Ridge, we are going to come back to your subject as soon as this one's over. We just want to interject this for a few moments. Thank you. Go ahead, ma'am, I'm sorry. MS. BARBER: We're asking for the consideration of the approval of a nine-foot variance for the front yard setback, typically 25- foot, and changing it to 16 feet. And we're also asking for the consideration of 139.4 square feet of mangrove removal for the lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', did I swear all these people in? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did, thank you. Well, somebody. I just -- trying to make sure we stay on track with something here. MS. BARBER: This is just a location map of the property site. Any questions? Are you all familiar with Plantation Island? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think a lot of us are familiar with Plantation Island, but I'm not sure we have a lot of questions on your application, which if that's what you're ready for us Page 196 January 15,2009 to do, we can certainly poll the members and see if there are any questions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a couple -- MS. BARBER: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- real quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. This is referred to as a stilt house through the whole thing. But then there's also designs of a pad. How is this thing going to be built? Will it be lifted above that pad? MS. BARBER: It will. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the pad that you're showing in all the applications is a slab that will be underneath the house? MS. BARBER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then it's also called a mobile home. So you're lifting up a mobile home, or is this a stick built -- MS. BARBER: It's a prefab home, it's just zoned as mobile home. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then obviously they went through great effort to make sure you can't use the dock. And is that -- that's typical and they do maintain that just to be a fishing pier? MS. BARBER: Correct. Until the AIP is listed, which is the Area of Inadequate Protection under the Manatee Protection Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got to get staff reports first. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just had one question. You were saying that you were going to take out 39.4 square Page 197 January 15,2009 feet of mangrove. But you're going to recreate those -- MS. BARBER: Yes, ma'am -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- somewhere else. MS. BARBER: -- we are planning on replanting them. COMMISSIONER CARON: So they're going away from one spot and being recreated actually another whole foot or something. MS. BARBER: Correct. And we're actually proposing to bring in a higher quality of mangroves. We'll be taking down the delapidated ones on-site and replanting better quality. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. J.D.? You can keep this real short and sweet. MR. MOSS: Yes. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Subsection 9.04.02(B)(I) allows site alterations up to 2,500 square feet. And the applicant is requesting to impact only 139 square feet of mangrove area, which the Environmental Services Department has determined is degraded. And as Ms. Barber just stated, the area will be replanted with __ well, not the area that the mangroves were removed from, but another area on the site will be planted with 140 square feet of mangroves to replace those that are taken away. Regarding the setback, 16-foot setback would be consistent with the other setbacks in the neighborhood. If you look at the exhibit that was attached to the staff report, appendix one, it shows that most of the setbacks in the area are consistent with the 16 feet that's being requested. However, only two variances are on record, and both were for front yard setbacks and both were approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. And I'll be happy to answer any questions, if you have them. January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one. Harold Hall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Harold was here. He probably gave up. I can't blame him. I'm sure Harold was probably in conformance with what was being asked. So we'll just have to -- MR. PIRES: Here he is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Harold, your moment has arrived. MR. HALL: I'm glad, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We apologize for taking so long. And it has -- MR. HALL: I've been reading a pamphlet from church, but I'm not going to preach. Harold Hall, 1082 Rainbow Drive. THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you get sworn in? MR. HALL: No, no, I didn't. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. HALL: In this petition, it's my personal recommendation that you approve the petition. I'd like to tell you, though, that in the past week I have talked with three other residents in Plantation Island, two of which were past presidents of the property owners association. They have no objections to this applicant, and they think you should approve it. I want to do two things, and I've got to keep this down to five minutes. I know that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Harold, I might give you a tip. It's headed for unanimous approval right now. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You can only -- Page 199 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can only hurt it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You can only shoot it. MR. HALL: Well, then I will hold my preaching to just one minute. Is that okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. It's good to see you back again, though. It's been a long time since, so -- MR. HALL: Well, I was afraid you'd put me in jail or something if I wasn't careful. On setbacks on Plantation Island, the 25 feet on 100-foot lot is too much setback. For the most economical family unit of a mobile home, the box on it is 65 feet. So 25 feet front, 10 feet back leaves 65 feet. It's almost impossible to accurately locate a 25- foot box -- I mean, a 65-foot box in 65 feet. So any application you get, to decrease that front yard setback I think you should do it in the future. Now, on the area of critical state concern. To begin with, Plantation Island should never have been in that area of critical state concern. The map that the state used and the map that the county used did not show Plantation Island mobile home subdivision, even though it had been permitted, completed, roads, canals, electricity, water, telephones, television, all in there. And dozens of residents in there. Yet the map didn't have it on there. So the county showed Plantation -- showed that area, including Plantation Island mobile home subdivision as conservation and recreation. Now, when this was called to the county staffs attention in 1988, '89 and '90, in 1990, they revised this and showed the mobile home subdivision as urban, same as Everglades City and Chokoloskee. I called this to the Department of Community Affairs' attention a couple years later. Nothing happened. I did ascertain, talking with them, that I'm 99.9 percent sure it was the same map that Collier County used. But they didn't feel any urgency to correct it. Now, when this came up before the county commission and the Page 200 ,~_~___~"','_.'__.__w__._,,_ __.....__...._..__<.._ January 15, 2009 commission worked with some of our legislative body a couple three years ago to take it -- Plantation Island out of the area of critical concern, an agreement was reached to take it completely out. And word got all around in that area, so people down in the Everglades area is very happy. But they were shocked, I was shocked, to find out that after an agreement was reached verbally that the Department of Community Affairs said no, we won't do that, we will allow up to 2,500 square feet altered. Well, when you take out what is needed for a septic system and a driveway, leaves you about 1,000 square feet. There's no way that you're going to put any kind of a family sized mobile home on that in 1,000 square feet. You can't do it. I talked with two different contractors down there. One of them told me they absolutely wouldn't even accept a job to do that. There's no place to work, unless you bring everything in by helicopter, including workers. But at any rate, I'm unhappy with the Department of Community Affairs twice, first in ever putting it in there to begin with using a map that didn't show it, and secondly, by actually effectively still preventing any effective use of that. Especially if you're talking a family with children, they can't use it. However, they sold some lots real quick, thinking that it was coming out. So then on the one lot that I own, my taxes went up from about $30 a year to $1,000 a year because they was appraised just like any other lot. And the next year they changed that, so it was assessed value per tax purposes down to $30,000, so I only pay 500 a year now for a lot that can't be used. I'm unhappy with the Department of Community Affairs. I'm very happy with the Collier County staff. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hall, thank you. And it's very good to see you again, sir. It's been many years, so -- Page 201 January 15,2009 MR. HALL: Good to be here. I just was in a conversation outside, being very complimentary on you folks on what you're doing, these applications, especially this last one. To get a whole bunch of what could be troublesome items next year, five years from now, getting those questions asked and resolved now. That's going to help the staff, it will help all of us in the years to come. Thank you. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, Harold. You have a good day. Ray, were there any other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if there's no questions, I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move with a recommendation of approval V A-2008-AR-13756. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the motion? Motion's been made and seconded. Let me see, make sure there's no staff -- there's no staff recommendation, so it's as-is. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: 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 7-0. Page 202 January 15,2009 Thank you, and I apologize for making you wait so long today. I honestly didn't think we'd be here quite as long as we have been. So thank you all. Okay, would those people for Pine Ridge and Covenant Presbyterian Church -- no, Heavenly PUD please come back in the room. We're going to resume the process we ended a few minutes ago. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ask John not to leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you ask John not to leave? Because I want to bring back number -- oh, he's moving up. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, don't leave. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: John, don't leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Y ovanovich, where's your partner here today, Mr. Pires; do you know? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we actually duked it out. He lost. And he told me to go ahead and represent him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, that's good. This will be a most interesting finish for the meeting. When Tony comes in, when I say so, everybody say aye. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: I appreciate it. Brings new meaning to being on Page 203 January 15,2009 your toes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thank all of you for your indulgence in that last process. Those people have been here all day and I wasn't sure. I didn't see them -- I didn't want them to continue to another day, so thank you. Item #9A - Continued from earlier in the meeting PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we had finished up all but one page of the 22 pages of the PUD. And the last page was the elevation page. And that hopefully won't have a lot of discussion with it. Tony, I guess the elevations were modified from the original package so that there's a front and a rear now. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any concerns with those? MR. PIRES: Just gets back to the height issue. I think it shows 80, we talked about 70 overall. That goes back to the addition __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PIRES: -- the prior discussion with regards to height. No, I think it helps everybody understand. And that was the purpose of it, to understand what would be looked at. What is not in here in the PUD, and I don't know if we have additional supporting materials, and it sort of ties into this, our sightline graphics. I thought we were going to get revised sightline graphics to get an indication of what this structure would look like from the surrounding residential community. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We gave those to you. MR. PIRES: Okay. I thought there'd be further-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We gave those to you when we met back Page 204 January 15,2009 prior to Christmas, we gave you the updated -- MR. PIRES: There are no more since then? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The last one was with the 12-foot trees. We have not updated it for the 14-foot trees. So the one you have actually shows a worser -- a worster -- a worst case than -- MR. PIRES: A more worser. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. MR. PIRES: But Mr. Strain, if I could briefly go back to the traffic issue, just for clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we've got -- Brad's got a question on the traffic issue too, so can we finish with this graphic page first to make sure everybody's in conformance, whether -- or does your traffic issue have an issue with the graphics? MR. PIRES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, J.D. -- MR. PIRES: I didn't see a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- do you have any problem with this exhibit? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on the planning commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- want to point out one thing, is that notice that the actual height and the -- that 80- foot including extension height is measured from the center lines of the road; is that right, Rich? That's what it says so -- that's good. That's what it has to be. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's supposed to be, right? Made me a little nervous. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the nervous part is the comparison with the other ones. In other words, you can't compare the Page 205 January 15,2009 two because you don't know the distance between the finished floor height and the -- but that's fine, you're trapped in that dimension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's move back to Page 20. Mr. Schiffer, you've got a concern on number five. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, I live in that area. One of the biggest problems we have is because Trail Boulevard is so close to 41, setting up traffic, especially in making a southbound. I think that makes sense to me. What it's really saying is that the southbound turn lane, that means a lane on Ridge Drive that is intended to take traffic south on 41. So we scratched it out, but I think we should look at it and keep it m. Because what that means is coming out of the church, people making a left won't clog up Ridge Road and won't, you know, clog up Trail Boulevard, which happens. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, I did speak with my manager this morning on this one. At this point I don't know if we want to define that as specifically as a left turn lane to provide left turns onto 41 to provide storage for left turns onto 41. I think we want to keep the flexibility to determine if that needs to be an additional right turn for Sunday mornings. Under police control it may be a dual right turn onto 41. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, when we come out of the egress on Ridge and we head west, how many lanes do you expect to be there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It would be a total of three paved lanes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put Tony's graphic on so we can -- you can show us exactly what Mr. Schiffer lives next to or near so we can understand what he's trying to say better. And blow it up to the area that we're in question. Page 206 January 15,2009 Focus -- zero in on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not on that map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, it's toward the bottom. Okay, great. Now, what roads are we talking about, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The one between that seventh __ right where his finger is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And is it where it hits 41 or where it hits Trail Boulevard? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what they're stating is while you're on the church property you come out and you head west, which is down in this orientation. You would stack there. The problem we have up in that neighborhood is people stack on Trail north-south, they stack crossing Trail, they stack -- you know, it's pretty out of control up there. So the thought of having a stacking lane there, then people could go down Trail for that matter -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- or could come out to 41. In other words, you've got three lanes now. What you're saying now is you don't want to paint an arrow on it, you'd rather just keep it two lanes and you could -- and the two lanes I assume are in the westbound side. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. Correct, they would both be westbound lanes. The direction that those westbound lanes would take, whether westbound to northbound or westbound to southbound, would still be left open for Sheriffs Office control. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the concern I had is we took out number five, which is -- but you're saying if we take out number five, what we took away is the painting of that lane. The lane will still be built. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't take out five, we just changed the word south to west. Page 207 January 15,2009 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Just changed the word south to west. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. A westbound turn lane. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Okay, as long as the two lanes are there, okay, I'd be fine with it. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, we just haven't defined it as westbound to southbound or westbound to northbound. And transportation, like I said earlier -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't you just call it a turn lane and just -- I mean, here's what I don't think the neighbors would want is people blocking, you know, Ridge Road and they've got to wait for everybody to clear out of that before they can go north if they were going up for breakfast or something. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I believe that wraps up the issues of the PUD that we've -- go ahead, Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: For the record, if we could, I think one point of clarification. I think during the discussion there was a statement that the baseline studies were done in March of '08, the existing traffic counts. And for clarification, I think in going back to the TIS, the March, '08 studies that were performed were at West and Ridge and West and Myrtle, not at US. 41. The US. 41 traffic counts were taken in June of '08. So there is no peak season baseline for US. 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we were told there were four done. MR. PRICE: That's not true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: I'm just going through-- Page 208 January 15,2009 MR. PRICE: Rob Price for the record. I stated that the turning movement counts we did at Myrtle and West and Ridge and West were done in March of '08 on Sundays. I have it written down here. I went through our TIS and wrote it down. We did counts at all four: 41 and West -- I mean 41 and Myrtle, 41 and Ridge, West and Ridge, and West and Myrtle. We've adjusted all of those for peak season. We've even grown them up to 2013 volumes as well. So we have baseline, you know, peak season existing traffic volumes at all four of those intersections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: No, I guess I understood that the actual traffic counts were done in March at 41 and -- MR. PRICE: The ones that were done in March were at West and Myrtle and West and Ridge. MR. PIRES: So there were no actual traffic counts done on 41 in March of '08? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no-- MR. PRICE: In those-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they did them in the summertime and then you moved them up. MR. PRICE: We moved them up for peak season adjustment. MR. PIRES: Okay, thanks for the clarification. MR. PRICE: And those -- also, I should point out the counts that we did at West and Myrtle and West and Ridge were done beyond peak season. So we reduced those volumes, according to county policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just threw a zinger there. What does that mean? MR. PRICE: Basically the state has peak season correction factors. And if your peak season correction factor is below one, then you are to reduce the volume. So you're supposed to reach a 100 Page 209 January 15,2009 highest hour. That's what your design hour is. It's not the peak of the peak of the peak like the busiest day of the year, it's the 100th highest hour. So the counts that we did at Myrtle and West and Myrtle and Ridge were done beyond the peak hour. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you looked at a more difficult situation than -- MR. PRICE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a less difficult situation. That's a better way to say it. So we understand that you looked at a much more harder look at the intersection, with more traffic than you would normally have had to look if you had done it more conservatively. MR. PRICE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we've gotten through the document. If there's no concerns from the Planning Commission at this stage, what I'd like to do is start working our way through the public comments so that before we leave today we've at least heard all the public and this can go into some kind of process with the applicant and the representatives after the meeting as a setup to the next meeting. So Ray, if you'll start calling folks. And the way this works, first of all, we assume everybody coming up has been sworn in. If you haven't been sworn in, please let us know. And that would have occurred earlier this morning. You can come up to either podium. We ask that you limit your time to about five minutes; though it's not a hard and fast rule, we have flexibility. It's best if you're not redundant. If the person ahead of you has said something that you agree with, just your acknowledgment that you agree with them works fine for us, we understand. So with that in mind, we'll move forward. Ray, would you call the first speakers. Page 210 January 15,2009 MR. BELLOWS: Sally Barker, to be followed by Allen Jones. MS. BARKER: I wasn't expecting to be first up, but here I am. For the record, my name is Sally Barker. I'm here as a 29-year resident of Pine Ridge, and the outgoing secretary of the Pine Ridge Civic Association. I have been involved in this PUD since we first got wind of it back in October, 2007, when notice went out of the first neighborhood information meeting. As you probably heard, that meeting did not go well. Pine Ridge, at least the board of Pine Ridge, has consistently maintained from the very beginning, from that first NIM, that this project should have been submitted as a conditional use rather than a PUD. However, we were not given a choice in the matter. And rather than let a PUD go through without our input, we chose to try and work with the planner to lessen the impacts on the neighborhood. That also did not go very well. At least until the church brought in Mr. Y ovanovich, at which point things started to improve. A lot. In fair play to Covenant, I think we do have to say that we do appreciate their willingness to work with us and their openness about their plans. And it's been a pleasant association working with the church. And we have never opposed the building of a new church building and a new church campus. A few of the items initially gave us heartburn from the earlier PUD's, like the freestanding school and the health center and things like that. And those were subsequently removed, and we appreciate that. A handful of issues still remain, as Mr. Pires has pointed out. But on the whole, I think we are relatively comfortable with Tract A and the plans for Tract A. What is still giving us heartburn is Tract B, the Mission Possible property that went into foreclosure during this year and a half long process and is now owned by Florida Community Bank. The bank has Page 211 January 15,2009 indeed also made some concessions. But the uncertainty over the future of that parcel is still giving us pause. We need -- well, we feel we need more concrete assurances that a future owner will not redevelop that property in a way that the changes are so radical that they become incompatible with the neighborhood. It's hard to predict what a new congregation would do. And I understand that the bank doesn't want to put too many restrictions on what a new congregation owner will do, because more restrictions make it tougher to unload the property, obviously. But as -- and I hate to say this in relation to a church, but the devil is in the details, and the details are not what we're getting about Tract B. You know, if this were in a sparsely populated part of the county, it wouldn't be a problem. But it's not. It's right smack dab in the middle of a 50-year-old neighborhood that's built out, platted and occupied. We need to know what we're going to get on Tract B, and we need to know if we're going to be able to live with it. And if this PUD goes through, we lose all ability to have any input on the redevelopment of Tract B. And frankly, that makes us very, very uncomfortable. A conditional use would have solved this dilemma. But as I said before, a conditional use was not the option that was given to us. And I hope that explains why our support -- well, we don't really support the PUD, but we don't really oppose it. We're kind of ambivalent. Our ambivalence is really more over Tract B than Tract A. And if you have any questions, I would be happy to try and explain. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sally, the -- Sally, I do -- MS. BARKER: There you are. Page 212 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Tract B, there are a series of development standards that are being imposed by the PUD for existing and for any renovations. If they were to -- I shouldn't say renovations, expansions of the facility. If the building is combined with Tract A, I think your issues are less. MS. BARKER: They go away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. BARKER: Yeah, the issues go away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But haven't you reviewed, or wouldn't the fact that we have -- they're talking about a lot of restrictions on Tract B that would take care of some of the stuff that would happen? What part is -- I'm trying to focus on what concerns you. Is it the setbacks, is it the height? Is it what? Because it's got hedges, setbacks, driveways. Whatever issue we could think of I think has been addressed. What is missing? MS. BARKER: Well, one issue of course is the height. Right now, as was mentioned before, it's a converted single-family home. One-story, single-family home. And it blends in quite well with the neighborhood. However, if a new congregation purchased that property, knocks down the old church, they could seemingly build a -- an edifice that is what, three stories tall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 35 feet. MS. BARKER: Thirty-five feet plus another 10 to the roofline and then another seven on top of that. That's 52 feet in a neighborhood where most of the homes are not of that height. In fact, I can't think of a single three-story home we have. So -- and then there's the architectural considerations. You know, it's a matter oftaste, perhaps. A new congregation could come in and build something that we would consider horrendously ugly, but we would have no input on the design or the architecture because the Page 213 January 15,2009 PUD would be in place, and we would be stuck living with whatever a new congregation decides to build. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what about your deed restrictions? MS. BARKER: The deed restrictions only designate Block 0 for religious purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. BARKER: The architectural control committee again I think would be frozen out by a PUD, unless the PUD stipulated that he CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, PUD's don't override deed restrictions. MS. BARKER: Okay, so the archi-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can tell you that from personal experience. The PUD doesn't override deed restrictions, but you guys would have to exercise your rights under your deed restrictions. And I thought the way -- and I did not study the documents I received that provided deed restrictions to me because I got them late I think yesterday. MS. BARKER: And they're vaguely unreadable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're very difficult to read. But what I could tell was there was a change made that allowed Tract 0 to be used as church facilities. But I thought that the language then left the rest of it under the basis of the other -- the remaining deed restrictions for architectural review or architectural review board and things like that. Now, I could be wrong. MS. BARKER: I don't think it addressed that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you guys don't think you have any review over that parcel? MS. BARKER: Cliff Schneider is our representative from the architectural control committee, and he had to go run an errand, and he's going to be right back. But he's the one who would be able to answer the questions about the role of the architectural control Page 214 January 15,2009 committee under a PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'll make sure that when he gets back we'll ask him that question. And also, would your concerns be somewhat helped if you had some, say, a rendering or an idea of what the building would look like that was going on these parcels? MS. BARKER: Only if we had some input into whether it gets approved or not. But you see, right now it's owned by the bank. It's up for sale. Nobody actually owns it except the bank. And of course they will try to find a new owner, a new congregation, hopefully. And whatever that new congregation wants to do basically they will be free to do under this PUD. And we will have no say so. We will just have to live with the consequences of what a new congregation wants to put up. Is that clear? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it is. Thank you. That's what I was looking for, and you provided me with good information. Thank you. MS. BARKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing I think, and this is for Rich's team. You know, the Exhibit G you have for the church, could you make it Exhibit G for Block B too, showing what the heights are that you're -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We could certainly provide a height exhibit. But as far as any type of document like we did for Exhibit G for Tract A, we can't because we have -- we have an architectural rendering for Tract A, we don't have anything for Tract B. But we certainly can provide a height exhibit -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's all this is. This is a generic thing with generic heights and stuff like that. I mean, this certainly isn't much of a design. So if you could just throw something similar together for that, just so the neighbors see what the heights are. Page 215 January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can provide a height exhibit. That's not a problem for the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on that subject, what is the current zoned height you're allowed to go to on that property; do you know? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're asking for no different than what you currently have? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not asking for anything different than what we currently have and what everybody else in the Pine Ridge community has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we turn this project down for parcel B's lack of information, because that is a concerning one, then you still could do on Tract B exactly what you're asking to do in the PUD. To the extent of the height. MR. YOV ANOVICH: To the height, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Because you don't have an actual height restriction now, either, do you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, in Pine Ridge there is no upper number -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So you could have -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- because there is no actual height. We are at least establishing an upper number that nobody else in Pine Ridge really has to establish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you could go 35 feet zoned with unlimited actual height. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, as the zoning regulations currently apply in Pine Ridge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if I'm not mistaken, staff indicated this project would come under the architectural review criteria? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. Page 216 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would Tract B come under the architectural review criteria? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because that's far better criteria than nothing at all. And it might be better than what's there now, which I don't think is any. Do you have any -- is there any on that current building there? Because the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- building hasn't been changed. MR. YOV ANOVICH: In fairness, and this has been the issue is the uncertainty of Tract B. And we had -- the owner of Tract B met with David Humphrey to come up with the development standards in the table itself to hopefully make it more -- if someone were to design to the worst case scenario of that development table, it would be something that would be attractive at the end of the day. And that's why you see the difference in height from Tract B to Tract A. And that was put together with the assistance of an architect to come up with that development table. Because we did know that Tract B is not as far along as Tract A is on the design of buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker is Allen Jones. MR. JONES: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon, sir. MR. JONES: For the record, my name is Allen Jones. I'm a resident in Pine Ridge, 15 years, 10 years as an officer in Pine Ridge Civic Association. First of all, I'd like to say that Pine Ridge Civic Association and the residents have enjoyed a good relationship with the church. We have, you know, no animosity to the church and their attempts to further develop the lot. But I realize that as well as the members and the board of the Page 217 January 15,2009 church, we have a stake in what the outcome of this project is. We both share in what the outcome is. But there's no doubt that the magnitude of the church activities has changed in the past 50 years from what has been set aside and allows for Block 0 to be used for church use. I think churches today represent a totally different thing than they did 50 years ago. When we look at Block 0 and we take it in the perspective that was put on it 50 years ago, we consider our little neighborhood church. So this is where our concerns come up, is that we have to be cautious about what we're going to wind up with as a finished project. And that's basically the foundation of all our concerns on it. Now, some of the concerns I had from the beginning were the parking, traffic and the water management. Now, the parking was set aside. One of the big concerns was their desire to put in a parking garage. That's been tossed out. We're comfortable with that. The traffic, I thought until today that one of the prime concerns we had was traffic leaving the site, and especially during the day, during the week days. During the week days you don't have an open 41 like you do on Sundays. People who are leaving the site after dropping the kids off for day care or any other reason, if they wind up like I'm sure they will, tied up trying to get out onto 41, then pretty soon they're going to start having a desire to go heading east and going through the neighborhood. We have a lot of people in the neighborhood who are trying to get out. We have minimal exits from Pine Ridge subdivision as it is. Going across Trail Boulevard and onto 41 is a dangerous situation. It's not going to allow for a lot of traffic leaving that site. You mix in the people who've dropped kids off or whatever elsewhere with the residents of Pine Ridge leaving and there's a problem. I thought that one of our problems was going to be resolved in those no left turn on Myrtle, no right turn on Ridge. However, for Page 218 January 15,2009 some reason that was decided not to be included in. I would like to see that put back in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it is in there. Yeah, that's in there. That's still in there. MR. JONES: Didn't I hear somebody objecting to that today because of how is it going to be controlled, it couldn't be dictated in a PUD -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, no, that was the police enforcement of it. MR. JONES: Yes. Well, if there's no enforcement-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, there will be enforcement, but it can't be done through a PUD. Somehow the signage and other aspects of the project will have to address it. Zoning documents don't dictate the law to law enforcement officers. That's all the point was trying to be made. MR. JONES: Okay, that's fine. And the water management of course was a concern. We had no definition of how that was going to be at the beginning. We have really serious problems around through Pine Ridge right now. We have an older system. It's not a backbone system, so we rely on our swales and all. And so anything at all that impacts that really puts us in a bad position. However, that seems to have been met by the conditions. The outflow goes to the west and it's going to be used, so that's okay. Now, that leaves me only one major concern, and I've had this concern from the onset on this and that is that phrase accessory uses and structures customarily associated with a principal use. To me that doesn't say anything specific. Not any more than the people who said Block 0 for church related uses 50 years ago knew that they were going to be talking about day care, a much larger church and whatever else might come. That -- you know, an awful lot of these things later on raise themselves up and create a lot of Page 219 January 15,2009 problems for the neighborhood. And I think that we owe it to the residents to make sure that those bases are covered. I would propose that that phrase be stricken out and anything __ any proposals for any buildings or any changes in use or anything else be brought up and approved or disapproved on their merit or lack thereof. And other than that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, your points are well taken, and we will -- we'll be discussing them further. So thank you very much. Appreciate it. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The next speaker is Ben King. MR. KING: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Ben King. My wife and I live across the street diagonally from the church property at the corner of Myrtle and West. We have a number of concerns. We feel the church has made some progress, particularly the latest filing in terms of addressing them. But I guess the biggest issue that bother -- you know, we have the trouble with is the uncertainty issue. And Mr. Schiffer pointed out, when he pointed out -- you know, we have the filing, we have like a blueprint of what's being built. And when I was looking at it before, it looked like to me like none of these buildings aren't that big. It looked like there was a lot of green between them. And now I look at it and I see it as basically a lot of parking lot and all buildings in the front. It's going to be very unattractive from an esthetic point of view. It's going to be very little green visible. My other question, it raises the issue of is the rest of the information in the site plan correct? I mean, is it to scale? Does it look right? I mean, I don't really know. I mean, I can see there perhaps being a reason for this, because I guess we shifted personnel or whatever. But if this were a conditional filing, I assume this would Page 220 January 15,2009 have to be detailed exactly right, the conditional zoning, is that -_ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't -- this can be detailed. And a conditional use doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be any more detailed than what you'll see here. But that's why we were looking for public input. One of the things we can ask is for some more detail on their building. They do have a brochure. Some members of this board have it and some don't. But it's things like this put into more formalized attachment that may be helpful, provided the right -- and I'll use the bad word -- flexibility is built in to understand that maybe this is what you're looking at. MR. KING: Absolutely, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And maybe if the colors were allowed to be changed because they aren't accurately depicted here or some language like that, that works. But that may help move this along. And that's the scenario we're hopefully going to get to through your input and others today. MR. KING: Okay. Well, going further with uncertainty, is I've been at just about every meeting, I've listened to what's being said. I still find the input's confusing about the size of what's being built. And there's virtually no input on the timing of the development. All I look at when I see this is a lot of abstract numbers dealing with square footages. And sometimes I don't really understand them. And it appears they're flexible. For example, if you go to Page 5 and you look at -- this is for the maximum square footage for the church is 28,000 square feet. The minimum floor area is 2,500 square feet. Does that mean that the minimum -- I know realistic it's not going to be built that size, but does that mean the minimum size of the church could be 2,500 square feet, according to the documents? There is no minimum. Plus the major point of this is what square footage is not used for the church, it can go over to accessory uses. And this rendition of the church size and accessory uses and the breakout could change so dramatically, I'm not comfortable with what Page 221 January 15,2009 I'm seeing here. I mean, perhaps there should be a reasonable minimal size for the church. And I guess at this point there are no development timing commitments. We don't know exact -- approximately when the site improvements will be done, what's going to be built first. We were told over six months ago that the funds were available to build either a new church or an activity center type building. To our knowledge, no commitment has been made as to which one is going to be built first. Obviously from our point of view a church is more desirable because one is it removes the old church, it improves the look of the site. It also shows the church is committed to their primary use of building __ I mean, that would be a priority to me. And also, it would appear that the church plans would be able __ at this point give us an idea of what the church would look like, what you have there. But also the size of the church. And I don't know why they wouldn't be committed at this point to what type of building you would be building. I mean, which one is going to be built first? It's been months and months that they've been kicking this around. We've gone very far along through many, many meetings. And I'm just wondering why we haven't committed to which building would be built first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, these are issues, sir -- I'm up here. Up here front. Up here. These are issues that -- I don't know how to get your attention. There we go. No, it's no problem. The speakers are all over this room. Your input and the issues and questions you're asking were things that we needed to hear today so we can find out how to further either define this PUD to a point where it's more accessible or say it's not going to be. And so that's the next stage we're going to go into. We're going to take what input you and the others provide today and try to get answers for you and go as far as we can. Page 222 January 15,2009 MR. KING: Well, that's the biggest problem I personally have with the PUD is it's abstract type things. It's not the real word. And you're looking at, you know, diagrams that sometimes may not be exactly right or whatever and you're not looking at real conceptual type buildings. The other issue I have is we live -- I wonder, could you blow that up a little bit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Just give us the lot number. It should be on there once it's -- MR. KING: Yeah, well, I'd like to see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, keep zooming in. MR. KING: Just a little bit more. Okay, right there is fine. Our property is lot 56, which is on the southeast corner of Myrtle and West. And the new lake is basically going to be right on that corner. So we have a lot of concerns about water management. In looking at the document, what we see so far is there's a three-day 25-year test, or the greater of the capacity of the lake. Or with the newer additive is the -- what might be in effect in terms of zoning requirements when it's actually done. We do not know if there will be any improvement in water management. We do know that our new neighbor directly across the street from our property would be a rather large relocated lake. The present lake is 50 percent larger than the proposed lake. The old lake has had severe flooding problems in the past. And also, it was much more centrally located. The size of the development has been reduced from 148,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet, which is a very good reduction. And that even before this reduction there were more than the number of needed parking spaces to meet the zoning requirements. But we haven't seen any compensating commitment to improve water management. And I do know that Pine Ridge, and it's been said a number of times, that Pine Ridge has water problems. And we feel Page 223 January 15,2009 that this is an opportunity to address at least one of them. I mean, so much is happening there. We're moving lakes, we're totally redeveloping the property. Why not do something for the community. This is a good opportunity to do it. Why not do something in terms of guaranteeing an improved water management. Weare going to face, without quantifying it, more traffic levels, we're going to increase activity levels. There's no doubt our standard of living is going to change somewhat. I can't say how much, but whatever, it's going to be some number. Another issue we have problems with is the hours of operations. Our peaceful times to enjoy our property will compete with expanded church activities. It's inevitable. The church's hours or operation are basically, per the documents, 2417. The other activities start at 7:30 in the morning and end at 10:30 at night. That's 15 hours a day, seven days a week. This is a residential community. School hours also include undefined special functions on a weekly basis. It's basically -- I don't know why they call it special if it's every week. We feel that the activities that are going to be conducted should be more clearly defined. And once they are, we'll be in a better position to determine if they're reasonable or if we have to do something in terms of maybe restricting the evening hours or perhaps the weekend hours for the activities. We really don't -- this went back to what we said earlier about the activities not being -- the accessory uses not being clearly defined. I can't really comment on this completely because I really don't know what's going to be done and what -- how many are going to be at a class at night. At one time we were told it would be like a Bible school in the evening, a very small class. That's fine. But if it's a lot of Bible schools or a lot of activities running simultaneously, it could really have a different -- you know, give us a different impression. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting close to your time frame, Page 224 January 15,2009 sir, so you have to start wrapping it up. We've got to give everybody a chance to speak, and I -- MR. KING: I do have one more point though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KING: You asked earlier about whether there was any preserves on the property. I'd just like to point out that lot 489, which is very visible from my property, is basically a pristine strand of pine and other growth. I do not know what's in it, but I don't think anyone could walk through it, it's so dense. There could be native vegetation, there could be invasive plants, I really don't know. But I just wanted to point out that is there. And that the native vegetation that was destroyed was basically between lot 481 and 489. So I don't know if that would impact a kind of environmental thing or anything like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've already settled on that, so thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it. Ray, next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Clifford Schneider, to be followed by George Buonocore. MR. SCHNEIDER: Afternoon. For the record, my name's Cliff Schneider. I live at 234 Tupelo Road. I've been a resident of Pine Ridge since 1972. I'm one of three members of the architecture control committee, the Pine Ridge Architecture Control Committee. That consists of Steve Brisson, he's our chairman, Tom Peak and myself. Steve Brisson was not able to attend today, so I'm here. Our committee has reviewed this PUD project on numerous occasions, and we as a committee have not seen a final document as yet. I had one e-mailed last night, which was what was here today. But as a committee, we have not reviewed a final document. We reviewed numerous documents, PUD master plan's a constant state of flux. So, you know, it's -- we're at a disadvantage not seeing some final documents. But I understand we're making good Page 225 --'------~,-~-,._",--_.. ",- -..... ~~-~,-_..- January 15,2009 progress towards that and looking forward to it. The Pine Ridge Architecture Control Committee does not support the PUD as presented, and we're on record as such. Letter dated October 9th, 2008. I think you have this. It's in the staff. I can leave a copy for you, if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe it's in our packet. MR. SCHNEIDER: You have it? Okay. And our consensus of the committee, that position's still not changed. We have not seen anything to date that would change our position. The PUD documents show very limited definition with respect to building configuration and locations. Some on parcel A, but nonexistent on B. I mean, that's just -- they show an existing building but something that's proposed. There's no definition there. The improvements that are proposed occur in a long established, low density subdivision. And we suggest that both parcels A and B need to define what they are going to build, both in horizontal and in elevation detail. For instance, some conceptual architectural drawings. Mark, you mentioned some reference to a brochure there which shows some proposals for the church. I think they look pretty lovely. That I believe is only for parcel A. But what's parcel B? Is there a definition there? I know the owner is not an end user, it's a receiver at this point. And I understand they want to salvage something out of it. But I think that we as an architecture committee want to feel comfortable that we either support or oppose what's going on based on something that we can grasp. We would rather support what's proposed, we would rather see what is planned. And I think this can be done by adding more detail to the PUD or a more detailed conditional use zoning application. We as a committee, the architecture control committee, we're not opposed to the PUD process. We know ofPUD's that have had much more detail put into them, into the actual ordinance defining what's Page 226 January 15,2009 going to happen. If -- and I mentioned that parcel B was very vague. And suppose parcel A can have some more definition put into the document. If B cannot, our suggestion is leave parcel B as it is, residential single-family zoning with a conditional use on it for a church. And if they can define what they're going to do with some degree of conceptuality, then perhaps we can reach some common ground. And based on what I saw today here, I mean, we're working in that direction. I just hope that things can continue. There was some mention earlier today, well, we maybe don't need any architectural standards within the PUD because the Land Development Code has some architectural standards that would be subject for review of this project. But what if those standards changed? What if we go back to the mentality of having just big white boxes for stores with no architectural facades or detailing to them. That could happen. Future leaders could say we're not going to go through that anymore. Just build four walls. And we could have something that looks like Fifth/Third Bank at Vanderbilt Beach Road and 41, just a big '01 block building with a flat roof. We don't want to see that, and I don't think the community does either. There was some discussion about terminology in the proposed document regarding no flat roofs. The architecture committee does not want to see flat roof structures in there. Now, there can be structures that have flat roof portions where maybe equipment can be up there, but from the street it would still look like a pitched roof. And that's about all I have to say. If anybody has any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had asked the question earlier, Cliff-- every time I talk everybody looks around. Those speakers are really -- MR. SCHNEIDER: They'll fool you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It makes you think it's coming from back there. Page 227 January 15,2009 About your -- what rights as an architectural review committee do you actually have to impose upon these people? I'm not trying to figure out that in a bad way, I just want to see where your strengths are so we can help -- MR. SCHNEIDER: That's a good question. And I'll explain that. Barron Collier companies originally developed the three Pine Ridge subdivisions. At that time there was no PUD or planned development type of ordinances in place. It was conventional zoning. And the Colliers hired a company called Harland Bartholomew. They were very prominent planners of the day. And they designed Pine Ridge, master planned it and created a deed restriction that listed allowable uses, setbacks, prohibited uses, minimum square footages, minimum prices to build -- that you had to spend to build a house, et cetera. And that is similar to a PUD of today, but that was the document that was established. The deed restrictions guide the development within Pine Ridge. And the Colliers set up two basic commercial areas in the subdivision: One north, one south. And in the middle subdivision, which is the Pine Ridge extension, they designated subsequently in the Sixties, that Block 0 was suitable -- recognizing the need for houses of worship, was suitable for church uses and church related activities. And that's how that got established. The Colliers, when they had control of the majority of the land, and basically until they had sold out all their lots, they were the architecture control committee. There were three representatives of the Barron Collier company. And you didn't get your plans approved, you didn't get a building permit unless the architecture committee of the Barron Collier company approved them. And they recognized at some point in time they would no longer have a vested interest in the community, they both sold their properties, so they transferred the architecture control committee Page 228 January 15,2009 responsibilities formally to some residents of Pine Ridge, currently myself, Steve Brisson and Tom Peak are the three members. We're individuals assigned that responsibility. We serve as volunteers, like you all, and we try to do our job. We have, by delegation from the Colliers, architectural review responsibility over all the ago lots, all the residential lots, including Block 0, which is a residentially zoned area of Pine Ridge. Colliers retained architectural review responsibility for the commercial sites north and south. They still have architecture control responsibility for the commercial properties. But we are the committee. We try to do a job, and we're just looking for a project that's in esthetic harmony with the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're saying is that the applicant has to come to your board for approval of their plans before they can build or they would be subject to potential action from your group? MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, we would -- let's just make an assumption, and it's happened before. Somebody built something and they did not get approval from the architecture control committee. And it happens on a daily basis, somebody builds a house, pretty nice house. What's going up there right now is pretty nice facilities, and it really isn't a problem. But there have been a few occurrences where people have tried to do some things that were just way bizarre, and we had to act as a committee. And in such case we disapproved what was proposed for the property. And that's where our limit stops. There's a 30-day period with which an affected property owner can file a suit in the courts and then you have to go to the courts and battle it out, post a bond, file for an injunction to stop activity. And it's a complicated process. That's the way the deed -- you know, just deed restrictions work. We're not a homeowners association, so we have limited powers. The individual owners have to stand up. But residents of Pine Ridge Page 229 January 15,2009 on several occasions, we have stood up and we've gone to court. Haven't always won. But we don't want to do that. We just want to see the community remain a nice place without a whole lot of rules. That's one thing that's nice about Pine Ridge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason your review, ifit's mandatory, is important to know is because if they have to complete the drawings to show to you anyway, there may be an advantage to bring them forward at this stage to expedite the review before this board and the board coming up, which is the BCC. So that's why I wanted to get to the answer, and I appreciate your time. MR. SCHNEIDER: But the truth is, an applicant can go straight to the building department, go straight through development services and submit an application and bypass us, if they so choose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they can. But if-- MR. SCHNEIDER: But we would hope not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you legally have jurisdiction, you can file a civil suit to stop them, so -- MR. SCHNEIDER: Yeah, but nobody wins with lawyers. We'd rather just work it out ahead of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, especially if you've not exercised it uniformly in the past, it's kind of hard to exercise it -- MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, we're as uniform as we can be. And on properties like what's called the Sterrit Egg Ranch (phonetic), which was down at Pine Ridge Road and East, our committee has been involved probably four separate times very heavily with people trying to make that into a commercial site. An expansion of a church on Pine Ridge Road that wanted to grab a single-family lot and rezone that into a church use, we were very active opposing that. We've had -- somebody wanted to establish a law office the corner of Ridge Drive and Trail Boulevard. That was stopped back then by the Colliers. Page 230 January 15,2009 But no, we have a history of standing up for the community, the architecture committee, predecessors and current. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate it. Thank you. MR. SCHNEIDER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cliff, good seeing you again. Okay, next speaker, Ray? George Buonocore, right? MR. BELLOWS: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thought I'd save you the trouble of tongue-tying yourself on that one. MR. BUONOCORE: Hi. I'm George Buonocore. I'm the past president of Pine Ridge. I've been president several times. Last time I came here, I think this little place called Pelican Bay was getting developed. They had a PUD too. It was called Waterside Shops, which was located in the center of Pelican Bay. Now we have a giant shopping center right on the corner. So that's where PUD's can go. Anyway, my basic problem is the traffic. The Ridge entrance onto the Tamiami Trail is going to be a nightmare. I live on Carica Road, I work south on 41. When I go to work in the morning, I will go up to Goodlette Road and go down Goodlette Road and cut through somebody's neighborhood down that way. Most of the time it's Pine Ridge Road. Depends what bank I have to hit. And that's the way I choose to go, because cutting across 41 in the morning to head south is not pleasurable. It's also not safe. If you cut across at the church, which I've been doing quite often now, just to see how nice it is, I drive a large size pickup truck, which is probably about the same size as a Lincoln or a Town Car, something like that, you get into the divider as you cross over to wait for your chance to go into the lane, and it just about handles one car. Just about. I always worry about my back end getting hit. Then when you're ready to go out, if there's a car in the stackup lane to the north of that, you can't see anything. Page 231 January 15,2009 Right now they've got a very small day school. So in the morning there's not too much traffic going there. Once the big school, the day care, the adult day care, et cetera, et cetera, gets going, there's going to be a lot more people in the morning. Okay. So that intersection, for anybody trying to head south, is not going to be nice to get across. Traffic studies don't show that. You've just got to go there and see it for yourself. Now, if you want to go to a light, you can head north and go up to Pelican Bay Boulevard. That's another disaster brought to you by the Collier County and the State of Florida traffic departments. That holds four cars at most, if you're lucky, unless there's a school bus there. Now, your traffic backs up right on Trail Boulevard, because there's only room for like usually one and a half cars on the turn lanes to get onto it, plus it's a quick light. Also, you've got traffic coming -- heading north to make a right turn into Trail Boulevard without stopping. You have to yield to them. You've got a stop sign just before you make your left to get into the stackup lane. So it's kind of a nightmare getting across. And a lot of times you tend to put your foot on the gas to make it across before you get killed and try to make that light. So any more traffic coming from the church in the morning going up that way is not going to be fun. It can't handle it. County says they've got a problem getting right-of-way to make an additional lane up there, okay. Now, you guys are talking about making an additional lane on Ridge, which is probably great. It won't be that long, though, because it's not a big area. You can stack a few cars. It can get pretty hairy over there. And I don't see anything in the traffic survey that shows that the accesses to 41 can handle it. They say 41 can handle the traffic. They do not show that the access to 41 can handle the traffic. This is why anybody with a half a brain is going to travel Page 232 January 15,2009 through Pine Ridge. It's much easier coming through Pine Ridge. Whether they've got to use Goodlette, go up Carica to Goodlette, go down Center to Goodlette, they're going to use it. It's much, much nicer. Anybody -- once you learn it, it's great. Right now we've got Center Street and north Carica as the two exits. We managed to get the middle part of Carica closed, because when that was open it was a nightmare. The neighborhood was horrible. Now with Goodlette being expanded, we've got less traffic coming in, because you can't just turn there anymore, you've got to go down to Vanderbilt, make a U-turn and come back. So that was great and it cut down on a lot of traffic on Carica. This church is going to put the traffic right back on Carica a lot more than we had before. And it's not a safe situation to get out of the church onto 41 and it's going to really increase our traffic. So we should really have a count now. Because they're only going to have -- they've got 30 kids there maybe now. Once they open up, they're going to have 100, 200 people? That's a lot more. Plus the extra help that's going to be needed. So you've got a lot of people coming in and going, and that intersection can't handle it. And if you go down south, you got the same problem at Cajeput. There's no place to get out onto 41 heading south in a safe manner. I want to see someone prove to me it is safe. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, George. Ray, next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Robert Hamilton. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hamilton, are you here? MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: He had to leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Dr. Robert Petterson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dr. Petterson? DR. PETTERSON: For the record, I'm Bob Petterson. I'm the Page 233 January 15,2009 senior pastor at Covenant Presbyterian Church. And I would like to have these folks as part of our church, because they are so optimistic about our future. And it is very, very encouraging that you are. Just three things I would like to say. First of all, I would like to say that it is our intent not only to worship God where we are, and that's our first and highest priority, but it is our intent to be good neighbors. And I don't think we started out as quickly interacting with you as we should have. But I think you know that we have tried very hard to be very considerate and tried to work through. And we are not going to build any kind of a building that will not be as attractive to the neighbors at Pine Ridge as it would be to the rest of the community, because our intent is to attract people to the gospel of ministry . And same with our activities. We do not intend to have activities that will not be winsome and wholesome and meaningful to not only our community around us but to the whole community. So that's number one. We really want to be good neighbors. And we don't want to do anything that will cause any consternation. And secondly, I would just like to say that also in our church are hundreds of people who have been residents of Collier County, all of them are residents of Collier County, almost all, and a few come from Lee County. These are people, many of whom have been at the church since 1967 when the church began. Many of them have been there since then and have a great stake in the church. And many of them drive great distances to come to the church and to be part of the church. And for them, this is important to their quality of life too. And we want to be very sensitive to the quality of life for our neighbors, but also the commitment of our members who like the location, who are ministered to by the location, who in this last year in extremely difficult financial circumstances that we're all going through dug deep in their pockets and committed millions of dollars to see us move Page 234 January 15,2009 forward in this, beyond anything we expected or imagined would happen. And so it's important I think that we understand that as well as the many neighbors that we want to be good neighbors to in the Pine Ridge association are hundreds of Collier County people whose quality of life also is affected. There are people in our church who literally have become full-time residents of this community, moved from the north simply because of this church and because they're part of this church. And so as the county considers and as our neighbors consider our request, to remember that the community is larger than the Pine Ridge community that is there. And many people spend -- we're not there 2417. I think I am sometimes, but I don't think -- but we're there a lot, and because we're involved in a lot of activity, a lot of worship, a lot of ministry that is meaningful to the people. And then finally, regarding the move, as I heard earlier, we really did look into moving. In many ways it would have been easier to find another piece of property. But as we looked at all the options and looked at the financial cost and to sell our church to a smaller little church, as somebody suggested, would not be economically feasible. And so we believe that we're in the right location and we believe that there's been a great investment on the part of our people for that location. And so we do appreciate -- this has been an education to be here today. And I appreciate you. I know you all serve here as citizens and as volunteer citizens. And thank you for hearing us and for your consideration of this important issue. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question. You're Richard's client. You're the guy that's basically in charge; is that a fair statement? DR. PETTERSON: No, I'm not in charge. There's a whole congregation of people who work hard to keep me humble. Page 235 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason I'm asking is-- DR. PETTERSON: I am the senior pastor of the church. We're Presbyterian Church, which means we are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have some influence then, right? DR. PETTERSON: I certainly do from the pulpit and as a pastor, I hope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there are some issues that are coming up and we've heard some discussion from the public already. And we went through this lengthy PUD process of discussion. I don't have solutions and I'm not sure this board can suggest solutions to them all right now. And I'm sure that meetings after today might bring some up. But I don't know how much of a hurry you're in, but your plans will have to get refined as you move forward. If that refinement produces more detailed plans that can be used in these meetings in the next meeting to show more ideas of what you're doing so it becomes more palatable to the neighborhood, if your plans become firmed up to a point where the architecture review committee can get a better taste for them, and if you get a stronger handle on what uses, accessory uses you specifically want to have, defining those things a little further will probably go a long way in helping this community accept what you're trying to do, or refine it to a point where it is more acceptable. That's what I've been hearing from the people that have come up so far. There are some issues that I just didn't mention yet, because I personally don't know what that will take. And I'm sure this board will have to chew on that for a bit, like traffic and things like that. But if you're going to produce those plans anyway, and you're going to get that far along anyway, the earlier you do it, the more help it might be to get you through this zoning process. So that's just a suggestion. DR. PETTERSON: I would say this, in could, as a pastor. I tried to stay within about two and a half minutes, which my Page 236 January 15,2009 congregation will tell you is very unusual for me. But I would say that there are two things that I know. I know that we serve a God who is in charge of all of this. And we know that we are in interesting times financially and every other way. And so we believe that everything that happens is under his Sovereign will. And so we are not anxiety ridden over this. I would say to you, as you would understand, that there is a momentum for a congregation. And it is no small thing to go to a congregation and present something that is $12 million in cost. And by the way, we do know exactly what we are going to do with which building. I think that will be presented. We've come that far. It has been a refining process. And you're helping us with the refining process, because you're demanding things of us that we never thought of before. But to simply say, we believe that God is in charge of this. And so whatever we have to do, we'll do. And we believe this is part of the refining process, not only for the community but for us too as a congregation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Dr. Petterson, there has been some question here on the accessory uses. It's been a big hangup for people on how you want to define that. Have you come to any -- your lawyer is -- oh, I'm sorry. Usually I'm the only one everybody can hear. There has been some discussion here on accessory uses and what you mean by that, and could you define what you mean by that? Have you given any thought to that while you've been sitting here? DR. PETTERSON: I've been interested to hear some of the accessory uses that others have -- our friend, the attorney for the other side and others have said have been interesting to me, because it never occurred to me or to our congregation to be involved in those things. In fact, one of the things that I would -- I would invite the Pine Ridge association people to do, as well as to go to the meetings that Page 237 January 15,2009 we have, to perhaps occasionally -- I'm not trying to drum up church attendance, but to come by and come to a church service and come and see what our heart is. Because I think that not only are we talking about as we have trust with each other, but what we're doing is to understand one another's heart. And we are a very different church, for instance, than the Methodist church on the other side of Goodlette-Frank. We admire that church, but we're a very different church. When I think of uses for -- when we're talking about other uses, we're talking about things like Vacation Bible School. We're talking about last fall we had on our property a family fun fair where we had events for children and families to come to, an outreach thing. It was done before 9:00, and it was cleared out before 9:00. I don't ever remember us having an outdoor event after 9:00 in the evening since I've been there, and I don't anticipate any kind of accessory kind of events. We might occasionally have a special speaker come for an evening talk that might go past 9:00, so there would be traffic going out of the building after that time. I think we've had some all night prayer meetings with the windows closed and a very small group of people. You don't usually get big crowds for all night prayer meetings. And so I don't know what other -- you know, other than school, other than some special speaking events, other than a few outreach events to families. Perhaps a safety fair where we might have on our parking lot the police come and share with children how they could have bicycle safety and that sort of thing. That's more what we're thinking about. We're not thinking of anything wild and wacky. We're not ever going to have a farmer's market, because if you knew anything about Presbyterianism, you would know that that would be anathema to Presbyterians that we would be selling anything on the church property or running any kind of a marketplace or anything like that. You'll never see a bunch of pumpkins sitting there for sale, for Page 238 January 15,2009 instance. And not that we're opposed to -- and we might buy a pumpkin over at the Methodist Church, but you won't find that at our church. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So perhaps the suggestion that I had made earlier to Mr. Y ovanovich is not that far off here. In your further discussions here after this meeting, Mr. Yovanovich, you know, maybe you can continue to head down that path and make it palatable for everybody. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, appreciate it. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Bill Potter? MR. YOV ANOVICH: He waives. He's part of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Potter waives. MR. BELLOWS: Georgia Hiller? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Georgia, are you here? She left. MR. BELLOWS: Barry Zubelman (phonetic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry Zubelman's left too, from the shake of heads I see. MR. BELLOWS: Tony Pires? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, please. MR. PIRES: Round two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. MR. BELLOWS: Michael Tumamian? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael Turnamian? Good, he's here. MR. TURNAMIAN: Yes, Michael Turnamian. Yes, I live in Pine Ridge, and I've been there for 12 years at 600 Ridge Drive. I live across the street from the church. So when I heard about the -- that there was a plan, of course I was very interested and I went down and I spent a few hours looking at the drawings and the specifications, and I had a lot of questions. I really wanted to know about this, because the church is my neighbor. And, you know, I was looking at the traffic and I looked at the Page 239 January 15,2009 way the traffic would leave the church on this plan. And it showed that all the turns would send the traffic away from the community onto 41 and onto Trail. And this was positive, because all -- you had to turn off into Trail. Now, Trail's a very long road and there's many ways to get onto 41 from Trail. You know, if you're making a right turn going north, then you could head north, you know, or you could go south. I mean, the most dangerous thing of course is to go across 41. And we all know that 41, as well as Airport Road and certain roads in this town, are very dangerous. But Trail does have a lot of access to 41. So I was really impressed because the -- all the turns out of the parking lots of this plan sent the traffic away from the neighborhood. Now, I was also concerned about stormwater and flooding, because we have had flooding in my neighborhood. And the hurricanes, you remember, we had a lot of water on West Street. Now, the new plan, I was looking at the specifications, and it culled out provisions to move water off West Street into the lake and systems. Right now there's no -- there's no way to move water off West Street. So the water sits there and it floods. So this plan would actually increase drainage. And that's very important. Water came close to my house after one hurricane, and I know West Street was a lake. So this new plan, from what I can see, will increase drainage and water, stormwater. And then the setbacks, the main facility -- and this is even the current plan is 200 foot from West Street. Well, 200 feet is a long way. I mean, the main facility is really on Trail. So the church really has been put away from West so that -- and I looked at the buffering and the trees and the shrubs, and there's a tremendous amount of landscaping. So I really wonder whether you're going to see much of the church from West. Because if you're 200 foot back and with all this landscaping, I mean, the church is going to blend in, I believe, Page 240 January 15,2009 from what I've seen from the setbacks. And now we have the school. And I wanted to know what kind of school, how big a school. Well, it turns out this is a very small school. This is from nursery to third grade. This is a really small thing compared to schools and what we think of schools and the kind of traffic and things that a school could generate. And so the design of the building, the sanctuary, I looked at that. I think you have a brochure up there. I don't have it. But if you look at it, it's very attractive, the design. Maybe you could put it on the screen. I don't think many people have seen -- everyone has seen that. It's attractive. It's a good design. I mean, there's an elegance there. It's going to increase property values. I mean, they really put a lot of time into this. It know they scaled it back. And it's mainly visible from 41. Unfortunately you're not going to see that from West. That is the view from 41, because it's so far back, the 200-foot setbacks. So I'm really impressed with the plan and I hope that -- you know, I appreciate the neighbors are all working together. And, you know, I think you have common ground. Because the church does want to be a good neighbor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your time and comments. MR. TURNAMIAN: Thank you. (At which time, Mr. Midney exits the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, our next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Last-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many more speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: Last one. Nick Hale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, are you here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He left. MR. BELLOWS: That's it. Page 241 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that will end the public speakers. And let's see where we're going to go from here. J.D., normally we would have staff presentation, but staff kind of worked through us this whole six hours, so I'm not sure you have any more to say, but I certainly want to provide you the opportunity. MR. MOSS: No, thank you, I appreciate that, but I don't have anything further to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, you know, we afford rebuttal when we go into motion, but I honestly don't see a motion coming out of today's meeting. You might want to get a consensus on it. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for staff. Can I ask? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, absolutely. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John-David, when you look at -- and if you put the -- Ray, put the drawing up you had before. Between this, the appraiser's web site and stuff like this, who owns the lake? MR. MOSS: Yeah, I recall looking at that. The lot lines extend out to the center of the lake. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, there's a survey from Agnolli here that shows lot lines, but it doesn't show any dimensions on the lot line. In other words, it's a boundary survey, which is what it says. And it shows topo. But do you have a survey that shows the legal description of those lots going into the lake? MR. MOSS: I might -- I don't have one with me, no, but I might have one in my office. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the concern is who owns the lake. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't have it with me, Mr. Schiffer, I don't believe, but -- Page 242 January 15,2009 MR. PIRES: I'll be willing to help Mr. Yovanovich out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was going to say, the ownership is both in Covenant and Florida Community Bank. Because a portion of the lake is on Covenant's property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is that the original plat that he has? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's right here. You'll see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Tony -- with Tony's looking at this, if there was any chance they didn't own the lake, he would have pointed that out decades ago. MR. YOV ANOVICH: As you can see, Mr. Schiffer, this is -- right here is Tract B. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good, move on. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're done? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, I'm going to take a moment and tell you where the biggest issues are that seem to be unresolved so that you can focus on those hopefully before you come back. First of all, is this Planning Commission in a consensus? I believe that we need to have a better document than the one we have today. I think there's some issues that need to be worked out, possibly some items to be added. Does anybody believe differently at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're not looking for a motion today, okay? On Page 6, the issue of 20 to 30 feet, that seems to be one point of objection that you and Tony still had. Page 243 January 15,2009 On Page 7, the buffers and landscaping issues -- not the buffers as much, but the material used for the buffer and the landscaping issues, those need to be looked at in more of a private agreement arrangement than the PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I believe Tony and I -- where did he go? There you are. I think we're in agreement with that, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That there will be a separate agreement. So that stuff would come out. Is that right, Tony? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a concern over the way the noise issue is handled on Tract B between the outside and inside. So we need to see if we can get a resolution to that. PUD master plan needs some changes to the notation regarding the flexibility and the -- how the buildings are shown on that plan. There's questions about the deviations; they need to be cleaned up regarding the exits. The use of the pathway money and the bus shelter as an option to the traffic issue. The traffic counts and the way the traffic is handled on Page 20. There was a long discussion on that. I have notes indicating at least three or four different issues that were worked out through the discussion today. I'm sure you've made notes of them too, but that needs to be clarified and come back on a final document. MR. YOV ANOVICH: On that point, what was -- I mean, I understand that we agreed to do four counts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a base count that you've already done. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. Page 244 January 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to do annual counts during the peak season. You're going to do another -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The question I had was when. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The question I had is when are we going to start these counts? Did we ever reach an agreement on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think that got in --let me finish what I was going to say. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to do a count when the 853 is put into place. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And another count when the 980 is put into place. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which would be the count you do prior to going to Phase II. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then looking at countermeasures to the traffic, depending on what those counts show. There'd be some language added to the PUD that allows traffic calming measures to be incorporated as part of your requirements. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So is the -- in can, I talked to John Podczerwinsky about that. The language as it currently reads, it says -- and it's on Page 21 of 22. I just want to see if there's a reason why this is not acceptable. It says, the supplemental data will be utilized by the county to determine if additional improvements to minimize the impact to the neighborhood are appropriate and should be required to address the existing uses and as a condition of approval for the additional seating. And this way I guess we would have to say 853 and the 980. But I thought that that language covered -- was broad enough to allow the Page 245 January 15,2009 county to dictate the necessary improvements. If it's not, what's the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Tony had some suggested language. His seems to be going maybe a little too far in the other direction. In talking with staff, it was clear that your traffic counts, if they exceed what the TIS says, you can't get your SDP's until you do traffic mitigation of some kind to bring it back in line. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, when I spoke to John, he thought this language covered it. That's why I was asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All I'm suggesting to you is I would make sure that Tony's in agreement with that, to the extent you can, and come back with reasonable language. If Tony's unreasonable, then you guys need to come back and you need to take your position, he needs to take his and we'll make a decision. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm hoping that those were -- these were points of contention not resolved today. I'm suggesting the two of you or how many of you get together and try to work these out to come back with a better document. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just had a question on the very first sentence here which says, one year after the seating capacity of 980 for the entire PUD and the 110-person adult care is reached, you have to do a study. But what if the church decides not to -- or what if the church doesn't get to 110 students or they only -- or they get to the full student level but they don't get to the 980, they get to 979? Then you're going to say we don't have to do a traffic -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. The language -- as we understood the commitment when we talked about it at the neighborhood information meeting was we were -- the PUD asked for 1,200 seats Page 246 January 15,2009 and it asked for 220 students. And the traffic study was done based upon those maximum numbers. The community said we don't believe those numbers. So what we said was, okay, we will scale back. We'll do a-- we'll phase it in. We'll do 980, which is 100 and change more than is there today for seats, and we'll do 110 students, which is half. And we said we can have that. And if we want anything more than that, then we have to do this additional study. So if we decide to stop at that and not go beyond that number, we would rely on the study that was in place. And that was what we said we would do at the neighborhood information meeting. We thought that was agreed to by the community. Apparently it has not been agreed to by the community. But that was what we thought would work, because it's slightly over what's there today seat-wise and it's half the school. And the traffic study showed that it would work. It didn't seem to be a need to -- we were only getting half, half a loaf, if you will, on the school. And we would come back if we wanted to go to a bigger school. And that was our position. And we thought it made sense. And we understand the community's not necessarily in agreement with that. What would help us, honestly, is if we can get some flavor from the Planning Commission as to what they would like to see happen on some of these issues. And maybe you're not ready to tell us that. I don't want to draft something and then not -- and still not hit the mark. No pun intended. And I really didn't even think about that. COMMISSIONER CARON: You meant that literally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I thought we went through this, but let me go again. You're going to revise the language to indicate there are four locations, all adjacent to the church, that you're going to be putting your points in. Your base count that you already did is acknowledged as being Page 247 January 15,2009 done. You did the base count on two of those points and two out on 41 and you did them at different times that were somehow -- multipliers were used to get them back to the peak times. You've agreed to do annual counts in the peak season. And then we were looking at you got your base count. You need to do a count at 853 and another count at 980. And then we need to add language that indicates that there's going to be traffic -- we have the possibility through the PUD to request traffic calming measures. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. And I understood all that, Mr. Strain. My question becomes if we do 50 students, do I do counts? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think when you get the 853 maximized. When you're utilizing the 853, that's when you need to do a count. And we need to show the difference between that and the 980. And if there's an increase that is inconsistent with the TIS, then we know we've hit a threshold that we've got a problem with. John, do you have any -- can you enlighten us in some way that makes this clearer? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I sure can. Annual traffic counts are required until the PUD is considered built out. If they choose to claim that the PUD is built out prior to fulfilling their entire capacity in seats or in students, then they can go through a build-out determination. And I'm not sure, Ray can probably correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I think they give up the additional rights, the unused development rights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they do too if they declare themselves built out. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: But until that date, they are responsible to provide us an annual traffic count. And of course I think that can be dictated by the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Richard, I'm not sure what is missing Page 248 January 15,2009 here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm with you on the seats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you're doing annual traffic counts and they coincide with the seating, you're looking at a count. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The difference is the school, Mr. Strain. We don't -- right now I'm asking you, is there a trigger to having to do the additional counts for the school? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't the students sit in seats in the school? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The 800 and something seats is for basically Sunday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Monday through Friday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so you're looking at -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right now we said we would get the 110 students during the week. No need to do another count. I understand. I understand the -- so I'm just saying, we don't have an objection to the 8 -- what was the number? I'm blanking on the number. COMMISSIONER CARON: 853. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 853. MR. YOV ANOVICH: 853 and 110. We're okay with that. So if we never go above the 853 or the 110, we don't have to do any additional counts. That's what I'm asking. Is that the consensus of the Planning Commission? I could write that up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pires, do you have a concern on that? Would you mind coming up? Because this was part of the ones that we had previously discussed with you. Basically what Richard's saying, 853 and 110, they would do a count then and that would be the count. Page 249 January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then again at 980 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- and 110. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, 980 and the 110 would be there too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know, but I'm saying if we decided to go beyond that. MR. PIRES: And I think -- Tony Pires for the record. I think the idea about doing it was based upon whether or not they'd have to build a stacking lane or not. That's how it all started. And our concern isn't really a stacking lane, per se, in its impact on the neighborhood. So we're saying we'd like to have an annual count. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going -- you're going to get that. MR. PIRES: I'm not hearing Rich say that. He's making it -- he's tying it into seats and children, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's in addition. Didn't John just come up and say there's going to be an annual count -- MR. PIRES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because it's required? MR. PIRES: But I guess the question is, is that annual count under the PUD monitoring standards or under the criterion that we're establishing here? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you prefer that we do the annual count during the -- the PUD required annual count. I think you're supposed to do it one year on your anniversary of the adoption of the PUD. If you prefer that we do that, the required annual count, during peak season, I don't think we'd mind. We could put that in and say we'll do that. MR. PIRES: At these four locations and under these criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But John, if they do an annual count, the PUD monitoring requirements for an annual count, can they be what Page 250 January 15,2009 the PUD dictates for monitoring -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- meaning what we're talking about here? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't see any reason why they couldn't. And in fact, to add to that, every time that there's a development order, I mentioned this earlier, say they come in for an SDP, a Phase I SDP, Phase II SDP or any kind of improvement plan on the site in the interim, there's an updated PUD monitoring report which would include traffic counts that would be required at that time. That was just recently amended I think in 2008 in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, did you hear that? Tony, did you hear that? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you guys feel that with the information you got you can come back and propose something to us in regards to this issue? MR. PIRES: I think we're close. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the only other issues I want to make note of: Your listing of your accessory uses, I think it would be important that you attempt to do that. You can obviously decide not to, but I would think that especially with the Pastor's comments, you might have a good enough handle on the array of things you may need that you could put a list together. The architectural way this building's going to look. You've got a brochure. Anything that gives us some idea that we can put on record as conceptual would certainly be a help to let the people know what to expect. And I think that was a big part of some of the people's discussions I heard today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Mr. Strain, we understand that, the Page 251 January 15,2009 word. And we just will write the word conceptual on that. But unfortunately I can't do that for Tract B. I can do it for Tract A because we're far enough along for Tract A. For Tract B, I don't have the ability to say this is what's going to also be on Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But the one thing you could say for Tract B is that it would be architecturally compatible with Tract A MR. YOV ANOVICH: That I don't -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- no matter what. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd have to check with -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, within -- you know, they have height and setback and all that, if it gets sold to somebody other than the church. But that even if it got sold to somebody other than the church, it would have to be architecturally compatible with this structure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll have to run that by -- I'll run it by them. COMMISSIONER CARON: It might give the neighborhood some peace of mind. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know, you'll hear from them. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, something that I'm not sure because of the length of this process that this particular PUD's taking. I know you're authorized to speak on behalf of Tract A. Were you authorized -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to be speaking today on behalf of Tract B? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. But they had to leave for another Page 252 January 15,2009 meeting, so I cannot -- obviously I don't have carte blanche. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just want to make sure what we've already heard we haven't got to go all through with them -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, you do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on a one-to-one basis. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Trust me, you don't have to hear that agam. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The water management. There was a question about is it an improvement. There's -- you are taking in water from West Street? You are taking your water and routing it through a source, an outsource that may not be the one where the water's going now on that property. I think that it would behoove you to show those calculations and changes as a positive when you come back, meaning wherever the water's going now, it may be worse than where the water's going to be going when you refine that lake. I don't know what your outfall is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We spared you the details of that presentation. We did make that presentation during the NIM's and explained to them that we have an existing lake with a crushed pipe that doesn't function. So the existing storm -- there is no control on the properties today. And we've explained to them that the water actually flows into the street, it doesn't flow into the lake. The lake's higher than -- the bank is higher than the street. So we -- I don't know how else to explain it. And I'll do the same presentation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you didn't tell us. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I spared -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be making a recommendation on this. I think it would be important, especially with the concerns raised by the neighborhood -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll be happy to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that we understand that. Page 253 January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at the same time, I think if you're going to take a volume off of West Street, that's something -- that volume ought to be known, because it's better than what's being taken off now, apparently. So those are things I think would help everybody understand what you're doing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we'll do it. And the reason I didn't, Mr. Strain, is it wasn't raised as an issue in the letter. We thought we had taken care of that, but we obviously have not satisfied everybody in the community with that explanation. We'll go ahead and make that presentation next time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that sums up most of today. Does anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Heidi, in order to conclude today, do we need to make a recommendation to continue to a specific date or just continue until the applicant decides to come back with the information? How definitive -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It would be better probably for the applicant to continue it to a specific date. Because I don't think he'd be required to advertise if we have a specific date. If it's indefinite, you would probably have to advertise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Richard, I don't think you can get this done by the next meeting. If you can, fine, but it's up to you. You might want to pick one where you've got enough time to make sure that staff has the review time they need to your corrections. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I appreciate that. And we were scheduled to go to the Board of County Commissioners February 10th. Which we could have made that if we Page 254 January 15,2009 were in a position to do consent agenda in two weeks. We're obviously not in that position. My question of staff is where do we get bumped to, let's just say we don't get in the next meeting but the following meeting, which would be -- I don't even know what date that is. It would be the first one in February. MR. BELLOWS: The second meeting-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the first one in February is the 5th. That's the next meeting. I'm not sure you can make that meeting -- MR. BELLOWS: The following meeting is the 19th. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, I've already lost -- it's early in the year and I already don't know what day it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be the 19th of February. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. So what does that do to my schedule for the Board of County Commissioners? MR. BELLOWS: Let's see. There's a meeting on March 10th, but I'm not sure what the -- if it's closed or not. I'd have to check. But I think we can -- if you're continued, we can make accommodation for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If the 19th -- can you get all this done by the 19th? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I could get it all done and to you all in a couple of days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's more important that staff review it and the community gets involved with it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that I can -- I was just going to say, I don't know that I can get sign-off from everybody else before I get it in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- that quickly. I need commitment from the other side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just need your acknowledgment, if you Page 255 January 15,2009 don't mind, up here on the mic., to let us know that if this was rescheduled for the 19th that you could have reviewed -- you at least could have -- you could put some time to where you and your group can arrange meetings with Richard to look at these issues. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I know he says yes, but we'll get it done. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. MR. PIRES: We've been pretty good at our meetings. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, you've been great. You really have. The question I have is I always get confused in the backup of how quickly I got to get it to staff -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- for them to then get the information out to you all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifhe has to have -- if you have to have it to us by the 19th, which means we have to get it on the 13th or the 12th, how much in advance of the 12th does staff need it? MR. MOSS: Yesterday. MR. BELLOWS: I'd say to give a real good review, he could fit it in in that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that time meaning? Give a date to Richard. What's the drop-dead date that he would have to have stuff to J.D.? You know, you guys are slow over there right now, there's nothing to do, remember? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's why J.D. wants it tomorrow, so he could have something to do. MR. BELLOWS: The 20th would be perfect. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What number day are we on right now? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The 15th. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Tony? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. You want it the 20th of Page 256 January 15,2009 what month, this month? Well-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: To turn it around, we'd have to -- MR. BELLOWS: He said two days before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, you've got to understand something. If he gives it to you and it hasn't been run through the citizens over there yet and Tony and the way he changes things constantly, and there's nothing wrong with that, but he does, then it changes and you guys get the changes, then you get all upset that the changes weren't run through you. And I don't blame you for that. So let's -- how much time do you need to review revisions to this? MR. BELLOWS: Well, an official resubmittal would require another 28 days at least to review. Technically we could put it -- given that this has been reviewed and we're into kind of a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been reviewed five times, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifhe got it to you by the end of the month, could you have it reviewed and in our packages by the 12th or 13th? MR. BELLOWS: I would just say the sooner, the better. Ifwe can get it by the 26th, which is a Monday, last week of January, that would give us at least a week to review it. And then J.D. has to write any new conditions or changes based on the comments. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the one, the final thing I have, I want to make sure I don't confuse anybody, especially myself. What version do you want me to say is the clean version that we'll be redlining from? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that we worked off of today is the version that we're dealing with. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. But this version is a redline of the October 14th version that's in your packet. Do you want me to continue to redline the October 14th, or do you want me to accept the January 9th document as clean and do a strike-through and underlined Page 257 January 15,2009 from it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those portions of the January 9th document that we spent all day working out you need to make clean. The ones that we didn't are the ones you have to strike through and change. We've got a pile of them, like the very first -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is clean and edit this document. I got it. I just want to make sure. Just make sure we're all on the same page. I didn't want to mess us all up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, when would you like to continue this to? What's your request, to the 19th of February? MR. YOV ANOVICH: 19th of February, with the understanding that we'll get on the 10th of March BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Is there a motion to continue this to the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 19th of February? Mr. Wolfley. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Page 258 January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you for your time. I know this was hard -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate the patience of everyone from both the church and the Pine Ridge community, and we will be going through the next meeting again on the 19th and hopefully we'll get to a resolution of some kind. So thank you all. Item #10 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll move on to old business. There is none. Item # 11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll move on to new business. There is none. Item #12 PUBLIC COMMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment? Anybody left have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, I'll entertain a moment to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to adjourn-- Page 259 January 15, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. 1 :00 tomorrow, gentlemen, we'll be here again, and ladies. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:42 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as presented or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 260