The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Minutes 02/19/2009 R February 19,2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida February 19,2009 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 Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19,2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 330 I T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEAR1NG. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE 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 - JANUARY 15,2009, REGULAR MEETING; JANUARY 16, GMP MEETING; JANUARY 20, GMP MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JANUARY 13,2009, REGULAR MEETING; JANUARY 27, 2009, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: SV-2008-AR-] 3618, CHM Naples Hotel Partners, LLC, is requesting three sign variances to allow two wall signs for Spring Hill Suites, and one directional monument sign to serve as both an on- premises sign for Spring Hill Suites and an oft:'premises sign for Fairfield Inn. The first variance is from Section 5.06.04.C.4. of the Land Development Code (LDC), which requires that one wall sign shall be pennitted for each single-occupancy parcel, to allow two wall signs. The second variance is from Section 5.06.04.C.16.b.i. of the LDC, which allows a maximum sign area of]2 square feet for an off-premise directional sign, to allow a 35.S:i square foot off-premise sign. The third variance is from Section 5.06.04.C.16.b.ii. of the LDC, which allows a maximum sign height of 8 feet above the lowest center grade of the arterial roadway for an off-premise directional sign, to allow a maximum sign height of 12 feet. The subject property is located at 3798 White Lake Boulevard, in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) 1 9. ADVERT]SED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-] 2097, The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. and Florida Community Bank, NA, represented by Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich & 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 penn it redevelopment consistent with a master site plan to a maximum of 80,000 square feet of house of worship including children and adult day cares, a Pre-K through 3rd grade school, and various accessory uses for Tract A; and an additional 20,000 square feet of house of worship including children and adult day cares, Pre-K through 3,d grade school and accessory uses for Tract B. The 15.93-acre subject property is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard, and comprises the entire block bounded by Ridge Drive, West Strcet, Myrtle Road and Trail Boulevard in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East of Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John- David Moss, AICP) CONTINUED FROM I/15/09 B. Petition: SV-2008-AR-13664, Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., is requesting three (3) Sign Variances. The first variance is from Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 5.06.04 C.16.b.i. which allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet for an off-premise directional sign to allow a 32 ::J: square foot off-premise sign. The second variance is from LDC Subsection 5.06.04 C. I 6.b. v. which requires a sign to be located within 1,000 lineal feet of the intersection aftne road serving the use to allow greater distances of up to 6,000 lineal feet for up to 10 uses. The third sign variance is from LDC Subsection 5.06.04 C.16.c which requires a sign to be located no closer than 50 feet from a residentially zoned district to allow a lesser distance of 23 feet. The subject property is located on the north side of u.S. 41 in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) C. Petition: SV-2008-AR-13665, Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc. is requesting a Sign Variance from LDC Subsection 5.06.04 C.16.b.i. which allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet to allow a 64-square foot off-premise sign at the Port of the Islands. The subject property is located in the Port of the Islands at the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Newport Drive in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) D. Petition: SV-2008-AR-I3960, Port of the Islands Community fmprovement District, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, ]nc., is requesting a Sign Variance from LDC Subsection 5.06.04 C.16.b.i., which allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet, to allow an 18-square foot off-premise sign at the Port of the ]sIands in the median of Cay's Drive (south of U. S. 41) 18 S.F. in area with sign copy and logo designation the Port of the Islands Cay's Drive. The subject property is located in the Port of the Islands at the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U. S. 41) and Cay's Drive in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) E. Petition: CU-2008-AR- I 366 I, Center Point Community Church, represented by Matthew McLean, P.E., of Agnoli, Barber and Brundage and Doug Lewis, Esq., of Roetzel and Andress, is requesting a Conditional Use in the Estates (E) Zoning District for a church, as specified in Section 2.03.0I.B.I.c.] of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The 4.58-acre subject property is located at 6590 Golden Gate Parkway, in Section 30, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John- David Moss, AICP) F. Petition: ST-2008-AR-13958, North Naples Fire Control District is requesting a Special Treatment (ST) Permit to impact ST area 13F in order to develop the site for a fire station. The subject property is located on east side of Livingston Road, approximately 1.5 miles north of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Livingston Road and approximately .75 miles south of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veteran's Memorial Boulevard, located in Section13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Summer Araquc, Engineering and Environmental Services Department) 2 10. OLD BUS]NESS A. LDC Sign Code revisions as part of the settlement agreement for Bonita Media Ellters., LLC v. Collier County Enforcement Board. An 8-10 minute PowerPoint presentation to review salient points of revisions and answer any questions that Commissioners may have. In addition, copies of the final draft (comprised of minor modifications) will be provided for the CCPC to review prior to the LDC Sign Code Revisions Public Hearing on Monday, March 2,2009. 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 2/19/09 cepe Agenda/RB/sp '3 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the February 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if the secretary will please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 2 February 19,2009 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda. Ray, do we have any changes to today's -- MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like we'll move forward in the order in which they're listed then. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. Couple issues. We have two meetings -- and Mr. Kolflat just pointed this out to me -- that are not shown on our schedule. One is tomorrow afternoon at 1 :00. And it's a continuation of the RLSA meeting that started a couple weeks ago and was continued from a prior date. That meeting will be held at 1:00 at the CDES conference room, 609, 610. And we'll begin at that meeting on the Group 5 policies, which is where we left off before. Of the Planning Commission members, does anybody know that they're not going to be there tomorrow? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Likewise, on the same calendar we got, on the 26th we will continue the 20th to the 26th. We only have four hours in the afternoon on the 20th, or about that much time. That won't be enough to finish up at all. So we have a second day which we hope we can finish, which is the 26th of February. Starts at 8:30 at CDES, same room. Is there anybody here know if they're not going to make it to that Page 3 February 19,2009 meeting? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I may be iffy there, Chairman. I may be out of town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Wolfley, you may not be there then. And then our next regular meeting is the 5th of March. Is everybody on schedule to be at that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: You missed two sign code meetings before the regular meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, February (sic) 2nd and 3rd. Yeah, we have a sign code meeting scheduled for two days, March 2nd and 3rd, both in this room, starting at 8:30 in the morning. I'm not sure under the circumstances if two days are going to be needed, but we have two days to do it anyway. How about the attendance on those; anybody know if they cannot make it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I cannot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both days, or just one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just the first day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Both days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know you have a hard time with those days. Well, it's -- from what I understand, we're going to have a presentation on some of the aspects of that today. And also from what I understand, a lot of it may not be too flexible, so two days may not be needed to discuss things that can't be changed, so we'll see where it goes, Item #5 Page 4 February 19,2009 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 15,2009, REGULAR MEETING; JANUARY 16,2009, GMP MEETING; JANUARY 20, 2009, GMP MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we'll move into approval of the minutes from January 15th, 2009. Is there a motion to approve or amend? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved, approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Schiffer. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. The regular meeting -- or the January 16th GMP meeting, is there a recommendation for approval or amendment? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved, approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer again. Page 5 February 19,2009 All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. And the last one is the January 20th GMP meeting. Is there a motion to approve or amend? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Again, so moved approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. You guys are a team today. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 6 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - JANUARY 13, 2009, REGULAR MEETING; JANUARY 27,2009, REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, the BCC report recaps? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners at their last meeting, heard the conditional use for the Keewaydin Island recreational facility. Motion for denial was passed 5-0. They also heard the rezone for Bayview Park. The first motion for denial was not passed. It failed 3-2. There was a second motion to continue the item indefinitely and direct staff to get project (sic) within the requirement of the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan, and to work with the Bayview Park conceptual site plan to add additional parking on-site. That motion was approved 3-2. The rezone for Savannah Place PUD was approved 5-0, subject to the Collier County Planning Commission recommendations, plus an enhanced buffer along the eastern side of the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bayview Park, Ray, that was a conditional use requesting a change of use for some property from RMF -6 I think to-- , , MR. BELLOWS: A rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to rezone. Okay. If it wasn't approved to be rezoned and that was what it was advertised for, you're telling us it ended up with neither approval or denial, it's going to go into some limbo? MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no, no. What's happening is that the application's dead. That particular application required four affirmative votes by the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 7 February 19,2009 MR. KLATZKOW: They did not get the four, so the application was dead. What the board then directed staff to do was work on it and then come back through the entire system again with something that the community can live with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does that mean it doesn't have to be to code or the GMP then, I guess? MR. KLA TZKOW: No, it's going to have to meet code, it's going to have to meet GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that ought to be interesting, that location. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it may be that they never come back. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It certainly will be interesting. Okay, Chairman's report. I just have one announcement to make which I think you all are aware of, and it's unfortunately a sad announcement. Sharon Phillips is no longer with the county. I want to thank her for all her dedicated time and her effort she put in to service this board. I can tell you, she did a fantastic job -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, she did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and we're going to miss her an awful lot. I wish times weren't like they were. I know Cheri Robbins, I think is her last name? MR. BELLOWS: Rollins. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rollins. Has taken over. I met with Cheri and tried to fill her in about some of the particulars of the board in regards to the packaging and everything. So hopefully we won't Page 8 February 19,2009 miss a beat. But I'd like to ask that, you know, if we have things missing we just have to have a little patience until everybody gets used to the new system. So it might be a little bumpy here for a little bit. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we are definitely working with Cheri, and she's picking up very quickly. And I'll be working with her on all the packets, along with the other principal planners. And we're pulling together as a team and we'll be able to get the packets out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. To help Sharon, could we put together maybe a letter of recommendation, just to state how well she did? In her future endeavors, that might help her. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see a problem with that. Is there any -- from a staffs perspective, is that a -- MR. SCHMITT: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'll -- you want me just to issue it as chairman and-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- send it out, or do you want to have a review of it before? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I think everybody supports it so-- , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'll take care of that and have it to you within -- hopefully within a week or the end of the weekend. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good idea, Brad. Thank you. Item #8A PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13618, CHM NAPLES HOTEL Page 9 February 19,2009 PARTNERS, LLC (SPRING HILL SUITES) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the meeting today. Our first item up -- well, before we get to the first item, we have a consent agenda. That is for the CHM Naples Hotel Partners, LLC, Petition SV-2008-AR-13618. It's a sign petition we reviewed at our last meeting. It was the only item on that agenda. Is there a -- everybody satisfied with the consent agenda item? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley made the motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a -- seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Item #9 A PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, THE COVENANT Page 10 February 19,2009 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NAPLES (HEA VENL Y CFPUD) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we'll get into our continued item. It's the Covenant Presbyterian Church in Naples, also known as the Heavenly CFPUD. It's Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12097. All those wishing to participate in this hearing, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of planning commission. I guess these would be disclosures from -- since the last meeting. Anybody? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Since the last meeting, I haven't spoken to anyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then that's not a disclosure. COMMISSIONER CARON: But he's on record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I spoke to Wayne Arnold briefly, he asked me if I had any issues, and I told him a few that I was concerned about. I talked to Mr. Pires, same kind of discussion. As a result, we got a revised I guess critique by Mr. Pires. I talked to Mr. Buonocore and Ms. Barker in the hallway momentarily about some traffic issues, and I think that's it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I did talk to Sally Barker in the hallway for some brief time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, and I did get a letter from a Mr. Joseph and Theresa Bandy. And I just gave that to staff for distribution. It's in your packet. And Mr. Y ovanovich, I'm sure we're going to have a discussion about that letter, because it epitomizes exactly what the problems are. Page 11 February 19,2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: -- probably everybody got it. But the only contact was the letter from Mr. Pires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioners. Unless you want me to go back through an overview of the project, I thought we would just kind of pick up where we left off. What I would like to do is have Mike Delate kind of explain the water management system and how it will work. Because that seemed to be some of the comments that we received from the community regarding -- at the last meeting was related to the water management system. And then we can go through I guess Tony's memo, if you need to be, because I don't think there's very many issues left. I think the PUD document that you received was revised according to the direction that we had at the last meeting. And I think your staff has looked at it and agrees that we got it right, or we think we got what you told us to do right in that. But we can obviously go through the PUD as well with any concerns you have. But I thought with Mike going through the water management system, unless the Planning Commission wants us to approach it in a different fashion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a good starting point. And as far as the memorandum from Tony Pires, I think if you focus on the areas that are in disagreement, and if you're in agreement with the rest on the record, then that's all we need to be worried about. So that would get us through some of the process. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's move forward. Page 12 February 19,2009 MR. DELATE: Good morning. Michael Delate from Grady Minor Engineers. I had spoken with Mr. Pires, or communicated with him regarding some of the concerns about the water management system vis-a-vis some of the drainage from the adjoining streets adjacent to the property. And one of the issues was the church property was to handle runoff; some of those adjoining streets that currently does not occur to a great extent because of lack of maintenance and other issues. And the church owners have agreed to take on that water. And what we've indicated to Mr. Pires was rather than having in the PUD a requirement that the water from the adjoining streets go through the surface water management system of the PUD, that it be allowed to go through the property. So not necessarily through the system, but be handled separately on the property and not commingle those waters. What we've indicated is that hydraulically there may be different and peak stages and peak periods for storm events between the off-site streets and the on-site stormwater system. And so commingling them might create a problem for those off-site streets. What we've indicate to Mr. Pires and the Pine Ridge owners was we would take the water from the contributory area around the -- along West Street and the adjoining streets and funnel that through the site. Now, preliminarily we would run that through a series of pipes and open ditches or swales out to Trail Boulevard and along U.S. 41. We haven't worked out the specifics as to how much of that would be pipe versus open swale, but it would be entirely within the project, not within the right-of-way. And then we would do a connection point out at U.S. 41 drainage system. And we haven't worked out the details on that yet, but in some manner take it over to the ultimate outfall, which is down Page 13 February 19,2009 at Pelican Bay. So I think in speaking with one of the property owners beforehand, I think we explained how the system would work, and they seemed to be satisfied that we -- as long as we take it through their property and hydraulically work out any issues and satisfy the drainage requirements for the off-side streets, they'd be okay with that. So we kind of worked it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: And you're going to do that for not only West but for the side streets well? MR. DELATE: Yeah, the side streets adjacent to their property COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. DELATE: -- and any contributory streets around that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What level storm are we talking about, three -- 25-year, 50-year, 10-year? MR. DELATE: Well, on-site would be the 25-year, three-day storm event for peak stages. And we would compare that against the off-site. They probably weren't designed to that level, so we'll take as much as we can, and of course as much as DOT would allow to be discharged through their system. But the idea would be to maximize the amount of water taken from the off-site streets and still maintain a better level of service than they have now, and obviously maximize them as much as possible within the extent that DOT will allow it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that consider any possible future widening of that road? MR. DELATE: We would take the right-of-way area. So as long as the right-of-way wasn't increased, it would encompass the entire right-of-way. I doubt that there's going to be any right-of-way takings from properties in there, so you're -- Page 14 February 19,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. DELATE: -- looking at a 60-foot right-of-way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Well, I'm just wondering, if you have sufficient property to do this with all the pipes, it would have to be a maze of pipes, I would imagine. MR. DELATE: To some extent it's going to be some expense to pipe some of that, yes. But it's been agreed they will take that water, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And engineering-wise, you believe that you can accomplish that. MR. DELATE: Yes. We've looked at the hydraulics out there preliminarily and think we can do that. That's why we want to have some flexibility by allowing it to be through the property and not through the water management system. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, when you say through the property, whereabouts on your master plan would you end up putting either a -- you'll have to have a drainage easement if you're putting an RCP so that it can be re-excavated or repaired, and usually that's 15 feet. And then you've also got to have -- if it's open swale, you're going to have to have a swale that's maintainable so the side slopes won't be too steep. How are you going to fit that on this master plan? MR. DELATE: Well, that's what I said, it may end up being quite a bit of pipe versus -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll say. MR. DELATE: -- open swale. Of course, along the lake here, I'm not sure there's going to be that much room for a swale. Maybe when we get down to this dry detention area we, you know, take up some of that area as open swale. It's still in essence open and dry, so the use doesn't really change. But Page 15 February 19,2009 it may be a good deal of piping to take that through there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and you said it's going to be on the property. So that means it would be outside the right-of-way. MR. DELATE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first 10 feet of the property's edge would be -- because it's bounded by streets, would be utility easements that you can't go in because you've got all your private utilities in there. So that means you're going to be 10 or 15 feet further into your property line -- well, actually, it would be 25 -- up to 25 feet in, because the first 10 feet you can't use. MR. DELATE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you -- has anybody figured out how that's going to affect like the parking spaces and Tract B and all the other areas that are fairly tight? You've got quite a bit of stuff back pretty close to the property line on here. MR. DELATE: Well, we could run -- you can have a drainage easement over the parking and jet the pipes underneath the parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what about the lake location? MR. DELATE: Well, that lake, probably the line there, you see it's more like top of bank rather than control elevations. There is room in there, and you could have a pipe along that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Top of bank to the control elevation is 20 -- you have to have 20 feet for a South Florida maintenance easement. Would your pipe go in that? MR. DELATE: Lake management easement. Yeah, that's -- that's not an exclusive easement, so you could have a drainage easement through there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, as far as the buffers go, you can't have water management swales in a buffer, I don't believe. MR. DELATE: You could have up to 50 percent. But I don't think we would take up that much and put it outside the buffer. Even Page 16 February 19,2009 with the type of planting material you have in there, you know, with this ficus hedge, you probably wouldn't want to have the pipes near that anyways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because if this goes through the process, the master plan that's in front of us is basically the master plan you have to live with. MR. DELATE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm just making sure you're not going to box yourself into a problem by having to now put in this commitment you're making for water management and have the master plan change. Because if it is going to change, we'd like to know about it today. MR. DELATE: I think that drainage easements usually aren't exclusive. This wouldn't be exclusive. You could run parking over it. I think we can accommodate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The catch basin that's in the middle of 41 that the DOT I assume -- it was on your previous slide. Have you verified that's there and is an active catch basin? MR. DELATE: It's actually a -- it's not a catch basin, it's actually a culvert mitered end at that location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's right in the median there, the yellow dot that's in the median. MR. DELATE: That was just shown for graphic purposes. It's more like right on the edge of Trail Boulevard. Because that boundary line kind of bulked it over there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's a mitered end and then it picks up from another mitered end and goes south? MR. DELATE: Yes. And we necessarily aren't going to be able to use that. We have to work that out with DOT. We'll provide an alternate route if we can't work that out. They may not want those waters commingled either, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What alternate route could you use to Page ] 7 February 19,2009 get across 41 ? MR. DELATE: Well, you'd have to do directional bore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your directional bore, and you're looking at a 12 or 24-inch RCP or something larger? MR. DELATE: Probably a 24-inch HDP. You may be able to use that. The bore pipe may be able to be used as the carrier pipe, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you ever told the owners or the people in the church the potential cost of a jack and bore under that amount of asphalt along 41 -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's huge. MR. DELATE: Well, that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for that size pipe? MR. DELATE: Yeah, it's not necessarily the whole way. We haven't worked out all the details on that. I'm not sure specifics on who's been told what at the church and the cost of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you haven't worked out all the details. And by the way, I'm not trying to punch a hole in your process, I'm trying to make sure the process you're presenting to us is somehow reasonable to expect it to come out. MR. DELATE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've not worked out the details, what kind of language are you proposing to put into the PUD to acknowledge that this is going to happen then? MR. DELATE: Well -- go ahead, I'll leave that to Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That language is in the PUD that we're going to accept the drainage. And we've also -- remember, we have a side agreement that we're going to have where we're going to present copies of whatever we submit to the county or the Water Management District, whoever is the applicable permitting agency 30 days ahead of time, so the association will have the opportunity to review the details when we know the details. Page 18 February 19,2009 But we already verbally have made those commitments in the water management section of the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand the language is there, because we studied it last time. If that's the case, then why is this issue coming up here today? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think the issue came up with -- I think they just wanted wordsmithing to assure that that's what we really are committing to. And we wanted to present to you how those words work on the conceptual side. And then when we get to the details, the assurance will occur, because we'll have to get a permit from the Water Management District or the county for water management. And we've taken that language out that nobody wanted in the PUD document itself, but have agreed to enter into a separate agreement to give the association copies in advance so they would have the ability to make sure that we follow through with the commitment that's in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have to now deal with the FDOT too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. We've got to deal with whoever we've got to deal with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, that will be a lot of fun. Good luck. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And, you know, we're committed to trying to help the neighborhood with some existing problems that really aren't our cause but we can be part of the solution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sure we'll hear more when Tony has an opportunity to address the issue. Any questions for Mike Delate at this point? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just have one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I feel obligated to ask this. Have you or whomever in your group, have you informed the Page 19 February 19,2009 church officially of at least the cost estimate of what you -- or the highest level cost that you expect so that they fully understand the implications of this? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had analyzed this, I believe as a zero discharge first. We've gotten costs on that, and so we know the cost related to that, if we're not able to do the zero discharge. We have not given a cost estimate on plan B, which would be the -- this route. But the church is aware of that. We know we have to deal with it. We have to have our water leave the site at some point, so we have to -- we'll get them a detailed estimate at some point when we know exactly what we're doing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. I just feel the need to get on the record the fact that this is a significant undertaking and probably a significant cost, and they should be fully aware of that to go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions for Mike Delate at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, okay. Richard, did you -- before you sit down, this is still kind of your presentation. Is there something you want to move forward with after Michael's discussion? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I guess you had requested that we kind of go through what -- Tony's last list. And most of what Michael talked about is on his list, so we would -- we think the language that's in the PUD as written is the appropriate language and not the change that Tony wanted on Page 2 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, I don't know -- I want to make sure everybody's working off the same page. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Revised memo? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a memo -- yeah, a revised memo issued by Tony Pires on February 17th, 2009. The prior one February 19,2009 was February 12th. The one we should be working with is February 17th. Is that what everybody has? Is that the one you're working, too? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I'll just go page by page, if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's start from Page 1, tell us where you're in agreement or where you're in disagreement, and then we'll work on those. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. A, l-A-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, just a second. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I don't have the 17th. I have January the 12th. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's two missing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's two here that are missing, too. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And I need one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four missing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one thing else, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you guys can talk one at a time. So Tony's got extra copies, he's passing them, going to get them to us. And -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're going to walk through them. Y .? es, SIr. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've also noticed that Tor has a large copy of the plan. I didn't get that in my packet, so -- the revised plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So ifthere's any extras, I Page 21 February 19,2009 wouldn't mind one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, if you've got an extra full-scale plan, Brad Schiffer would like one. Okay, does everybody have the distributed -- the new copy, the new revision, or at least access to one? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, let's start back on Page 1 of that memo so we can see where the differences are between the project right now and the neighborhood, or at least Tony Pires', the people he represents. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, number I-A, I believe the concern was if we were actually going to show the -- this came up in regard to the detail that was on the plan regarding the building locations, and, you know, what would be considered a substantial change to the plan. So I believe what we talked about was going to a building envelope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you did. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's what we put on there, saying that the buildings have to be in that -- within that envelope area. I'm a little concerned if we start ghosting in buildings that if you move that a little bit would someone now raise an issue because, you know, you had detail when we were really -- I thought we were trying to get a little bit more flexibility, but at the same time identify exactly where that flexibility could occur. We agree with his B and his C. We think that we have better -- we prefer our language -- we're on the next page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Page 2. 2-B, we think that our language appropriately captures the types of uses that can occur. The concern with using the words no more intensive, that throws in some ambiguity. I thought we were looking at Page 22 February 19,2009 types of examples. What we didn't want to get into is okay, a civic group with 20 people is okay, but a civic group with 40 people, that's not okay. So we thought just the way we had characterized it works for everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Letter C on that page number two, we have development standards tables for all buildings on the property. I don't think we're ever going to build a 35-foot tall storage building, nor do we think we need to get into that kind of level of detail as to what every building height is going to be on the property. We've given increased buffer heights with, you know, the hedge and all that and planting, so we thought that that was taken care of, because those -- and again, those buildings are within the building envelope. Letter D, the typographical error-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to C. Let's go back. I mean, Rich, I appreciate you wanting to move through this, but I think we need to spend a little more time on it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The request to limit the height of accessory uses. That's what he's asking to have in here is indicating that accessory uses apply likewise. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe he's talking about -- I think he was trying, and maybe I misunderstood it, I thought he was trying to have the maintenance buildings and the storage buildings be less than the allowed height for accessory structures. I think he was saying, you know, we don't want you to build a maintenance building at the height you're allowed to build other accessory structures is how we took that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how do you -- I don't know how we can separate that out at this point. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I guess we'd have to create another development -- in the table, we'd have to come up with another column for certain types of accessory structures. And we just thought Page 23 February 19,2009 that that really was unnecessary, and has been addressed through the enhanced buffering that we're doing for the project. So creating another column for a certain subset of accessory uses just seemed to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you created a footnote to go with the zoned and actual height under accessory uses to indicate that service buildings, any building used for -- I don't mean religious services, I mean -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- maintenance service type buildings would be limited in height to less than -- to some other height. Is there a problem with that? I don't think you want a 50-story maintenance building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fifty stories? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 50-foot maintenance building. I mean, you really wouldn't need that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we don't. But at the same point, you know, it almost seems like you know we're not going to do that. And in every PUD we don't get down to the nitty-gritty of every building that's going to be within the project. You have parameters. And we've addressed that by setbacks and the like. You know, no, we don't have an objection to, you know, the height. But if it's something the Planning Commission thinks we absolutely need to do because you need that level of detail on this project, we can do that. Otherwise, I think that we've handled it through the regular table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure it's level of detail or just clarification. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: You have storage currently on this master plan existing. What's the height of that storage right now? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You mean on site right now? Page 24 February 19,2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, on site right now. Storage existing. It's right on the plan. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fifteen to 20 feet. It's a single-story building. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So why can't you footnote that it will be a single-story, whatever you would do for -- in the future for maintenance would be a single-story building of no more than 20 feet? I mean, it's an easy footnote. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. But the question becomes -- we've agreed to architectural standards, we've put the example in there. It's got to be compatible with the architecture. It's in a building envelope. I mean, do we really -- what if we go out and we design it and we decide we want to do a two-story and it turns out to be 22 feet instead of 20 feet? You already have the -- what we're saying is we already have the setbacks, we've already agreed to architecture, we already have limitations of 35 feet maximum zoned height for that. I mean, again, why do we have to get to that level of detail on storage, on a storage building when -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell you what. We understand your position on it. Let's move through -- what I think I'd like to do is move through the four pages, and before we finish discussing them, ask Tony to come up here and now that we've focused on the points that are in disagreement, help us address those with the group he represents. So we're in disagreement on basically 2-B and 2-C. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about D and E? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll fix the typo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, that's a hard one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: E, we just discussed with Mike Delate why we want to leave the language that we have. His language, you Page 25 February 19,2009 know, creates the issues that Mike was describing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, Page 3, the top of the page is 1. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, that's -- well, that's actually an "I believe this was the understanding." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're right. Then we'll start with F. I was going to say, someone didn't know the alphabet, but that's fine. MR. PIRES: I have been known to type wrong letters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry. Tony's an attorney, he has to be excused for talking out of turn like that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then I guess he's saying the development standards table he wants -- that's the same issue we just discussed about the maintenance buildings, as I understand it. G, we can -- that's fine, we can agree with G. H is also a typo. 1. Oh, he used the word again removal. I guess we can take the word removal out. But I didn't know the difference between demolition and removal. To me they seemed to be the same word, But if we need to add removal. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Removal. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're not the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem taking it out? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, he wants to add it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean add it in. Do you have any problem with adding -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's just do it then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: J, we already talked about through the water management. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean you're in agreement with -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not. Remember, that's the same Page 26 February 19,2009 language that he wanted to put through the system. I agree, that should have come out in K. That was supposed to come out. L, I believe the way we agreed to handle that at the last meeting, that deals with we would provide them with copies of our dewatering permit prior to -- again, prior to submitting it. And we had agreed to the same condition that we had on the water management, which was we would give them those plans 30 days ahead of time so they can look at that. And within those plans, there is the analysis that they're talking about, so we don't agree to put that in the PUD, but we have agreed in the separate agreement to provide them copies of the dewatering permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. M? MR. YOV ANOVICH: M, I think -- unless I missed it, I thought we had already addressed that the data that comes from these additional traffic studies will be used by the county to propose if necessary some fixes, including traffic calming. So I thought our language addressed it. So if the Planning Commission believes his language is better, fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you point to the specific language in the PUD so we all can reference the same one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is -- if you look at Exhibit F, it's Page 21 of 21. It's at the very top ofthe page. It's actually the first sentence that's in black. It says, this supplemental data will be utilized by the county to determine if additional improvements to minimize impact to the neighborhood are appropriate and should be required to address the existing uses and a condition -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, I think we're reading from a different -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's on Page 21. It's the sentence down. Page 27 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But before we go into Page 21, the document that I have that was I believe reissued with our last staff report was dated February 2nd, 2009. Is that the one you're working from? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I got it with our staff report, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: All right. Well, I was reading from the 21 st so-- , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 21st of what month? MR. YOV ANOVICH: January. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, there was a PUD -- the reason that -- you said Page 21. There's only 18 pages in the edition issued on February 2nd. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me -- I'll find that language. It's the same language. You're right, it's 18 of 18 on the version dated February 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's still at the top of the page, right after the first underlining, the sentence that starts, this supplemental data -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- will be utilized by the county to determine if additional improvements to minimize impact to the neighborhood are appropriate and should be required to address the existing uses, and as a condition of approval for additional seating capacity of 220, and/or additional 110 studentslindividuals. The additional traffic improvements may include traffic calming measures. And that's what we discussed at the last meeting. So we thought our language actually did that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I didn't understand the need for his language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll get into it with Tony Page 28 February 19,2009 then at that point. And N? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And N is Exhibit G, which -- I'll make sure you have the right Exhibit G. They want the -- a reduction from 30 feet to 20 feet. And, you know, we would like to keep the 30 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Exhibit G that I have shows a 70-foot and a 20-foot. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, this is -- MR. MOSS: They don't have the right exhibit. This is the right one. I'm sorry, Commissioners, the exhibit I included in the package that I sent out to you was actually the outdated one from October. It was done by Planning Development, Incorporated. The correct one should be dated 12-2, and it was completed by Grady Minor and Associates, the new engineer for the petitioner. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is the one I believe you have in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So now the packet -- MR. MOSS: This is what it should be. The package I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see what the right one is supposed to be. MR. MOSS: -- sent to you is incorrect, I'm sorry. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is the one you had previously seen because we were -- we were requested by Tony and his clients to do both a front and a rear view. And you had this at the last hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So this is -- and that's where the discrepancy between the 80 and 70 feet that you're referring to, Mr. Strain, is. You have an older. And that also had a higher actual height than we've agreed to, the one in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Page 29 February 19,2009 So you're looking at an overall height of 90 feet in the one in the packet. And the one that's in disagreement, your overall height is 80 feet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And remember, it's limited as to what that 30 feet can be. It's the cupola and religious symbol. Before -- we've got down to 35 feet zoned, 50 feet actual and then you have the cupola on top of that. Before we had -- I believe it was 50 feet or 55 feet of zoned and 70 feet of actual. And then you can put the religious symbol on top of that. So we've brought the mass of the building down by agreeing to a lesser height for zoned height and actual. But you have a very small portion of the building that can be up to the 80 foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, on the front elevation of the prior discussion, the 35-foot zoned height went to the midpoint of the roof, and now you're -- in that one it was 50 feet to the midpoint of the roof. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you drop the midpoint of the roof down 15 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your roofline on the prior -- well, you didn't have the one on the first graphic. Your roofline is 50 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you dropped the overall height of the main structure down 15 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And which is consistent with the zoned height in the RSF-l zoning district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then really what you're talking about for your actual height is everything above 35 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, yes, we are. But remember, we had said that only the 30 feet above the 50 feet can only be for the cupola and religious symbol, okay? So only a small portion of the building Page 30 February 19,2009 can achieve -- and that's what the purpose of this graphic is, there's only a small portion of this building can actually achieve the actual height of 80 feet. The rest of it is capped at an actual height of 50. And that's shown on this graphic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've got 45 feet of height made up of non-occupiable space? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess you have roof and things like -- yes. Theoretically, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because 35 feet, yeah, that would gIve you -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Here's the midpoint of the roof. That's the zoned height right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Then the roofline is capped at 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then this portion right here is the only -- that's the extra 30 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but our two heights that we discussed in the LDC, your zoned height is 35 feet, your actual height at 80. You have a 45-foot spread between the two. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did I hear someone else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, they're actually doing something I think better than that. What they're limiting is the actual main building to have an actual height of 50. And then here comes the confusion. Actual height is the highest we can go. How do we deal with the steeple in that area that goes above it? So they've invented something that's higher than actual height. That can be confusing. But I think I understand why they're doing that. If they didn't do that, if they took the actual height to be the 80 feet Page 31 February 19,2009 here, then they could really build a huge building -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and we would lose control of the mass of the building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that was the neighborhood's concern and that's why they wanted this massing document within the PUD. So when you saw an actual height -- if we had used that 80 feet, the thought was we'd have this big blob that would be out there, this big rectangular building, and we use an example that you'll find on Ben Hill Griffin Parkway as that's what they don't want. And we've made sure that it doesn't happen through this massing document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to walk through all these points with Tony Pires when we get to that point. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just in terms of now not massing in terms of height but massing in terms of that cupola, there's nothing that prevents that from being more massive than is shown on this plan? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we do. We have a limitation of-- we have limitations on the square feet for that portion of -- and that's in -- I want to make sure that -- you'll find that in the -- for B. If you're looking at Exhibit B, Page 4. It's actually on Page 5 of 18. I'm sorry, it's Page 4. I put note number two. It says maximum actual height may be exceeded by up to 30 feet by non-occupiable building elements. And then it says the maximum combined square footage of each building elements shall be 4,000 square feet. So that cupola area can be no more than 4,000 square feet. So it can't be the entire roof. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's everything in his memo. Page 32 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's everything in his memo. Do you have any other points you want to make before we -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I think that's probably the most efficient. Because we did spend a few hours at this the last time. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I think the issues are hopefully minor at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got some general questions about the documents -- or some of the stuff we just received I want to ask you about before we go into getting Tony to comment on his paper. The letter I got from Joseph Bandy, I'm going to read the paragraph in here. I would like to advise you that there is loud music going on until 11 :00 p.m., 11 :30 p.m. and up to midnight. The music is so loud that even with their windows and doors closed we hear it. After the loud music stops, the people come outside and talk and scream loud, which lasts for a half an hour or so. And this is on Section B, which is now owned by the bank and is rented out to Iglesia de Cristo, a Spanish church. This is exactly the problem that we've been trying to stop. Knowing as sensitive of an issue you're into with the timing of appearing in public and trying to get your project passed, why would owners of section B who are part of this PUD even consider letting something like this happen to the neighborhood at this time? Well enough at any time, but I mean now you think you'd be more conscientious than at prior times. Do you have any response to this, since you represent the PUD? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know the particulars of the lease for Tract B. I believe that what this kind of shows is right now under the current county regulations that are applicable to this property, there are no hours of limitation. What this PUD will do is it will create those hours of limitation to bring back the worship times. And the Page 33 February 19,2009 owner of Tract B has agreed to those limitations when none currently exist. So they will go and they will tell their tenant the zoning now says you must stop at 10:30, you need to stop at 10:30, you need to make sure the windows are closed. I don't know, I wasn't out there the day that that happened. But this creates the framework to impose regulations on that tract when none currently exist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this was done just to show us how -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it wasn't done for that reason. I'm just saying it's happened, but we can use this as an example of the benefits of the PUD to address the situation out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that depends, though, on the lease. Is the lease something that can be amended to coincide with whatever changes come out of this meeting? Do we know that? Because if it doesn't and the lease isn't going to be changed and this still is going to go on, what have we accomplished to protect the neighborhood? This was real disturbing when I saw it, Richard. After all the cooperation that we had gone through at the last meeting to have gotten this letter was not a good thing. And I don't know why anybody even thought that this should start to happen on a project like that in a situation you guys are in. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can't rewrite what happened. It happened, and we need to move forward and address it and make sure it doesn't happen again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I want to make sure that-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- ifthere's impositions put on the zoning, that the lease then becomes enforceable to those impositions and not something that we hear say, well, we already had a lease, we can't change it. I don't want to hear that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I am being told by the attorney for Page 34 February 19, 2009 Tract B that yes, the lease can be modified to impose these zoning obligations. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, Mr. Midney had -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a question first. Then let's just go in order. Then Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I had spoken to one of the residents after I saw the letter that was given to us, and she said that there was drumming going on at 6:30 in the morning some days too outside. So I'm just wondering, are they going -- is Tract B going to follow everything that the other tracts follow and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- is there something to limit when the music starts in the morning also? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think this letter clearly makes it something that we need to make sure is in -- is correctly written in this document. More so than even we thought in the prior time. So I agree, I -- the letter just really was a flag that something's seriously wrong, and we need to fix it. And by the time we get done today, hopefully we'll have accomplished that. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. MR. YOV ANOVICH: In can, just real briefly, for Mr. Midney. It says that the -- no, you're right, it's 6:30, worship starts at 6:30. But it has to be -- we agreed to a condition of no outdoor music at all. So that's been addressed and will be part of the lease obligations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll get through it, Paul. Before the day's over, we'll have this hopefully resolved. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, because we really do need to get correct language on this. Page 35 February 19,2009 Does it state in this PUD, and will you show me where it states in the PUD so that everybody's aware that this will also happen now, and it doesn't take them actually doing any rehabilitation, that they don't have to redevelop Tract B for any of this to kick in, that it will happen on day one as soon as this is signed off on? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't see anything in here that would allow them not to happen. If you need to put a provision in here to assure yourself, I don't see anything in this document that grandfathers existing worship hours. If you need to put something in there to give yourselves the additional assurance, that's fine. Because the owner of Tract B has said they will apply it to their existing tenants. So if we need to add a sentence, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What about me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- at the last meeting, remember I said I walk my dog by this site? And this is the building that has a lot of noise coming out of it. It is a residential building, it is close to the corner. I don't think there's anything you're going to ever do to be able to stop the noise coming out of the thing. So Richard, on Tract B, as it's outlined in this PUD, is that the exact ownership that I guess we refer to now that the bank owns? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And my point is that why are we encouraging, you know, the expansion of this use? Because it is very close to the road, it is very loud. I can witness that myself because, like I said, walking my dog down the street. There's no door opening and closing, it's just blasting through the louvered windows that a residence would have. I'm not a big fan of expanding this use, at least something that wouldn't take where that worship service is occurring on the site and Page 36 February 19,2009 move it back. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't see how we're expanding the worship service use through this PUD, because it's an existing building, there are no limitations. I believe they can fit, you know, about 200 people in there right now, so -- because there's no fixed pews. I mean, they can -- I think that we're basically limiting through this PUD what they can do right now, because right now they can have worship services seven days a week, 24 hours a day with no limitations at all under the current conditional use that's there for that property, or zoning that's there for this property. What this is actually doing is capping the number of seats and it's also establishing worship hours where currently none exist. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Rich, do you know the building? I mean -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you're saying it's a 5,600 square foot house. I don't think it's that big. But is that what you're saying? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't do the survey. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what I see when I loop at the building is there's a living room that people are in, essentially the old living room of a house. I don't think you can get 200 people in there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, okay, if we can't fit 200 people in there today, then we're not expanding the use. Because until we build a new building, you're not going to get more people in there. What we've done is we've limited the hours of operation through this PUD when there currently isn't any hours of operation for the PUD. I mean, believe me, I don't want to be here with this letter. I'm not happy that I'm here with this letter. But I'm here with this letter. So Page 37 February 19,2009 we need to address this perspectively, and the only way to do that is to adopt a PUD with hours of operation for worship. Because otherwise there is nothing but the noise ordinance -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what hours -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- to take care of this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What hours do we limit it to? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have it at 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To what? MR. YOV ANOVICH: To 10:30 p.m. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, 10:30 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's found on Page 12 of 18 of the PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, even 10:30 to me is late on that site. I mean, it's -- you know, again, you can hear it a half a block away. And I mean, people are excelling their exuberance, I understand. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we hear your concern. I'm sure someone's going to get up there and is going to echo it as well. If we can let -- I'm assuming we'll have a break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We won't? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have a break at 10:00 like usual. Cherie' wouldn't be able to take us past 10:00. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which will give me a few minutes to talk between the Tract A and Tract B owners about this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It isn't going to go away, so we-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- need to resolve it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- not going to go away. And continuing to point it out to me until I can meet privately -- Page 38 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, and then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In furtherance of that question, I heard earlier a statement that there was drumming going on. Now you're talking about worship services beginning at 6:30. I'm going to suggest that it infers that the drumming is part of the worship service then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so all you do really have then if you retain 6:30 to 10:30, all you do have left is the noise ordinance. Because if you're going to talk about restriction of the hours of the worship service, what the worship service consists of, those things that are causing or potentially can cause problems, we're not achieving the result. So you may want to be talking about limiting the exuberance in some fashion, and I don't know that you can. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think what we need to do is we need to look at the hours at which drumming or other music can occur. Because I don't think you can regulate exuberance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we need to look at that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I said that facetiously, because -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I know that; I understand that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- you are talking about worship and people's minds. But I added to that because that's a hitching point. I would not accept the hours of worship as being the hours that are appropriate unless there was some means of controlling that noise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think I got it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, because remember, when we did establish these times it really was for the benefit of Heavenly. Page 39 February 19,2009 They just mirror what Covenant wants and these hours. And they were established for that and not for what's actually happening there. And being more restrictive on that parcel is -- would be the right thing to do. We've gone over this many times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Richard's got a consensus now, so that will give you something to discuss at 10:00. With that then, maybe we ought to move into asking Tony to come up here and grace us with his presence for a while. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman Strain, members of the Planning Commission, thank you. And thank you for the opportunity we have. I had the opportunity to review the document and provide the revised memorandum. And I think one thing -- I try to make a statement, I constantly hear Rich saying, and I understand he's an advocate for his client, that current condition provides for no limitations on this activity no limitations on that activity. But recall, Covenant Presbyterian Church wants to expand. They have nonconforming uses on this project. They are asking for a document that allows them to do that, to consolidate their properties into one document. And so I think that's a red herring. And so I think we're starting from a clean slate of okay, what do they want. And they want to achieve a unified plan to allow them to expand, which they cannot do at the present time under the current zoning. So I think that phrase of no limitations now is a red herring, and I think the Planning Commission's appropriately looking at what are the issues that have arisen by virtue of this request and exists today, how can we address them. To go through the -- my comments that are remaining, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I've indicated the ones that I believe are not yet resolved and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to start with Page 1 and work like Richard did, so we can keep track of where his comments are and yours. And if you disagree with his acceptance of some of yours, let us Page 40 February 19, 2009 know that too, Tony. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir, thank you. Just for the sake of it, I may. No, just kidding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you might. MR. PIRES: My comment of I-A, at Page 1, my concern was at times looking closer at something, standing back and then coming back to look at a document and/or a graphic will-- after a lot of the dust has settled, because at times we can get too close to a product. Notice that on their master plan, if you look at the master plan, there are storage and service structures outside the church campus building envelope. There are three of them depicted. There's little buildings or little boxes with X's on them. And one of them is actually closer than 200 feet, it appears, to West Street. It's in the -- I'll call it the -- for this portion of the master plan, if you all can see, sort of the I guess southeast quadrant, there are some storage and service areas. And in looking at those I'm thinking, you know, I know it sounds unrealistic, I know it sounds like it won't happen, but I've seen stranger things happen. When you say that they can have the same height as the principal structures and they're outside the building envelope and they're standalone structures, I don't think that's what's contemplated, so I think a footnote would be appropriate to address those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back on I-A, though. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I-A. Where are you? MR. PIRES: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, I'm sorry, I jumped to the storage buildings. But okay, back to the ghosting ofthe structures, outline of structures. I know, I think we had a conversation last meeting, Mr. Schiffer mentioned maybe the shading be better than having the ghosting of the outline. In talking with my clients, from the standpoint of the Page 41 February 19,2009 community's understanding of what the relationship of the structures are relative to the surrounding community, that it would be helpful to give an indication of where the structures could be recognized and they could move within this building envelope. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what would it hurt -- you've got a building envelope that's shaded in dark right there. MR. PIRES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's your limitation, what does it matter where the buildings go within there? You -- MR. PIRES: But the type of the footprint and the massing and the location and the relative -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're all controlled by the development standards. MR. PIRES: Right, but I think graphically it helps people understand better when they see a certain outline of a building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't the new attachment which shows a rendering of the building help? MR. PIRES: It helps, but I don't think people can translate that to the -- like an overhead, you know, flattened and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So maybe if we put a reference that the picture in the back of the book -- this fits inside that gray box, that works? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering, Tony, why you have to -- MR. PIRES: I'm looking from 5,000 feet. I'm looking down it from 5,000 feet. And it helps give -- here's the envelope and here's sort of a footprint of what the building's going to look like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Tony, here's what my concerns was, is what they've shaded in is where the buildings can go. Page 42 February 19,2009 That's 2.1 acres. The amount of area that this PUD can have is 2.3 acres. So the illusion from the sketches before that these are small buildings was not realistic. That gray area is less than the amount of square footage they can build on the PUD. So I think what I was trying to avoid is them seeing these little building outlines, thinking these are little buildings, when the volume we're talking about is huge compared to that. So, I mean, here this corrals where the buildings go. It's just -- I mean, I don't think showing the outline, unless we want to get into their design with how much is second story, how much is first story. But the concern I had before is that little building shown in that gray area is not what's going to be built, it's much larger that we're approving here today. MR. PIRES: At the break I'll rediscuss this with the clients, and based upon the discussion by Mr. Schiffer and the Chairman, see if they're acceptable, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on then. Band C were conceded. 2-A, well, that was just a comment. MR. PIRES: And we don't have that yet. We had one handed to us today, but it has incorrect numbers on it. Heights and so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have one attached to the back of our PUD. Did you see that? It's attached as Exhibit H, conceptual architectural rendering. MR. PIRES: No, the height exhibit from Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Solis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. PIRES: The bank parcel. We have one, but some of the height numbers are wrong. We can probably doctor one up between now and -- during the break period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the height exhibit, if you Page 43 February 19,2009 want it as part of the PUD, or if it's intended to be part of the PUD, we need it here today. Otherwise, it has to be part of your agreement. MR. PIRES: Correct. They have a sketch we were handed today, this morning, but it appears the numbers were incorrect on it. And we can, once again, try to legibly fix those numbers and have that for you after the break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about 2-B? MR. PIRES: I think the focus, no more intensive. I understand Rich's issue. I think by having the characterization as being non-commercial, I think that would address it by leaving off the phrase not -- no more intensive. Or the alternative would be comparable to. Non-commercial accessory uses comparable to civic group meetings. And remove the word no more intensive. I understand Rich's concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now -- you're familiar with what it says right now? MR. PIRES: Yes. But I would -- I'd still like to add the beginning part of non-commercial accessory use. I think it's important to stress that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on B-5 on Page 2 of 18, in front of the word accessory use, it would be labeled non-commercial accessory use. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what you're suggesting? Richard, does that have any problem if that change is made to paragraph B-5 of Page 2 of 18? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. So it would say non-commercial accessory use IS -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- characterized by. MR. PIRES: And characterized is appropriate too. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next item, Tony, is 2-C. Page 44 February 19,2009 MR. PIRES: And I jumped to 2-C earlier, I apologize. If we look at again the master plan, our areas that depict storage and service structures outside the building envelope. And again, I think it's important to have a footnote that indicates the limitation on their heights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, if there was a footnote added at the end of all the other footnotes but referenced under the height of accessory structures where it says maximum zoned and maximum actual height, and the footnote referenced that any service and storage buildings would be limited to single stories not to exceed 25 feet, is that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that I want to be capped at single story. How about -- if the height is 25 feet, who cares ifthere's one or two? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would agree, that's fine. Does that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, isn't the intent in that footnote to say outside of the church campus? I mean, I think if-- MR. PIRES: Once again, that's what -- again, on second look I noticed it was outside the envelope, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So note that it's only for those buildings outside. MR. PIRES: Because they end up building closer to the residential areas than the envelope. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Now, I don't mean to be a pain, but when you say 25 feet, is that the zoned or is that the actual? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Zoned. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The zoned. MR. PIRES: I'll have a special tape for you, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm serious. Page 45 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you going to put on top ofa storage building, a cross? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, it's the silly little peak roofthere. You know, it's one or the other. I mean, just tell me. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's the zoned height. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just want to know. I'm just asking for clarity. I don't want someone to tell me that the tippy top of the roof-- I know I'm not allowed to use that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you tell us why it would have to be different. I mean, what kind of symbol are you going to put on top of a storage building? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If they're both going to be the same, Ijust want to make sure we're talking the same language. That's all I'm asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the same. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If zoned and actual is 25 feet, fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's zoned we're going to put there, right? If we make a mistake, aIls they're going to do is build a flat roof building, which isn't going to help the neighbors. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I said if we make a mistake, alls you do is build a flat roof building, which doesn't help the neighbors, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would that be architecturally compatible with the project? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, and plus we have a prohibition on the flat -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know. You do have? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're going to add a footnote that basically says any buildings outside the campus that are used for service or storage are not to exceed 25 feet. Is that fine with you too? Page 46 February 19,2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Um-hum. MR. PIRES: And Mr. Strain, and I heard the discussion -- and members of the Commission -- with regards to the 20 feet versus 30 feet. But we're firm as to the 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-five feet. MR. PIRES: No, I'm talking --I'm sorry, the -- next is how they may exceed the maximum actual height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we're on the same one? MR. PIRES: We're on 2-C. The second sentence of my 2-C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PIRES: Firming our position, the maximum actual height may be exceeded up to 20 feet and not 30 feet, as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, since the actual height is really embellishments to make it -- typical of what churches use, and this one has a cross on top with a cupola and all that, 10 more feet for a cross, how does that cause a problem? MR. PIRES: I don't know -- pardon? No, no, I'm just saying-- it's not just the cross. Once again, we have the maximum -- we have the issue with regards to the occupiable square footage, you know, the capped out, the maximum square footage of the occupiable space. But they can change -- there's no dimensions on that drawing that's in the back. They can make that sort of a taller, narrower, and so it could have the 4,000 square feet and be more than just the cross. And once again, if you notice, there's -- I don't believe there's any scale on that drawing on that Exhibit G. It's just a reference to height. I don't think they want to commit to the horizontal dimensions of that structure or the vertical dimensions of that structure. And that leads to another issue that came to my mind as we were having this discussion. They have it depicted right now in a rela -- it's sort of elongated. But if they were to narrow that portion, the permitted exclusions -- or permitted extensions limited to 4,000 square feet maximum, if they narrow it, they can make it taller. And that's my Page 47 February 19, 2009 concern. It's not just the cross. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Tony, they started out at zoned height of 50 feet. They dropped that down to 35. They started out at an overall height of 90 feet and they dropped that down to 80. And now you want the overall height dropped down to 70? MR. PIRES: It's been consistent wanting it down to 70. We've never changed. And I think at one time we had it at 70. I may be mistaken. But we've been consistent. We've not wavered that from the beginning. And it's not just the cross. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're going to have more discussion on that as the day goes on. MR. PIRES: And one other aspect with regards to the structure. I'm not much of an artist, but if you were to take that Exhibit B, the elevations, and you could not change the square footage but you change the cubic feet inside the building by actually raising it higher so you could have a huge mass structure. This is a concept, but it doesn't mean they can't go higher than what's on here. For example, you take this and raise this up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, during your break, if you have an opportunity to determine if that second cupola structure, you have a height that you'd consider limiting that to, which means anything above that can be the cross, that might be a way to look for a compromise on this. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. MR. PIRES: It's not the height of the cross, once again, it's that 4,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you're saying. And maybe there's a way to come to a solution for it, so -- MR. PIRES: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Page 48 February 19,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And during the break, could we get copies of that exhibit? The one we have in our Exhibit G is not the same as your Exhibit G. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got to ask staff for that. J.D.? During break, J.D., if you could have copies ofthe correct exhibit, we'd appreciate it. Distribute them to us right at the end of break. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's Exhibit G, isn't it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Good. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: On Exhibit G that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I have is scaled 1 for 30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whatever they give us we'll deal with. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, my point was, is that he's saying that it's not to scale. MR. PIRES: Okay, I hear what you're saying, Mr. Murray. I do see it. You're right, it's difficult to see that at the bottom, because it's kind of a smooshed printing, but it does say there is a scale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, on Page 2 of your paper, we seem to have worked our way to the bottom of that page E, the water management information. You understand the presentation made by Mike Delate? Is there any concerns there? Where are you at from that? MR. PIRES: I think we still need some language change. I understand Michael's -- Michael and I exchanged some e-mails. I understand it may go through this project but not through the water management system, it may be a separate -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PIRES: -- sort of flowing and routing. And I think it's a Page 49 February 19,2009 matter of we can change the language to achieve that. And I guess the concern is, and just going back to how this program and project has always been presented to the community, from the first drafts in March of '08 to May of '08, I have about, how many, six drafts of the PUD document. And consistently the language has always stated that the balance of the project's stormwater management capacity shall provide for acceptance of drainage from abutting roadside swales, without limitation, via connections to the wet detention system in addition to serving as the outfall for the project's dry water management area. So consistently from the beginning of a year ago it has been explained to us, described to us, presented to us, promised to us -- us being my clients -- that the water management system of the project will take the drainage from abutting roadside swales. And so when I was rereading this, it appeared there was a limitation on that, that it didn't appear as if it would go through the project, that it would be using the outside swales to achieve this water management and this retention. So I think it's important to codify what Michael indicated was going to happen. But I think even more importantly to say -- I think one thing that was sort of -- one approach is, and the question is and there's also his notations indicate that it's subject to FDOT approval. And the question becomes what happens if they don't approve it. So we may need to have language in there that they will redesign the system to either stage up higher on-site or increase the storage capacity on-site or less impervious surface. And that would all be entirely within the project boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you looked at the language that we received on our February 2nd version? MR. PIRES: No, I was not provided that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're reading off a version and your memo's off a version you haven't received -- reviewed? Page 50 February 19,2009 MR. PIRES: My memo's off a January 21st, 2009 draft that I received from Rich. MR. MOSS: Yeah, if! may, for the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Yeah, it appears that Mr. Pires' letter that he drafted yesterday was based off an old iteration of the PUD document. So yeah, there's a discrepancy between what is actually being proposed and his letter that he drafted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I asked, Tony, is on Page 11 of 18 of the new version, I'd like you during break to figure out where in there you think your issue isn't addressed and what it would take to address it. Because the only -- the last paragraph before the strike-through, there may be some changes that could be made to that to indicate that the project will utilize the drainage as a flow-through method. But other than that, I'm not sure it needs a lot of tweaking in the language it's at now. So could you take a look at it during break? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifwe move on to the next page, up at the top, number F. I think we've addressed that in our prior discussion. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All the rest of those down to J have been accepted. J is -- MR. PIRES: We just discussed J. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- water management, that's what we're just getting into. Down to L. MR. PIRES: And that's -- the representation by Michael -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's going to be in-- MR. PIRES: Separate agreement. That's fine, so it does not need to be in the PUD document. Page 51 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the next page, the language that Richard pointed out that's already in the PUD document seems to cure your problem that you have on the top of Page 4. MR. PIRES: No, I disagree. Because the language in the PUD document just talks about the one supplemental traffic study one year after they begin the day care. It doesn't tie back into the actual traffic counts -- or the traffic counts that are taken as part of the annual PUD monitoring. And my proposed sentence would actually go as the last sentence in that paragraph, because it would refer to the above traffic counts, which would be the annual PUD monitoring traffic counts. I think it's important to not just stop after the first traffic count and say okay, that's the only traffic count we utilize to see if we need to minimize impacts to the neighborhood, That the staff could evaluate the annual PUD monitoring traffic reports to see if there are any issues and whether or not additional traffic calming needs to be implemented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would want to ask staff before we went too far -- is transportation staff here today? Yes, good -- to find out if those monitoring report traffic counts would be reflective of the activity of the PUD and not bring in extraneous activity that was generated by increased building in the neighborhood or increased development there. Otherwise, you're imposing on that development more criteria as a result -- not as a result. MR. PIRES: I understand. And I believe the presen -- representation made last time was that that would achieve it, so why do an additional traffic count in addition to the PUD traffic count. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you were to take your suggestion about adding the monitoring report traffic counts on Page 18 of 18 on the new one where the sentence is existing that says, this supplemental data will be utilized by the county. Right after the word supplemental data, you could say, this supplemental data and any data Page 52 February 19,2009 received from annual monitoring reports -- MR. PIRES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- will be utilized by the county. And that would seem to get to the point you're asking. MR. PIRES: Yes, it would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I want to make sure before we suggest adding that, that it doesn't trigger something that is beyond the impacts of this development. MR. PIRES: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard, that scowl on your face means you've got a question. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It means I don't understand what you just said. That was confusion, not scowl. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if Tony understood it, and he's more confusing than anybody -- MR. PIRES: Rich and I have this communication ability, sometimes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony's concerned about impacts that show up during the annual traffic monitoring report. And if they show that there's a more intense traffic use than anticipated, then whatever the county needs to do to make sure that those intensities are addressed through improvements to the road system are done. And I'm sugg -- and he says that basically the second paragraph in six of Exhibit F only applies to data received during this special TIS that's done during the first quarter to more accurately portray peak season loading. That's that one-time event. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the reason we did that is because that is when we would exceed what's there today. And remember what we said was the -- what's there today, there's no re -- we're not going to make the church go back and refit the neighborhood for the intensity that's there today. And we came up with these numbers, and we said when we hit these numbers -- because remember, we weren't Page 53 February 19,2009 going to do it until 980. But now we have a new number there. It's based on the existing seats that exist today for the church. So we said once we exceed what's on the site today, we'll do this supplemental study at those four locations, and if we need to do some additional traffic calming, we would then do it. So we had to get past what's on-site today, we would do the supplemental study, and then if that supplemental study said there needs to be traffic calming within the neighborhood, that's when you would do it. We were not looking to cure or deal with anything that exists today was my understanding, and that's why we put that provision in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think what he's opening up is that if you do the traffic counts on a yearly basis for the annual monitoring report -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's forget the paragraph about the special one for determining where we're at today. In the future every year you do a monitoring report. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll do a traffic monitoring report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the traffic comes back and shows that you're having a greater impact than anticipated and some road improvements are needed, he's suggesting that we need language that the county at that point can impose upon your client to make some corrections to the traffic situation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But if it's already -- if that traffic is already -- in other words, let's say the seats stay the same, okay. Why would we now have to do a retrofit when we've not done any -- we've not increased the intensity over what's there? That's why I thought we came up with this supplemental traffic was when we increased the intensity. And that's why we calculated the seats and came up with that number. Page 54 February 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think some of the intensity that you could bring in may not be portrayed as clearly as it might actually happen in your TIS. TIS basically is one of those traffic engineer's smoke and mirrors documents that buffaloes everybody and makes them not ask questions about traffic. But in the end you don't know if it's really going to come out that way. And I think what this is is a monitoring attempt to say if it comes out in line with your TIS, you wouldn't have a problem. But if it exceeds the estimates in the TIS, you may have. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's why I said what I'm saying, Mr. Strain, I think was I thought we had agreed that yes, that's for increase. Because you're worried -- what's there today is there today. The community's used to it and has accepted it, okay? It's when we got past what's there today, if the traffic study's wrong and there's more traffic, we need to do traffic calming. If the traffic study is as we believe it will come out, we won't have to do anything. But it was for the new, not the old. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. I'm not-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The TIS. So that's why we have those numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're trying to say the same thing. I'm just trying to figure out how to put it into words. MR. PIRES: My concern is recall that under the PUD they can go up to 1,200 seats. So under Rich's argument, once they hit 854, anything between 854 and 1,200, any additional trips generated from that are not accounted for or not characterized as any intensification of use, Additionally you have greater square footage to be utilized by all these other organizations than exist today. You're doubling the square footage almost on the site. And so it's not just the school, it's not just the seating, it's the other uses that are allowed. If there's greater square footage, probably Page 55 February 19,2009 greater utilization. And it's not taken into account by that one supplementary traffic study, once you hit 853. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, the language that's in here about the monitoring report says the following, it was added language: The traffic counts required as part of the required PUD monitoring reports shall be done during the first quarter of the calendar year. If you were to add the sentence after this that says, this data will be utilized by the county to determine if additional improvements to minimize impact on the neighborhood are appropriate. Does that cause a problem for you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Would you say it one more time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- the existing sentence, if we were to add after that -- and this is involving monitoring reports: This data will be utilized by the county to determine if additional improvements to minimize impact to the neighborhood are appropriate. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's in the paragraph that starts on the previous page is where you want to add that? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, we're on two different copies, so it's hard for me to tell you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Page 17 and 18. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look at number seven under Exhibit F. The sentence before number seven is a standalone paragraph with one sentence. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the end of that sentence, I'm suggesting add the sentence I just read to you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This data will be utilized -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This data will be utilized by the county to determine if additional improvements to minimize impact to the neighborhood are appropriate. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I ask you, let me -- I've got to ask Page 56 February 19,2009 you it this way by -- with asking a question. I've got 853 seats today I think is the number we have in here. If I don't change a thing, I don't change a thing, and the traffic counts come in whatever the traffic counts come in, am I making improvements to the neighborhood? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I wanted to ask-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm asking -- that's why I have to ask you through a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- traffic. Right. And if you heard me preface this whole thing earlier by the fact I want traffic to come up here after break and confirm to us that the monitoring reports will provide the kind of data and analysis to support something like this. And my concern is it doesn't bring in extraneous traffic that you didn't generate and somehow you're being blamed for something that is already part of some other activity going on in the neighborhood. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm asking the question, even if it is something that I'm generating and I haven't changed anything in my operations over what I have today -- say it takes us a year or two before we start doing any improvements, okay, and I've got the same structures out there and we do a traffic analysis, and now people are saying based on that traffic analysis you need to go and do A, B or C, do I have to do that based on the language you're suggesting we add? Is that what Tony's asking for? If I've not made a change on the site? I'm just trying to understand it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a good question. We don't want to -- and Tony, do you understand his question? MR. PIRES: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifhe doesn't make a change on the site and those TIS's on the annual counts come up skewed, how does that equate to him having to do anything? MR. PIRES: In other words, ifhe doesn't make any improvements, doesn't add any additional structures, the actual counts Page 57 February 19,2009 turn out to be greater than the TIS -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PIRES: -- is that Rich's concern? First of all, I can back up a bit. The new number was provided in here with no basis for it, so now I understand why Rich put it in there. You remember -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we talked about that at the meeting. MR. PIRES: Okay. And also, number two, you need to change the number at the second page. That's 220, it should be 34 -- THE COURT REPORTER: Please slow down. MR. PIRES: As opposed to 220, it should be 347 seats. You missed that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. MR. PIRES: -- additional seating -- well, we'll talk about that at the break too, I guess. But I think once again, he's creating an issue that doesn't really exist. We're talking about perspective. We're talking about the ability to expand the use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Tony, he's brought up a good point. You cannot burden someone for something they didn't cause. If you've got an existing condition out there and it's acceptable and he makes no changes, but the monitoring reports are different for some reason as the future goes on, I don't know how you can -- MR. PIRES: No, ifit doesn't -- if the capacity -- if the site has not been improved, if the seats have -- capacity has not been increased and the square footage has not been increased, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, now you're getting into a ratio of increase for any future monitoring report that has to correlate back to the improvements that are needed. I mean, I don't know how you'd monitor that. I don't know how the county would be able to regulate that. Page 58 February 19,2009 You guys are going to take a break. See if you can come to some conclusion on this issue, along with the other couple that we have so far. I don't want this to go on all day like we did the last time. MR. PIRES: I understand, I don't either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We gave you the benefit of the time because it is an important issue for the neighborhood, but we need to wrap it up. So we're going to go on break now and come back at 10:15. And while we're on break -- go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Tony, this morning we discussed in detail the stormwater as you're concerned about. Do you realize that the church is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to remove a problem that is existing right now with the water in the area? MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You're digging your heels in on quite a few different other items. I hope that you two can come to some kind of conclusion here, as Mr. Strain said, shortly to resolve this issue. MR. PIRES: I hope so, too. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take a break and we'll come back at 10:15 and we'll try to move this forward. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Whoa, that's a live mlc. Please take your seats, we'll try to come back to order. In fact, we will come back to order. We left off going into break hopefully having the two parties talk over some differences that were brought up during the earlier discussion. Richard's back, Tony's abandoned the case. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Tony told me I could represent him. Page 59 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that might expedite everything. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Usually when I say that, he comes runnmg m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We ought to do what we did last time Tony was late, we actually proposed a vote while he was gone. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Actually, I'd like to, Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It bothered him a little bit. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I would like to. I'm down to the point I'm pretty done with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're not done with this. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's for the Planning Commission's benefit. The more we can work out here, the less problematic it's going to be at the Board of County Commissioners' hearing. So we are going to wade through this today, we are going to get to resolutions on these issues, and we will make recommendations. And I know it's tedious, but we need to take our time and we need to do it as thoroughly and correctly as possible. So it isn't going to be rushed through. And with that, I wish Tony was back here, but he's late. Has anybody seen the late attorney out in the hall, Mr. Pires? No? MR. KLATZKOW: He's probably talking. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was a very cordial conversation out there, I want to get that on the record. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Tony, you lost by default. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, you got to be a little careful, because we're on record. Welcome back. MR. PIRES: Thank you. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The penalty for being late is more negativity towards anything you suggest, so -- Page 60 February 19,2009 MR. PIRES: Understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do want to tell you both-- MR. PIRES: More than the usual you've given me for 25 years, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We go back a long way. Just the same with Richard, though. Both of you guys used to be in some form working for the county, county attorney's office, so you both came through the same ranks. A few days ago I was told to cut back on my coffee, and when I came in this morning, Mr. Vigliotti had bought coffee for most members and I had to refuse it because I thought I had my one cup for the day and I'd better not go to two, but you know, after listening to you both, I had to go break the rule. So we're going to go into this and somehow we're going to get through this, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Tony hasn't drank coffee for years, have you? MR. PIRES : You mean less than 14 cups a day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I know we left off and you were going to discuss a series of items on the break. And I don't want to ask you where you're at, because you'll throw 15 different things at me. The only way to keep it in order is to go back to the document. And let's use your revised memorandum as the document and find out what items you may have clarified and discussed on break. And if I'm redundant on things that I asked earlier this morning, now that I've had coffee I just need to reinforce my memory. In number I-A, did we come back with a conclusion to put the footprints on the plan or not? Did you guys discuss that? MR. PIRES: I think it's appropriate not to have them on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that one's out. On 2-B, talking about the uses, all we did was we revised that by saying we'll do non-commercial in front of the words accessory use in Page 61 February 19,2009 the existing PUD language. And that works for everybody? MR. PIRES: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: (Nods head affirmatively.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Didn't we remove the no more intensive changes to characterize? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not going to do any of that. All we're simply doing is taking the language in the PUD where it says accessory uses, and in front of the word accessory uses put non-commercial accessory uses, and leave the language in the PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 2-C, the footnote. Everybody's in agreement with that now? We're looking at not greater than 25 feet for the accessory structures, both zoned and actual. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's outside the campus area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, outside the campus area, not greater than 25 feet, zoned and commercial. Richard, Tony, we okay? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: F on Page 3. MR. PIRES: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You forgot E. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the same one, that's taken care of. MR. PIRES: I think on 2-C, the issue about the height, I think we're still -- the 20 feet versus 30 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, you're right, that's the second part of that. I only addressed the footnote part. Page 62 February 19,2009 What did you guys talk about, or did you talk about it? MR. PIRES: We talked about it briefly. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think the answer is, and Tony, you're going to hear this for the first time, is what's taken care of is the -- we have this height document which is Exhibit G, and we'll make it clear that that's a height document. And then you have Exhibit H, which is the architectural rendering, which I believe gives them the assurance that this cupola is not going to become big. MR. PIRES: A stove pipe. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, a stove pipe. Now, our clients just spoke, and they I believe are okay that the cross itself can get to the height of 90 feet. I knew you'd be -- is that right? Is that -- the cross itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eighty feet, I think. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. But I believe now with all this documentation, that the cross itself going to 90 feet is acceptable. And I was just told this. I'm just looking to see if your clients -- MR. PIRES: Not acceptable to us that I'm aware of. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The cupola stays like it is in this rendering. The cupola maximum height gets to 70 feet, the cross can be 20 feet is what I understand. Is that right? George is saying that's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so what the issue was, Tony, you wanted a limitation to the cupola and your concern was by allowing them actual height up to 80, the whole thing can go to 80. What they're saying now is they'll limit the structural part of the building to 70 feet, and then they want another 20 feet for the cross. MR. PIRES: And my clients are nodding in agreement that's acceptable. Coupled with the square footage of the non-occupiable space, it achieves the results. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? Page 63 February 19,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, on Exhibit G, one thing I would recommend doing. You see how you have the 50-foot actual height? Maybe add another dimension string that takes it to the top of the cupola, show -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Show that 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that 20 feet, and then add the 20 feet. And get rid of the 80- foot thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, will do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because legally what does including exclusions mean? You know, I mean, it's -- the ins or out or something. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll do that. We'll show that dimension of 20 feet for the cupola and 20 feet for the cross. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then a suggestion might be is that the line for the 50 actual, bring that over so that it does show -- just go a little more so it does show that it goes to the roof line. Just extend it. Right now you stop at mid-wall and the cupola to avoid any confusion as to what that line's for. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, do that on both. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. J.D., I know you're sitting there and it looks like you're taking notes. It's going to fall on you to make sure all this is getting accurately noted so it comes out properly. And then with that, we're -- Item 2-C was resolved with a footnote for the first sentence. And we're changing the zoning to the structural or the non-occupiable portion of the building can go to 70 feet, with an allowance of up to 20 feet more only for the cross. Is that acceptable? MR. PIRES: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on.g Page 64 February 19, 2009 The language for the drainage. Let's figure that out. And Tony, did you take a look at the page that I referred you to where it talked about the water management? MR. PIRES: I believe the sentence -- and I didn't have a chance to check the February 2nd document, because we were going a couple different directions. But the sentence that I had focused on was the one that says, the West Street roadside swale and one or more abutting roadside swales -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. PIRES: -- shall be redegned to allow runoff from the existing road adjacent to the project. Is that the sentence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the sentence, yes. MR. PIRES: Ifwe make it read as follows, and Rich, correct me if I'm wrong: The West Street roadside swale in one or more abutting roadside swales shall be redesigned to allow runoff from the existing roads adjacent to the project -- to flow through the project would be the additional -- to the outfall route, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all your paragraphs and all your writing, we resolved with three words in one sentence that exists on Page 11 of 18. And the same for the other tract that's referenced. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, any problem with that from your side? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe that's consistent with what Mike said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would too. That's why I want you to make sure, though. I wanted you to acknowledge it, so -- Okay, if we go on to Page 3, number F has been already addressed, use the same argument that we talked about earlier for the accessory structures, service and storage buildings. MR. PIRES: Correct. And Mr. Strain, while we're on Tract B, Page 65 February 19,2009 maybe I should have covered it earlier, Mr. Solis has sort of marked up a height elevation for Tract B that is acceptable to my clients. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, can we -- MR. PIRES: Reviewed by Mr. Schneider. And we have one copy and so I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, J.D., if we need to, include this as an additional exhibit and reference in the PUD when it comes back for consent. Okay? MR. PIRES: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions with the exhibit? It's been accepted by both parties. (No response.) MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next one that we had of -- would be I think L, or did we resolve that? L is -- that's going to be separately done in your agreement, so that's been resolved. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last page, Page 4, on the top the county -- the right and power to minimize traffic to the residential Pine Ridge community, we talked -- that's one other item you were supposed to talk about on break. Did you talk about it? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what was your conclusion? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe the conclusion was that once we hit the 853 and 110, we will do annual monitoring counts at the four locations. It wouldn't be a one-time thing, it would be annual. And that if there -- once we exceeded those numbers, if there were traffic calming or whatever measures the county deems we need to do, we will do, once we hit the 853 and 110. And they would be annual until PUD build-out. And then at PUD build-out, like every other PUD, you no longer do PUD monitoring reports and traffic counts. Page 66 February 19,2009 MR. PIRES: Yeah, and the agreement is based upon representation that Rich mentioned there's 853 seats today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's what we've been told through the Living Word site, Covenant and Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: And that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's way too much to verbalize right -- to not put it in the book. So we're going to have to go back to Page 18 of 18, go to the sentence where it says traffic counts required as part of the required PUD monitoring report shall be done during the first quarter of a calendar year. Now what is the exact language you're suggesting being added there? I know it's tedious, but we need to get it done, because it's got to come back right on consent agenda or we're back to more hours of discussion on something we should have resolved. MR. PIRES: Rich, perhaps just the language that I had proposed then? If you can look at Page 4 of my memorandum, the top-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, and this is the distinction that I -- I broke them into two paragraphs for a reason. The supplemental traffic analysis starts at the bottom of Page 17 and goes to Page 18. And that's where it has those triggers where we would be required to do the four locations for the traffic counts. Prior to our triggering that number, the county -- we will still have to do PUD monitoring reports, because we're now doing PUD's. So I don't want to put your language added to that sentence, because that would now say if -- even if I don't hit those numbers, the PUD monitoring report counts could result in doing improvements. So I think the way I've structured it with the two separate supplemental -- the sole purpose of this additional sentence, the traffic counts, was because we spent a lot of time discussing when do we do traffic counts for PUD monitoring report, and it's usually on the anniversary of the PUD approval. And we all agreed that's not a good Page 67 February 19, 2009 date, let's do the annual PUD monitoring report during the season. So that's the reason I put that sentence in there. So related to the PUD monitoring reports, I think we leave it as-is, and I think the preceding paragraph addresses what we just agreed to, Tony, which is the 853 trigger for the supplemental traffic analysis. MR. PIRES: I guess I disagree, because I've been told and represented that 853 exists today. So I don't know how we could achieve 853 if it doesn't (sic) exist today, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have to do the supplemental when I go beyond 853. MR. PIRES: Correct. So the clarifying is that the traffic counts that occur after you go beyond 853 and 110 will be utilized. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. MR. PIRES: Okay. And we can -- the language doesn't-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's the way it's structured. MR. PIRES: It doesn't say that right now, but we could clarify that and come back. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're going to clarify it now. MR. PIRES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't go out of here today without this resolved. We've got to go to consent agenda and staffs got to write it up right or we won't get through the next meeting. Ms. Caron, did you have a suggestion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I have a question before we go any further, and that's what's the purpose of traffic counts? And I want transportation actually to answer this question. What's the purpose of traffic counts if nothing's going to happen if there's a problem? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I probably am going to take the words out of transportation's mouth in some way, but part of the Page 68 February 19,2009 reason that they -- if we put something in the PUD language that provides for a reaction to the traffic counts, I think it's unenforceable by transportation. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. It's enforceable if it's listed in the PUD that that's enforceable based on the traffic counts that are taken. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right now the way this reads is the traffic counts required as part of the required PUD monitoring report shall be done during the first quarter of the calendar year. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: So if your traffic counts say tomorrow they do it and there's some sort of problem, what does this allow you to do, just say acknowledgment, there's a problem, or do we actually get you to do something? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe by the language in the PUD, it allows us to bring up requirements for neighborhood traffic calming. They would also -- as part of that they'd be subject to NTMP requirements, which is neighborhood traffic management program, I think it is. It's a national program. Being subject to those requirements, they would have a specific contribution, a share of the contribution towards neighborhood traffic improvements, based on their -- based on basically their driveway counts, versus the background traffic in the neighborhood. For the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me suggest something. Tony, and Richard and John, the language you suggested, Tony, starts out in the right direction, but it doesn't protect the applicant for the background traffic that exists created by the measurement of the prior paragraph. So if you were to take your language and it reads, after reviewing such data the county has the right, power and authority to require the property owners within the CFPUD to implement measure to minimize impact to the residential Pine Ridge community. Page 69 February 19,2009 And might we add something to the -- similar language to this. After the word community, for impacts exceeding those established as a base in the preceding paragraph. Does that get you there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think it already says that, but if you don't, then let's add it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: I don't think it says that, Rich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather be redundant than miss something. And I think this clarifies what you believe it already says. Tony, does it clarify it for what -- does that work for you? MR. PIRES: I'm sorry, Mr. Strain, if you can read the last part of it again, after the word community? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For impacts exceeding those established as a base in the preceding paragraph. Now, after today's meeting I don't want you guys sending memos back and forth about wanting more changes, that you didn't think it out. So I'm asking you to think it out carefully today. I want to get this resolved. MR. PIRES: I think what we may just want to do for clarification as to what the base is, is that then at the beginning when it says one year after the seating capacity of 853 through the entire CFPUD and the 110 person, et cetera, define that to be the base. I know that's what we're talking about being the base, but I think it would be helpful to say that is the base, like with a capital B. And then, Mr. Strain, with the language that you proposed -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's already in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tony, what -- MR. PIRES: -- then that would work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe go to Page 17 after the reference in the first sentence of that second paragraph where it talks about the densities and intensities, the 853, the 11 0, kindergarten schools, first and all that. At the end of that sentence, could we put the word -- and Page 70 February 19,2009 after the word neighborhood, put in parenthetical base, or established base measurement. And then when you refer to base in the next paragraph, like I suggested, that defines what you just wanted to say. MR. PIRES: Refers back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Does that work for you, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets us to the last one, which is N on Page 4, Tony's memorandum. It's involving height. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Before we go on and leave this, I want to hear from traffic that that works for transportation. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, the base scenario that they're talking about relatively represents what currently exists today. Yeah, there's going to be -- we do realize that in all practical purposes, as they reconstruct the site there'll probably be a drop in traffic on this site, and then it will come back up to that base level. So I don't think we have a problem though with the language as proposed in calling the 853 and 110 students the base scenario. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that gets us through Tony's agreement. We're going to move back into the normal mode of operation for the Planning Commission, which is a discussion of the presentation. And Tony, we will still be affording you time for any closing comments you have. If you have none, that's great, but that's not like you, so -- MR. PIRES: Absent an absolute need to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tony. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you have anything else you want to add to your presentation before we hear from the public or any Page 71 February 19,2009 other comments from the Planning Commission? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The issue regarding music, remember that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, 1-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was briefly discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't going to be forgotten, but if you have something that will help with it -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just wanted to -- sure. The proposal would be for Tract B, that there would be no music -- first of all, we have a prohibition already that says no outdoor music. There will be no music prior to 8:00 a.m. and no music after 9:30 p.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No music prior to 8:00, and no music-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: After 9:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- after 9:30? MR. YOV ANOVICH: P.M. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to be absolutely clear, somebody either playing the drums or practicing their drums, is that considered to be music? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe it would be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In every respect the use of an instrument, is that what we're really saying here? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. But yes, we meant no music. Totally no music. You can't playa musical instrument. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about the use of musical instruments shall not be made until 8:30 in the morning and et cetera, whatever you said -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: 8:00. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to be absolut -- well, because you have -- there may be somebody out there practicing drum. Page 72 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, Bob, at the same point someone could turn on a radio with a CD in it and then it doesn't apply. So maybe if music is broader, it works better. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think the use of an instrument is more defining than question of a radio. I'm talking about CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, no, if you put it in here no use of a musical instrument, then if someone uses a CD disc and a radio, it doesn't apply. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm just trying to be very-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hear what you're saying. I don't want to spend the energy trying to reinvent a wheel, so I'll be fine with it. As long as -- listen, it ultimately comes down to the good graces of human beings anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, could we put an exception for Christmas Eve so they could have a midnight -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have already in the document I believe two exceptions, and we would like those exceptions to also apply. I don't think that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the other one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have two -- we're allowed two exceptions per month the way it's currently written. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A month? Well-- MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: -- for clarification, live, recorded or amplified music, that covers everything if you put that wording in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There you go. MR. SCHMITT: Any live, recorded or amplified music. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. I think that gets Mr. Murray's Page 73 February 19,2009 concern taken care of and mine, too. So it would be no live, recorded or amplified music prior to 8:00 a.m. or after 9:30 p.m. And that's an agreement that -- okay. You have no problem with that, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. And that would go under number four under worship, correct? That would be a clarification to that provision in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. Okay, are there any other points in your presentation before we ask for general questions from the Planning Commission? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think I hit all the highlights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any of the Planning Commissioners have any other issues they want to bring up at this time? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want to go back to the hours here and the exceptions. What would you possibly need an exception twice a month for, that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, it was -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Going to 6:30 in the morning. I mean, agam -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, it would be the normal -- I mean, I don't know, something happens in the world that you decide you would like to have a worship service because some catastrophic event happened, we would like to go beyond those -- up to twice a month for worship. I mean, can I tell you for sure we're ever going to use it? No. But I mean, who knows what's going to happen and we limit it to just twice. COMMISSIONER CARON: But the music prohibition would still be in effect. Page 74 February 19,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, you have Christmas service. And most churches, Easter morning, you know, sunrise service. You're saying that at a Christmas service, Christmas Eve service we've got to turn the music off at 9:00? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not saying that for Christmas Eve. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's why I -- that's the two that would COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm asking you what the other 24, 23 times are going to be. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Easter. Could be -- who knows? I'mjust saying it's only twice a month. I don't know. I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there might be a way that would help your concern. Mr. Schmitt, special functions, how are they monitored by the county? Is this the same -- because I'm not sure special functions is the word that we use. Temporary events or temporary uses I think we have applications for and you monitor those. MR. SCHMITT: You come in -- you have a special events permit. But what Mr. Y ovanovich just stated wouldn't be a special events permit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Couldn't. Couldn't. MR. SCHMITT: That's something like the fair or the golf tournament or some other unique event that is going to impact the public in some form or fashion, meaning traffic, fire control, some other type of things. A church having a sunrise church service is not a special events permit, nor would we even require any type of a permit for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so there's no way to monitor the special functions. MR. SCHMITT: Other than -- no, not really. I mean, it would be Page 75 February 19,2009 a complaint driven. Somebody calls in a complaint to code enforcement, we would go out there and find out is this a reoccurring event or was this a singular event for that month. That's about the only way we would be able to control anything like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question for the County Attorney. At what point do we find ourselves in a possible problem by over-restricting churches and the rights they have? I don't want to get ourselves in a problem where we over-restrict and find this thing's going to come back in an unfavorable manner. MR. KLATZKOW: There may come a point in time where there'll be a code complaint. This office will review that code complaint and this office may decide that you know what, they can do what they want to do from a Constitutional standpoint and there won't be a complaint. So to answer your question, there may come a point in time, changes in law or whatever, that we will say this portion of the ordinance we're not going to enforce. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So then by us being over-restrictive is a disadvantage and we -- MR. KLA TZKOW: It's not a disadvantage. What I'm saying is that there may become a point in time where because of changes in the law or sentiment, it might be the opinion of the County Attorney that this particular violation we're not going to prosecute. It goes too far. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Mr. Klatzkow, if a violation -- or I mean if an issue is brought up as a result of an agreed zoning standard, meaning they can do what they want to do on the property now within the rules that we currently have, but if they want to change the rules to augment their needs for the property and they agree to concessions in order to get those changes, and the concessions are a manner of Page 76 February 19,2009 operating and things like that and they agree to those, aren't those enforceable? MR. KLATZKOW: I haven't had any problems with any of the restrictions that you're putting through the ordinance. What I'm saying is if it comes a point in time where there's a change in law -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. KLATZKOW: -- okay, or there's a change in sentiment, okay, that we might have to relook at these things. But I think we're okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions at this point? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Um. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I have a question about the intensity of development on Tract B. Tract B represents one-eighth of the PUD area, yet what we're putting on there is one quarter of the assembly uses and essentially one-sixth of the worship uses. So I've got a question as to what kind of intensity is going to go on that tract. What is the intent? In other words, why are we giving that tract so much more of the percentages of the development than the rest of the tract? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's essentially what they have in place today and the ability to do today. We're just trying to keep it what they have today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They have a 20,000 square foot building there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, not -- but remember, seats. What goes on -- if you can only have 200 seats, does it matter whether you have 40,000 square feet or 10,000 square feet? It's how many people can come into the space. You're only allowed 100 seats. So they could some day get to a 20,000 square foot building or buildings on the site, but they're capped at their number of seats and number of students Page 77 February 19, 2009 pursuant to this document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who established that? I mean, I know the building. I don't -- I can't imagine within my knowledge of fire and building codes 200 people in that building. So when there was a survey done on the property, did that person establish the seating capacity? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you want Mr. Hunter to come up, he's with Covenant Presbyterian Church. He's been in the building. He says that you can do 200 seats now. That's where that number came from. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other thing is again, it does go back to the accessory uses, which are not there now, correct? The accessory uses, the day care, stuff like that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe there's a day care operating today there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the size of the day care that's being requested in this would be -- or all the accessory uses are one quarter what you want on the whole site. So again, my problem is it's one-eighth of the area, yet we're putting way above that proportion on this particular piece of property. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're working with our -- remember, you've got two property owners. And for this to be a successful PUD, the two property owners have got to work together. And we believe that the end product that you will see, if ultimate redevelopment happens on this site, is you'll have a much more attractive church campus, a much more attractive boundary buffer, a better water management system than is out there today. And this was the arrangement between the Tract A and the Tract B property owner to make it work from both a, you know, operational and financial-- to make -- to get to the end of the day, which will be the ultimate redevelopment and have modern buildings there is how we had to work this out. Page 78 February 19,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to take the maximum allowed development of every one of the parcels that the Covenant Church owns, other than Tract B, which is I believe the remainder of that block, and you were to maximize the buildable capacity, would it exceed what you're asking for? Because really, Brad, to understand the ratio of the project, you'd have to see what they could have had on the balance of the property versus what Tract B is asking for, not what they're asking for. Because they may not be asking for everything they could have attained. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We did an exhibit. I did not bring it with me because I hate those exhibits because they can be played against you when you do that. But if we were forced to come in and do these individually as individual churches, we would far exceed the number of seats we're requesting than this one single PUD. Far exceed it. Ifwe develop them individually with smaller churches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's why the ratio of what they're asking to Tract B may not be the right ratio to be looking at. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it's pretty intense use, from my opinion. The -- what process would you take to get that, though? Through the conditional use process? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would go through a conditional use process, keeping in mind that this always was designated to be individual -- this was always designated to be church sites -- not always. When the amendment to the deed restrictions went into effect to designate this whole block as church sites, it would be very difficult for the community to come in here and say we don't want individual small churches on those individual parcels. I'd go through the conditional use process. And I think it would be very difficult at that Page 79 February 19,2009 point for the county and the community to stand in the way. And that's -- and we don't want to do that, that's why we never presented that exist. And we think in working with the community, through the comments you've received, and I think we've resolved everything with the association, based upon the comments so far, that we've done a good job. It started out a little rocky, but I think we've gotten pretty far along. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, the drawing that's -- and it's perfectly shown right now shows the exhibiting building. Yet you're able to build quite a bit more than that. You're able to it bring that up to 20 thou., over three times the size of it. How would that play into the drawings you're showing us now? Where would you put that building? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would have to meet the development standards that are in the PUD document. We would have to meet those setbacks, we'd have to meet the height. So that building would move. It would move further away from the roads, the new building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is that -- I mean, what was shown here is not reflective of what you're -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because we don't know what the new building's going to look like. We know that's the existing building. We've given you the dimensional standards. We can build a -- if you want us to put a box on this one as well as to where the building could fit into it, we can do that based upon the minimum setbacks that are required from the streets and property lines. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, to me it just looks tight. I mean, you're sharing parking with the other PUD now in this thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's much -- it's a much more integrated and better functioning site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I would be really happy if B was absorbed into A. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't think the county can Page 80 February 19,2009 legislate that end result. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I do think, you know, if we give B more potential than I feel that it is by scale, by size, then we're making that less likely. Because it would be something that somebody could come in and develop at a higher density than I think should be on that site. And thus the potential of it being merged into A is lessened by increasing its potential. But anyway, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant before we get staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, I have a couple. Actually, they may be of all staff. I think you might have answered all of mine. Yes, they're all staff. So thank you. J.D., it's your turn. MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. I just wanted to say that the proposed PUD does conform with both the Growth Management Plan and with the provisions of the LDC, subject to the stipulations that have been incorporated by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does staff have any objections to the language that we've worked out here this morning? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, are there any questions of staff at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. Page 3 of 18, and it's consistent in the other section, too, it talks about the accessory uses. I know it's been worked out with the neighborhood, I understand their concerns, but I'm also concerned about a precedent, and I want to understand staffs position on this. The last part of it talks about structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, except that parking Page 81 February 19,2009 garages are prohibited. And then it says businesses and trade activities including but not limited to a market, community market, direct marketing outlet or farmer's market are not accessories associated with permitted principal uses and structures. My concern is I understand that that kind of activity is occurring in other churches in our community. If it's not acceptable as an accessory use here, how are we allowing it in the others? And the reason I'm asking that is, is because by restating it here, are we now setting a precedent that it is an acceptable accessory use everywhere else unless it is stated as an exception in the PUD? MR. MOSS: Well, this was language that was actually proposed by the neighborhood's attorney, so it's not something that we normally include in PUD documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and I'm not objecting to them wanting this, but I can't understand why it even becomes a question. How is a market an accessory use to a church? Not that churches don't have a right to find ways to make money. But under the provisions that I've seen here, everything could be an accessory use to a church. And how does that fit? How does that work? How -- MR. MOSS: Yeah, I see your point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- does zoning allow that to happen? MR. MOSS: Yeah, I don't think that there's anything in the Land Development Code that specifically addresses this. It is just something that's common practice among churches, to have farmer's markets and other activities like these. Perhaps Ray might be able to contribute to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How common practice is it? Because until this church on -- I think there's a church on Goodlette Road or somewhere that started doing this. MR. MOSS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's fine if they have the ability to Page 82 February 19,2009 do it. But when we do zoning for churches, I don't think any of us perceived unlimited retail uses going on at that church property. And I'd like to know what zoning's doing to make a limi -- provide some kind of limitation to this. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager. The churches are allowed to have fundraising activities as part of church activities. They're not allowed to have commercial enterprises where there's a commercial business occupational license issued. The property would have to be zoned commercial to allow those commercial operations. However, staff has determined certain church functions regarding fundraising to occur. And farmer's market has been one of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a farmer's market for fundraising for a church is okay, but ifit -- does that mean it can occur every single day of every single week of every single month all year round? MR. SCHMITT: No. MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then what are the limitations? MR. SCHMITT: For that type of activity, we've issued again a special events permit or some kind of a permit to allow it. Similar to what they do on -- I believe on Davis or Radio, one of the -- MR. BELLOWS: We could require temporary use permits also. MR. SCHMITT: It's a permit. I think they do it once a week there for a period of like 10 or 15 weeks through season they'll have a farmer's market. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So once a week for 10 or 15 weeks? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, we've done that. We've taken those to the board and actually had the board approve those. The one in particular I recall was the church where they're having the farmer's market. It's similar to if they do a farmer's market Page 83 February 19,2009 in a park, the same way, once a week. There's those kind of events that are not really part of the church, but they're going to impact traffic, they're going to impact other activities within the community and impact -- certainly could have an impact on the surrounding homeowners. Those kind of things come in as a special permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And you know that you're getting special permits for all these? Because, for example, the church we're talking about does once a week for a farmer's market, and then I just saw a sign that they're also this week going to have a rummage sale or a tag sale or something. And then there's a pumpkin patch and -- I mean, do they have to get special event permits for each of these? MR. SCHMITT: I mean, I know exactly what you're talking about. They're going to have like a, yeah, rummage sale or a secondhand sale where they have donations. Normally those are once or twice, three times a year, some of those events. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, has anybody in zoning done an analysis on how many times a special event turns into a permanent use? I mean, again, if the churches are doing it and it's not harming the neighborhoods, that's fine. But not in all cases do we have a situation where this kind of activity wouldn't hurt a neighborhood. We have some churches interior, built into neighborhoods that are so close that if they were to decide that this is an acceptable accessory use in Collier County of a church, we've got a full-time retail establishment gomg on. I'm not picking on this one, because this one's excluding that. But it sets a concerning precedent that I'm wondering if we're not stumbling onto something that could be a bigger problem for the county. MR. BELLOWS: I believe the issue was addressed a few months ago. I don't recall the final outcome. This issue was raised and Page 84 February 19,2009 our staff was dealing with it. I don't have the exact results of that study. But what I said earlier still applies. These aren't commercial operations, they don't have a commercial occupational license. They are working as an accessory use to the church functions as fundraisers. Now, we have required temporary uses in some cases. I don't know the relationship between all of the events. I can get that information to you and we can report back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have a study done on that, I think it would be handy for the Planning Commission to see it. So that from now on when we deal with church rezones we know what we're dealing with in regards to the intensity. J.D., on Page 4 of 18, and it occurs in the other Exhibit Bas well, footnote number two, we added the word occupiable. And it says -- you know, that's the non-occupiable building element. Do you know how to define a non-occupiable building element? MR. MOSS: Well, we certainly don't define it in the LDC, but I think it would be clear to anyone reviewing this at the time of SDP what that means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was concerned about. If staff's comfortable with it, then I have no problem with it. On Page 5 of 18 under the buffers, A-I, 2, 3, 4 and that's all there are. Last time we talked, staff was going to review A-2, 3 and 4 to make sure they were consistent with the code and not deviations or vanances. Did you have someone in staff do that? MR. MOSS: Yes-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they -- MR. MOSS: Landscaping review-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they acceptable? MR. MOSS: --looked over this and approved it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Exhibit I, conditions of Page 85 February 19,2009 approval, we have a number three, a required 0.12-acre recreated preserve shall meet county preservation requirements and shall recreate the habitat that previously existed on-site, (pine flatwoods), including all three vegetative strata. Why? MR. MOSS: I think this had to do with the fact that there was a violation on the site. And they did remove a lot of native vegetation that occurred on one of the parcels. And this is to ensure that that vegetation that was illegally removed is recreated on the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MR. MOSS: I'm not sure. Maybe Susan Mason from environmental might be able to do that. I'm sure it's an LDC requirement, but I can't cite the specific provision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It sounds like it's punitive, and I'm trying to wonder what we're gaining from doing this in the middle of an -- MR. MOSS: Susan's here -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- urban area. MR. MOSS: -- I'll let her answer that directly. MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason, with Engineering and Environmental Services section. The required recreated preserve is because of existing vegetation that was on-site prior to the code -- the violation of their vegetation removal permit which allowed only for a minimal amount of mechanical removal of Brazilian pepper and hand removal everywhere else because they destroyed the palmetto and pine. The palmetto understory, and damaged and killed the pines that were in that site. It's 15 percent of what was there. Not recreating the entire acre or so that they had damaged and destroyed, it's just the minimal requirement based on Growth Management Plan, CCME and the LDC requirements for percentage of retained vegetation. Page 86 February 19, 2009 And the reason it states pine flatwood is to keep it consistent with the sections of the code that describe how you mitigate for permit violations. If you wanted to allow them some flexibility with different habitat types, since this is a PUD, I don't -- that certainly wouldn't be a problem, it would be a deviation to the standard code requirements, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why it has to be different habitat types? Obviously nothing's habitating (sic) that area. It's in the middle of an urban area. Why couldn't we just allow them to have a landscaped open green space there instead? And wouldn't we accomplish the same goal as having some open space on the site, rather than recreating strata that may not even live, and even if it did it wouldn't serve a purpose of habitat for any species in an area like that? MS. MASON: Well, it may not serve for habitat of some listed species, but it certainly could for wildlife. And it would serve as both open space and they certainly be able to count it for that. And simply, the code and Growth Management Plan require that it meet preserve standards, and it's not -- there is an option. They could have proposed off-site preservation, which we did offer the applicant as an option. I know they've gone through various planning groups and they chose not to seek the off-site alternative for the small preserve. So if it remains on-site, it just must meet the minimum standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It just seems like it's a huge waste of money. And I understand what you're saying, I just -- MS. MASON: It will help buffer, too, which I think is probably a bigger issue in this. But it could be incorporated in that. It just would need to meet at least the minimum width requirements and things like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of staff? Mr. Kolflat, and then Mr. Schiffer. Page 87 February 19,2009 18. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: J.D., on your report, Page 2 of MR. MOSS: Is this the original staff report? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Be careful. We've had so many originals, I'm not sure what you'd be talking about. How about the latest one, huh? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It's my original one. But I don't know what yours is. Check on Page 2 and see how we check out. MR. MOSS: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On Page 2, Item B-4. Do you have that? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What's it say? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Accessory uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: B-4 on February 2nd is child/adult day care, right? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Starts with the words there? MR. MOSS: Oh, this is the PUD document we're looking at, not at the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. MOSS: Okay, um-hum. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: In the second line there it says, cumulative total of 220 studentslindividuals enrolled/attending. Those were three different definitions or qualifications. Which one is the total, all three or individually? MR. MOSS: Yeah, it's the cumulative collective total. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So you add up all three of those? MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer -- oh, were you Page 88 February 19,2009 done, Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's just finish then. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On Page 8 of 18, under F at the top of the page, flat roof prohibition. MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It says flat roofs may not be utilized. Don't we want that to say shall not be utilized? MR. MOSS: We can change it. This is actually something that's in the LDC, but the applicant's -- the attorney for the neighborhood wanted it included. But there's no problem with that, I'll leave it as it is and change may to shall. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Then on Page 10, under A for buffers, item two is all required buffer trees along Ridge Drive and West Street shall be shade trees. Why do we use a general term like that there when previously on Page 5 we talk about Quercus virginiana, Roystonia regia, giving the actual name of what the buffer's going to be? MR. MOSS: I think because what happened in A-2 on Page 5 occurred after this provision was included, and so it just wasn't updated. But we can change that shade trees line to the specific species type. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Seems to me for consistency if we're going to be detailed as far as definition of a buffer, why don't we be consistent through the document? MR. MOSS: We'll do that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's all I had, Mark. COMMISSIONER CARON: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, let me -- one quick thing to follow up with Tor. Page 89 February 19,2009 You know, there is no such thing is a flat roof. Should we -- I know they reference Exhibit G in everything. Do you think we should add a minimum slope on that, or -- I mean, theoretically there is no flat roofs. The building code wouldn't let you do something less than two percent, so -- MR. MOSS: I don't have a problem with doing that if you think it would be prudent to do so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think let's add it on Exhibit G, but let them add it. MR. MOSS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Pick a number. It could be small. But the illusion is that is somebody could claim that it's not a flat roof, and essentially it's a slightly sloped roof with parapets and things. And the downside of that is you could have a 50-foot wall, if that's the case. The other question I really had, though, was throughout this whole process did you or any of the neighbors ever see an exhibit that showed what the scale of this square footage we're doing? We have numbers, but we've never seen a document, I haven't yet, that shows how big these numbers really are -- MR. MOSS: No, nor have 1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in terms of buildings. And again, especially on Tract B, I think that if people saw that, they would realize it's not what may be in their mind today. So in this whole process, there was never a document showing the massing, the potential square footage, what that, you know, 2.3 acres of buildings looks like. And remember, that shaded area is 2.1 acres, so it's bigger than that. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff before we go to public speakers? Page 90 February 19,2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, how many public speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: We have six speakers. Tony was the first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before you do, ladies and gentlemen, those of you that are going to speak, we ask that you try to limit your discussion to about five minutes. We're not hard and fast on that rule, but basically please don't be redundant. So with that in mind, we'll ask that you come to one of the podiums and start. Go ahead, Ray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Following Tony is Ben King, to be followed by Clifford Schneider. MR. PIRES: I'll be real brief, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Again, thank you for taking the time and the patience for the exchange of ideas and discussions. And also thank my clients for being so steadfast and also cooperative with the church. And I think -- and also Rich and his consultants, the current consulting team has been good to work with. We still have -- you know, we may have issues, but we've been working on them. One other -- a brief issue. Mr. Schiffer raised the question about the idea about the square footage on Tract B or in other places. One thing we consistently ask for is what is the square footage of the existing buildings? And we keep hearing various numbers bandied about, but I don't have a survey. We've been told it's too expensive to do that, and I understand that. But if anybody is making a determination based upon what is purported to be square footage, it is just an assumption. There's no survey showing the square footage. And that was one of the issues we asked for right out of the bat at the beginning of the project, to be able to fully understand the Page 91 February 19, 2009 impact of the proposed uses and square footage and the existing. It's not a criticism, it's just a comment that those who are looking for it aren't going to find the exact numbers. Additionally, on the comment about Rich making -- he didn't want to elaborate on it, but saying if we all came in individually it could be much more intensive. I would counter with that, that by the time you look at, you know, the impacts on the neighborhood of all the various proposed uses, I think it would not be difficult for the Board of County Commissioners to turn down a plethora of uses that could result in tremendous adverse impacts to the community. With that, on a positive note, again, it's been a process that I think will produce a document that would hopefully be able to be reviewed and approved by all parties before we get to the Board of County Commissioners, by the time we come back with the consent agenda. I think we've worked out all the language issues. And looking at it with a fine tooth comb again, Rich and I will -- if we have issues, I'll discuss it with him well in advance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tony. MR. BELLOWS: Ben King. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next? MR. KING: Good morning, everyone. My name is Ben King. I live at 56 Myrtle Road, which is right across from the church property where the lake's going to be built. And I've lived there for 13 years. Just a few things. About the uncertainty, I still have some concerns about not knowing what is going to be built or when it's going to be built. For example, is the church going to be built first? I know it was close. They're close to making a decision. But it's been so long, we've been told that the funds are available, but is the church going to be built first or is the educational center going to be built first? My logic is the church is more important, because it will improve the property immediately; whereas, if they build the Page 92 February 19,2009 educational center first there could be three, five years down the road before we even see what's being built, and virtually no property improvement, at least on the frontage part of the property. Also I'm concerned about the size, the fact that you can roll over the excess square footage of 28,000 for the church. We've never been told the size of the church. Even in the renderings we have, there's been no mention of size. Apparently it has to be pretty big, but I don't know how big. Access will just roll over to the accessory uses, so I'm concerned about the size of the church. Water management: We live right across the street, we're concerned about water management. But Mr. Y ovanovich has just mentioned there will be an improvement. I haven't seen anything specifically saying there will be an improvement, but he has just indicated there will be an improvement. Okay, my understanding was it was just going to be no worse than the existing standard, so an improvement would obviously be an improvement. I have concerns, like everyone else, about the proposed hours of operation, particularly the church being seven days a week. There are no restrictions at the time the church can start or end. I'm also concerned about the specifics as to frequency, class attendance sizes, what exactly is going to be there. I know it cannot be pinned down 100 percent, but it's still very vague from my point of view. And there's a couple other minor little things that has never been brought up before is like -- and maybe there's not even an issue to be addressed. But like vehicle parking, every Sunday you look at any church, there's cars parked all over the buffer zones. I don't know if that's possible here, but even last week when I -- I live right across from the church and there were probably 20 cars parked in the buffer zones. And there were parking spaces, but the distance to get from the space to the church was a little bit more than the buffer zones. And when this gets big, I mean, they could have a lot of cars parked all over the place. Page 93 February 19,2009 And it's not just on the main church, it's also on parcel B. I saw it all over the street, cars parked; there was just not adequate parking. There will be more parking, but if you don't instruct people to not park in the buffer zones, it's not going to be used. And the only other thing might be if there are transportation vehicles involved, that there's a restricted area for parking them. I don't know if there will be buses involved sometime in the future or something, but perhaps there should be a designated area for transportation vehicles, if there are such vehicles. And that's all I have. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the closing of to day's meeting, we'll probably be asking the applicant for some clarification to your issues, so -- next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Clifford Schneider. MR. SCHNEIDER: Good morning. For the record, my name is Clifford H. Schneider. I'm a resident of Pine Ridge. I'm one of the three members of the architecture control committee. I talked to you at the prior meeting. I think what's been proposed with respect to the stormwater management issue is a vast improvement over what was originally proposed. This is the change that was just proposed yesterday to basically make the Pine Ridge drainage system -- subdivision system separate from the church PUD system. I always had concerns -- I didn't know how the staging, how it would even work the way they originally proposed it. They said they had done routing calculations to prove that it would, but I think their recent calculations show that there is an issue. I suggest a drainage easement be established to allow for the subdivision drainage that's going to go across the applicant's property. It's not defined right now where it's going to be where the drainage will cross, but I think there should be easements established. There already is a five-foot drainage easement on the south side Page 94 February 19,2009 oflot six of block O. I assume that will no longer be used. I don't know. But when the new easement's designated, I think there should be definition of who's going to operate and maintain the swales and/or pipes as that comes up sometimes and people say well, I'm not going to maintain that. Well, somebody has to be responsible for it. And the only issue I see is if the FDOT doesn't cooperate with allowing a positive connection. They should, because when a road is built it should allow -- when an FDOT road is built, they should allow for side drainage. And -- but again, as you know, Mr. Strain, you still have to deal with bureaucracy there. From the architecture committee's standpoint with respect to the buildings, there still is not a lot of definition, but I think the PUD text revisions have been positive. The conceptual rendering that's in the document is helpful. The Pine Ridge Architecture Control Committee will still want to review the site plans and the conceptual drawings. We're on record for that. Just to let you know. I know this board's not going to enforce it, but we want to be able to see that. So that concludes what I have to say. Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but I certainly made note. And at the end of -- as we get through today, we'll ask your question, make sure they're resolved in one way or the other. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: George Buonocore? MR. BUONOCORE: Pass. MR. BELLOWS: Sally Barker? MS. BARKER: Pass. MR. BELLOWS: Allen Jones? MR. JONES: Pass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I certainly appreciate those of you who have saved our time this morning on issues. And I have a Page 95 February 19, 2009 list of things, Richard, I'd like to just run by. We're going to get through it. I have about six or seven items that were just raised. One is maximum square footage of Tract B. Are you willing to peg a maximum square footage for that particular tract? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We already do. It's 20,000 square feet for Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, this was something I made a note as your concern. I thought you -- I didn't think you felt there was a maximum. Are you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, no, I know there's a maximum. And that maximum to me is much too high. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just -- can I ask an area question of Ray real quick? Ray, is the mezzanine counted as area? In the Building Code it would not count as the area of a floor. Does it count in the Land Development Code? MR. BELLOWS: Yau mean floor area, usable floor area? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, they have so much floor area. If they build a mezzanine within one of the room -- obviously it would be church, probably, the worship center. Does that area of the mezzanine count as the area of the building? MR. BELLOWS: I would imagine so, but I'd have to verify that. I just don't know for sure. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. Yes. Well, it counts for impact fees. Because it's usable space, it will count for impact fees and it counts for -- I'm almost sure it counts for usable space for zoning as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. MR. SCHMITT: As you well know, it's evaluated for fire, all the fire review and all the other associated activities for the -- in the building department. Page 96 February 19,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in the building codes, Joe, a mezzanine does not count as floor area of that floor, that building. That's one of the tricks we use. But the point is that if you count it, that's good. So that means if they build a big mezzanine, that's coming off of the square footage with it. Other than that, Mark, it's just that I think the proportion, the ratio, the size of lot B and the ratio of the accessory uses and things that they're putting on there is in excess of that. So I think that's too much. But that's my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Richard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think what's important, I think all the speakers recently that we heard didn't raise an issue with the square footage and the allocations on Tract B. I thought we -- that's not been raised in the comments. Other issues have, and I think we've resolved them all. And just subject to the words coming back as we understand them to be, I think we're there from comments from the community. And I would just say that, you know, Commissioner Schiffer, this is the way it's got to be for this to work as a unified PUD to get the end result of nice, attractive, new campus. It's not going to work any other way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. And just to respond, I don't honestly think the neighbors -- because the question I asked John-David, I don't think John-David knows the scale of these square foot numbers. They see little drawings, they see little pieces, but no one's ever realized I think how big some of these numbers are. Especially what Tract B would look like if it was developed like that. But my opinion, once again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's move on. The-- another item I made a note of is the -- do you have an idea of what structures you're going to build first in Tract A, Richard? Or would Page 97 February 19,2009 you be willing to commit to us -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Remember, it used to be three buildings, and the one on the far north came off. Then we're down to the two buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So it would be the northern of the two buildings, so it would be the center building in the original three building configuration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Center building is what? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's the worship center building, which would be the building -- do we have the ghosted in exhibit? I hate to show you that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I know which-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You remember what I'm talking about. That's the worship center building is the building that will be built first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for the record, you're saying you're building -- the first building you'll be building is the worship center. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The -- go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go, is that the church? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the worship center. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's the worship center, which I think is the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Church is the people. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The hours of operation. There are hours of operation for Tract B for the worship center, but I notice there isn't any for Tract A. Was that intentional? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MR. YOV ANOVICH: A couple of reasons. Weare further away Page 98 February 19,2009 from the residences through the setbacks that occur. And philosophically we don't believe it's appropriate to regulate worship hours and -- because of the safeguards, and that we're further away from the residences. Tract A, it was -- has decided that they would not support limitations. And I believe the community, after we've gone through this process, is accepting that for Tract A. But due to the location of the buildings on Tract B and their proximity to residences were not willing to accept unlimited or no specific regulation of worship for Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the amplified music provision, do you have any problems with that being applied in time frames to your tract? Because that's -- whether you're there or not at 5:00 in the morning or 4:00 is one thing. But whether you're there playing loud music is another. And maybe that would be a way to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, these are going to -- I think one of the problems you have with Tract B is you have an old structure that, you know, will not be able to be -- it just doesn't provide the buffering and sound attenuation that a new modern structure would. I don't think you need to have the same level of concern for Tract A, because it will be new structures and they're further away from the residences. So I don't think that it's necessary for Tract A. It's not been raised really as an issue I don't think for Tract A. Tract B has always been the concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it was raised this morning, yeah, by a gentleman a little while ago. So that's why I'm bringing it up. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that, but I -- okay, yeah, one person's raising that issue. And I appreciate that. But I think the way we -- how we've located these buildings and the buffering we're providing I think would take care of that concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the parking problems that were expressed? Page 99 February 19,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, you brought up a very good point. And the park -- that's the reason we're in. If you look at that campus and where the parking is in relation to the buildings, that's why you have people not using the parking as provided, it's too far away from the buildings. The way we've done this is we actually make the parking much more accessible for the buildings. So that will resolve the issue that exists today by this centralized campus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they were to park on the buffers on the picture you have in front of us -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: With their trees -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it'd actually be much farther from the building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, and they'd be in trees and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a perimeter hedge so they'd have to walk through the hedge to get there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the most part. Okay. The drainage easement for the on-site drainage improvements and the maintenance in operation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's standard with an SDP approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I believe that addresses, or at least you've expressed your response to most of the concerns that were raised. Anybody else have any other questions of the applicant? Of staff or of anybody at this time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we will close the public hearing and have a discussion before we go into motion. And the reason for the discussion is it would be nice if we could Page 100 February 19,2009 work out our differences here so that we can resolve in a vote unanimously to go to the Board of County Commissioners, and that would help the process at their level and certainly make it easier for the public in that regard. So first of all, is there -- anybody have an idea -- I think the motion is going to be to recommend approval subj ect to the various discussions and stipulations that we've articulated that will be brought back to us in a consent agenda. Does anybody have any issues that they're not going to feel comfortable with on a consent agenda? Mr. Schiffer's -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the issue's going to be site B. I mean, putting an excessive amount of development area on that makes no sense to me at all. Richard says it's to make the deal work. That makes no sense to me at all either. I mean, I think that the site itself has too much square footage on it. But the fact that they've corralled it where they have in the center away, I think some day we may drive up 41 and regret that we allowed that much square footage if they ever do build it out to that much. But I don't understand why we have to put this excessive amount on Tract B. Tract B is the problem child in the neighborhood anyway in terms of disturbance. We don't have good data as to what's going on. If they're saying there's 200 chairs in there, I mean, from my experience with geometry I'd have trouble seeing that now. Rich is -- I don't know if we're inhibiting their ability to develop anything, because it would come through a conditional use and we would see a balanced project. They want to put 50 students there, but the area of the building they want is around 250 square feet per students. So I guess that's a pretty luxurious preschool they'd be building. If you look at their drawing now, they're using the site anyway for parking for the other projects. So I just think giving that Page 10 1 February 19,2009 big a building on essentially two residential lots in that neighborhood is not right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, the issue stems from what you can fit on that lot. And with your cross easement abilities to use parking from Tract A for parking on Tract B, it creates a larger potential of structure on Tract B. Based on the drawing here, it looks like that's what you're doing. If you were to limit the activities on Tract B, if it's owned by a separate owner, to only those that could fit on Tract B for its uses that are required, like parking and others, wouldn't that then keep your structure more limited until such time it was purchased by Tract A? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, you're assuming that Tract A is going to buy Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're encouraging Tract B to have an acceptable price by the fact that it can't do anything bigger than what it could fit on its own lot unless it cut a deal with Tract A and Tract A absorbed it and then it come under the new criteria that we have here. So in essence it works better for Tract A from a negotiating standpoint. Tract B is limited to what it could have on its site to support its structures to whatever size it could build to within the framework here. And it may not be the full 20,000 square feet, because they couldn't fit enough parking on there to get it, based on what this picture seems to portray. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm uncomfortable with the county attempting to give either party better negotiating power in the deal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't the purpose. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know, but I'm just saying-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's an example of what the outcome could be. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Could be. And I understand. And I don't want to state some negative things that could happen, should the Page 102 February 19,2009 relationship between us and Tract B not be like it is. It's been very cooperative with the bank who came in last minute. They're trying not to hurt Covenant Presbyterian Church, yet retain value on their site right now. And we have gone through -- and they've jumped in. And we could have been derailed because the bank bought a piece of property, trying to figure out what they can do to keep the value. They could have said we're out altogether because we're not ready to be part of this. We don't have that relationship. We have a good relationship. The community has not raised an issue on Tract B's square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And what I'm saying -- Mr. Strain, I hear what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, one of the nice things about getting through the system is if you can do it unanimously. I'm suggesting a compromise to satisfy one member of the planning commission who's going to cause a problem in regards to the Board of County Commissioners hearing this or not. And so I'm suggesting to you, you might want to look at a compromise. If you don't want to, that's your choice. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have the ability to reduce the square feet on Tract B. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, no one's ever justified why they need that much square footage on Tract B. What do you have in mind on Tract B? And if you look at your drawing here, what you have in mind is letting Tract A use it for parking, a lot of it in the corner. The southwest corner of that is parking for Tract A, essentially. Page 103 February 19,2009 You show no -- in other words, that document, the neighbors wouldn't complain about the area because you show the existing building, yet there's a potential of 15,000 square feet on top of that that's not representing on any of the documents. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And they'll get a new building, a modern building, with greater setbacks from the streets. They know where the building can go, how close it can get, which is further away than currently exists. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You make the property marketable to where a new church might come in, get rid of an old dilapidated -- I don't want to say dilapidated -- an older building that has not served the community well from a noise standpoint. We just heard that, from a noise standpoint the old building doesn't work. You're making the property marketable with greater setbacks on Tract A, greater buffers. You just make a much better appearance overall for this property by approving it. And I think the community has seen there's the benefit of this unified PUD and understands the ramifications of what could happen with a 20,000 square foot intensity on Tract B based on those development standards, height-wise and all that. Height was the issue. We worked through height with the community. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, the question really was what do you -- you know, you're really saying you need it, you need it, you need it. But you can't tell me why you need that kind of square footage. You build 50 students daycare. That's -- the size of the building you could build there is 250 (sic) square feet, much in excess of what you need. The setbacks that you're allowed here are essentially the residential setbacks, so there's no real big prize there. So -- and, you know, you're saying the neighbors never complained, but look at the drawing that's on the screen now. That's the existing house, with Page 104 February 19,2009 maybe the patio in the back closed in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in order to move this along, I think what Richard's saying is he's not going to move on his response, Brad. And I understand where you're at. And Richard, is that a fair statement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don' have the ability to move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then there's no sense of beating a dead horse. We need to go on with any other discussions we may have on this issue. Are there any discussions on this particular project remaining by anybody? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think that Mr. Schiffer has a very valid issue. Weare talking now -- if that building sitting there now is 3,000 square feet, that's probably being generous. Suddenly we're going to have 5,600 square feet of a church plus 12,000 plus square feet, 15,000 square feet of accessory uses -- I'm sorry, 14,000. I don't know what we're trying to accomplish on this little piece of property. I mean, I don't get it. And the lawyer for that tract is sitting back there without comment. I think because it's bank owned, they have no clue. So we're just entitling them to something that the neighborhood can't have any say in. I mean, Tract B should have been done separately. They should have come out of this. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It can't be done separately. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because you have the lake and the drainage system. It has to be considered as a whole. So if you don't have Tract B in the deal, you don't get the overall campus. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You get a hodgepodge of individual churches on this acreage. Page 105 February 19,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Rich, you've constantly said you need that square footage, yet you constantly can't tell us why. MR. YOV ANOVICH: They need the marketability, Mr. Schiffer. They don't know. They need value on that parcel of property. And that's what they're saying they need to do. This has been going through the process for many, many, many months. And the allocation of square footage within the PUD has not been an issue for Tract B when we've been dealing with the community. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the health, safety and welfare of the community should bow to that reason? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If the community's not complaining about it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, what I'm saying is look at that drawing. The community doesn't know what the square footage you've shown means. You've never shown them. John-David, that's why I asked him that question. You never did it on the big property, but like I said, the corralling of that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let it go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe as a solution, is there a number that works for you? Why don't you just throw it on the table, ask them, and when they say no we can move on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, definitely cut it in half. Bring it down to 10,000 square feet for that site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're thinking that site should be limited to 10,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the record, Richard, do you think that's acceptable or not? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. You just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's all I need to hear. Page 106 February 19,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I just -- you just recently approved a church on two acres with 300 seats. We're asking for 200 seats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay? You know, we're asking for 200 seats on two acres, you just approved 300 seats on two acres. From an intensity standpoint, it's measured by seats. I don't think that's -- I just use it as an example. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what we saw as the layout of that church, we saw everything figured out. We didn't -- it wasn't phantom impressions as to what that square footage would be. And that's -- and what Donna said is right. I wish this one wasn't in the project and we dealt with it as a conditional use, and maybe they would get that. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but I think the answer's been no 16 times, so let's just end this discussion and let's have any other discussion on this particular project and then we're going to ask for a motion. Is there any other questions, any other discussions by anybody on this project at this time? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Were you going to -- I'm not sure I have all the notes. Were you going to go ahead like you usually do and list everything that you have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, staffs been taking the notes. We've articulated them very carefully. They're going to come back on consent. There's too many notes to go through on that manner that you have asked. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No problem at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what I'm looking for, is someone willing to make a motion on this project? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make the motion. Page 107 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, known as Heavenly Community Facilities Planned Unit Development, I would recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners, based on the stipulations found in the staff report and as amended and for those items that have been carefully articulated and recorded during this entire process. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Commissioner Wolfley. And I believe it's comprehensive enough for staff to follow what they need to on that regard, and I'm getting nods of heads, so that means yes. Is there any discussion from any members of the Planning Commission on the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Non-redundant? No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six in favor. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two opposed. And Mr. Vigliotti is abstaining. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm going to abstain to avoid Page 108 February 19,2009 any possible conflict of interest. And I will file the necessary paperwork. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: And just for the executive summary purposes, the reason for the votes against this board was just stated, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: And it has to do with the square footage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. This would create excessive density on Lot B, thus violating the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. Out of scale with the neighborhood. MR. KLATZKOW: And was there any other reason? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I would say the same. I'm very concerned about the density and intensity on Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, this case is over with. We appreciate all your time and thank you from the residents, and Tony Pires and Richard for all your cooperation, and the church. We got through it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you for your patience. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, with that, instead of going into a new case, we're going to take a lunch till 12:30. We'll come back here at 12:30 after lunch and we'll resume the cases at that time. Thank you. (Luncheon recess.) Item #9B, #9C and #9D PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13664, PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Page 109 February 19,2009 PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13665, PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13960, PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Welcome back from our lunch. And we will now resume our meeting. The last item was a continued item from a January 15th meeting. The following one, two, three, four, five items are going to be regularly scheduled items for today. First one is Petition SV-2008-AR-13664. And while we're at it, there's no county attorney -- oh, yes, Heidi. Oh, everybody's back there. Good. What I'd like to do is hear all three petitions at one time but vote on them separately. So that's what we're going to do. And I'll announce all three of them. They're all for Port of the Islands. They're all for similar issues. They're all for sign variances. The first one is Petition SV-2008-AR-13664. The second one is SV-2008-AR-13665. And the last one is SV-2008-AR-13960. All for Port of the Islands Community Improvement District for sign variances in that area. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there disclosures on the part of the planning admission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a phone call request from Mr. Duane, and I e-mailed him back that I had read everything and I understand it, so I didn't really have a lot to say. And with that, Bob, it's yours to go this morning. Page 110 February 19,2009 MR. DUANE: Thank you. I'm going to be very brief this mornmg. Robert Duane, for the record, representing the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District. I have Dan Cox here with me also, who's the attorney for the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District. As you can see from the aerial photo, we have three separate requests before you: One on Newport Drive, one on Cays Drive and one on Union Road. The signage is just trying to give the community a little more identity and let people know what's there. It's not a planned unit development, which would have more typically than not included some special provisions for signage. But the history on the zoning of this property goes back a generation or more, so we're just trying to bring it back into the light ages with our signage. I do have one small change to share with you. I got an e-mail late last night from the chairman of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, telling me that there had been some interest in wanting to put the marina, which would be the Petition SV-2008-AR-13665, that they might possibly want to call it the Resort Marina and Waterfront Community. And I'm going to suggest to you, since perhaps the Community Improvement District has not agreed precisely on what verbiage is going to go on the sign, I'd like to leave the sign copy open. Nancy suggested I might want to just add an XX in case the wording changes at some point in the future. But that doesn't change any of the parameters of the request, the height and the size, and I believe the findings. And what we're seeking are variants that don't affect the copy that's on the exhibit for that particular site plan for that petition. Otherwise, the one on the north side of 41, we have structured Page III February 19,2009 that also to account for some possible eventualities, as all the users may not be determined at the present time. But we tried to identify the people that we are -- we think are going to be on the sign, Orchid Cove, the Gun Club, the Port of the Islands Community, utilities, meeting rooms, and the like. And I think our variance is structured to permit up to 10 entities on that 32 square foot sign, which is going to be located in the median. And the final one, which is the last one, is the 18 square foot sign in the little median of Cays Drive. It just introduces it as another component of the Port of the Islands community. And that includes my presentation. If you have any questions -- we of course are happy that the staff is recommending approval of the three requests before you. And if I (sic) have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer them right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For the planning commission's benefit, there are three petitions. And for questions, if we could take them in order, that might be the easiest way to get through it. And the first petition in our packet is the one for a sign located on the north side of U.S. 41. And in your packet on the third page it's got the Port of the Islands in blue across the top and it's got a pole cover below it for about four feet in height and that's the sign right there. Now, that's the first item in our package. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, this will be for all of them. Do you know where the stop signs are located on that intersection? Because the concern I have is that people are traveling pretty fast on this. These signs are close to the road. And this one less than the other ones has a lot of blockage for their vision. MR. DUANE: The sign will sit in the median behind the stop signs, but I don't know that I can pinpoint it for you on that aerial. I Page 112 February 19,2009 don't think it will show up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one solution, though. Ray, we have a line of sight vision requirement for all SDP's, all signage and everything as -- can they violate that? MR. BELLOWS: No. And we have a staff expert who goes out and inspects a site before a permit is finalized and issued, to ensure that there is no safety issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that includes any hedges or vegetation as well. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So nothing can be in that line of sight vision, if I'm not -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- mistaken. Does that help, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It does. But some of these are so close that I'm worried that I'm not sure how you could do that. But as long as it's covered someplace else, I'm happy with it. The other question, Bob, was you show ground level here. You're not raising any berms and -- MR. DUANE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- sticking these on top of it, okay? MR. DUANE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on the first variance request. Does anybody else -- Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Bob, could you take this and put it on the overhead for me? I want to ask you a question about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, it's the second page of the package, the one with the zoning map and location map. Page 113 February 19,2009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I put some markings on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, this is really a family of signs, so I was interested to see what the relationship is between the . . vanous sIgns. And what I've listed there is the site location applies to site D, which is D on our agenda, 8.D. And whereas 8.C is in our 8.C agenda item and 8.B is for the other agenda item. Do you have any idea what the distance is between 8.C and 8.B on the road, thereabout? MR. DUANE: I would say that it's some hundreds of feet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. MR. DUANE: I would say it's probably a distance of a football field, 100 yards. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: A hundred yards, okay. And the 8.B one, there are two variances on that one, aren't there? One is close to residential unit, we want to variance that? MR. DUANE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And the other is the distance from the subject. MR. DUANE: That is correct. And that relates to the 10 components of the variance related to the 1,000 foot separation requirement. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right. Now, which one of those three are the one you're talking about, the marina? MR. DUANE: The one on the marina is on the south side of U.S. 41. And that's Petition SV-2008-AR-13665. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 8.C. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: 8.C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All right. Thank you very much. MR. SCHMITT: 9.C. Page 114 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, 8.C. Anything else, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, that's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? We're on the first petition, which is 8.B. Does anybody else have any questions on 8.B? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. And Ray -- and Brad, I know this is something you and I talked about on one other case when we brought it up. Why do we have to have that blank black wall below the sign? Whether it's black, purple or orange. How does that help the community to have a wall like that supporting the sign? It doesn't make it look better, it makes it look worse, plus it hinders the angle of view for people driving up and down 41. MR. BELLOWS: I don't -- for the record, Ray Bellows. I'm not sure why the requirement is added, but it's in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. I'm just -- MR. BELLOWS: I could check into it, but I don't know-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These things slip through all the time. And I guess shame on us for letting it get through. But that looks ugly. Why is that an improvement? Why is it considered an improvement? MR. SCHMITT: That was a result of the horizon committee back when the sign code was first adopted to add mass to the sign and make it appear to conform or be uniform rather than sticking up on a straight pole. Now, that is in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand. MR. SCHMITT: That wasn't something that staff invented. But these are -- it's in the Land Development Code, it's clearly defined as a pole cover to add -- make it appear as though it's a monument sign or a ground sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But every other thing we do is try to Page 115 February 19,2009 reduce the appearance of mass on structures and buildings, and here we're trying to do in signs, which are not pleasant to look at anyway, we're trying to increase their mass. That doesn't -- it seems backwards to me. MR. SCHMITT: It may not make sense, but that is the way the committee passed this, that's the way the LDC was approved. And it's in the LDC. And if you want to address that, I would recommend you look at it as part of the upcoming sign review. But that's -- I can't give you the history of how or why that's added, but it is a requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know the applicant has had to address it this way and I understand why. It just seems a shame that we have a code that requires things to look uglier than better, but -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, we are in the middle of redoing the sign ordinance, and we're doing it in phases, the first part to address the recent lawsuit. But we are looking at -- comprehensively at some point the sign ordinance, and we can address that as part of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have something? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it's Mr. Schiffer -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, then I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you consider just doing monument signs? I mean, it would seem to be more attractive. And what you're tying to do is give some sense of community as well as being directional, correct? MR. DUANE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Was consideration given to monument? MR. DUANE: Not that I can speak to on the record. This was the exhibit that kind of evolved through the process. Page 116 February 19,2009 If you want to structure this in a way that can be the same size, whether it's a pole or a monument, I would be welcome to that suggestion. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that's my next thing is they all seem to be different, different sizes. And I wondered why you didn't just pick a size that would work for the community. I mean, you have a logo that's been picked obviously for the community, which is attractive. And it would seem to me that a monument sign of certain size would work throughout the area. I'm not -- MR. DUANE: With regard to your question about the size of the signs, they really have different functions. The one on Cays Drive is relatively small, just in the entrance to that residential development. The one on the north side of 41 needed to be larger because it had more people on the copy. And then the one on the south side of 41, well, it's a reduction in area from what's there today. But it's the largest one. And it's where we wanted, you know, to identify, you know, that portion of the community. So they all had different size, functions and purposes. If you would like to include in your motion, however, provided you're going to support it, that it can either be a pole sign or a monument sign, I would welcome that change and I will discuss it with my client, and I think that's an excellent suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have questions on the first one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll move to the second one, which is 9.C, and it's the Petition 13665. And that would be the one on the south side -- yeah, south side of U.S. 41. Anybody have any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, does -- the pink light structure, is that going to stay there? This is between that, correct? We Page 117 February 19,2009 have an illustration towards the back of our packet of -- MR. DUANE: You're talking-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- looks like a pink frosting or something on stucco. MR. DUANE: My understanding, that that was not going to be part of the sign. Don, you want to add anything to that? The two columns. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it exists, right? MR. DUANE: It currently exists. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, isn't that some kind ofhistorical-- MR. DUANE: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- piece of paraphernalia? MR. DUANE: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, they don't make them like that anymore. MR. DUANE: No, they don't. This was going to sit on the ground level. And whether it was going to be in between these two columns or not, I don't know that I can answer that question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the question is the approval is for the sign between those two columns, which is fine, there's nothing -- I'm not putting down the columns. MR. DUANE: I like them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just trying to understand them. MR. DUANE: I think the sign is going to come down and the worst case is it will be in between columns. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A little scary spice there, but that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that your only question, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, just so we're clear then, the sign Page 118 February 19,2009 that you're being asked to put in will replace the sign that's between the columns? MR. DUANE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not going to have two signs, you're still going to have just one sign. MR. DUANE: No, sir. And we'll likely add the word marina into this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any other questions on 9.C? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to 9.D. This is the one that's on the south side of 41 over on Cays Drive. Yes, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Something just occurred to me. If I'm not mistaken, and maybe County Attorney would confirm this, didn't we acquire the marina? Didn't the county acquire the marina? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Would it be useful to include the county identification associated with the marina? That's content, and I know that we can talk about that later. Or now. MR. COX: If! could, Dan Cox, attorney for the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District. The county acquired the uplands portion. There's still privately owned marina slips out there. The actual slips are a marina condominium that are privately owned. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I appreciate that. But what was going through my mind was if the county acquired the marina with the intent to provide services to the citizens and this is intended to provide services by knowledge, you know, a sign, it would be useful to allow people who were bringing their boats there or -- MR. COX: To indicate public boat ramp. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See what I'm getting at? Page 119 February 19,2009 MR. COX: Yes, sir. Absolutely. And I'll talk to my client about that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That might be something you'd consider. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as far as 9.C goes, or 9.D, the suggestion is that there be language allowed for the referencing a county boat ramp if it's so desired as we go forward. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any comments? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, could you put that illustration up that I gave you, please. Now, those three signs are all on 41, correct? MR. DUANE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All three of those are off-site premise signs? MR. DUANE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And the question I have, since the idea of a sign is to identify an area that's remote from the road that you're on, those are three different size signs. For example, 8.B is 35 feet -- 32 feet, square feet, 8.C is 64 square feet, and 8.D is 18 square feet. Now, it seemed to me if you're driving an automobile down, the visibility of those signs should give you enough lead time for all three signs to be the same. I mean, this is to identify an area that you're going to turn off. And you've got one sign that is only 18 feet square and you've got another one that's 64 square (sic), obviously I'm going to see the 64 square foot sign in time to make the turn, but I don't know ifI'll see the 18-foot sign in time. Talking square feet now-- MR. DUANE: You're talking about the six by three-foot sign that's in the median to let people know that Cays Drive is there and it's Page 120 February 19,2009 part of Port of the Islands. We didn't think that that needed to be, you know, a sign as large as 32 or 64 square feet. We thought the variance from the 12-foot to the 16- foot was adequate to identify the entrance to the street. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But in establishing the size ofa sign, shouldn't we be looking at the recognizability of the sign, how quickly it can be recognized? MR. DUANE: That is an issue that -- we thought that that entrance sign at the median was adequate to introduce people to Cays Drive and that part of Port of the Islands. I'm not trying to sidestep your question. We thought the size was adequate to convey the intended purpose. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, what I mean, if one sign there is 18 square foot, if that's big enough to convey the information, then certainly the 64-foot square sign would convey the information, plus much more. MR. DUANE: Well, going to the north side of the street, that sign is larger, because there are up to 10 entities that will be identified on that 32 square foot sign. On the 64 square foot sign, which is the largest one identifying the Port of the Islands, we're now going to include the marina or the boat ramp in addition to the Port of the Islands, a waterfront community. But that was designed to be our kind of our focal point sign, and that's why it is the largest one proposed. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, will there be any pull-off area where the driver can stop the car and read those signs to see where the people are he's trying to look up? MR. DUANE: Just the edge of the right-of-way and the edge of the pavement. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well. MR. DUANE: Let me put the 32 square feet in some context. If you're at the entrance to a residential development, you can have one Page 121 February 19,2009 64 square foot sign or two 32 square foot signs. Often you'll find those at either side of the right-of-way. We kind of hung our hat on the 32 square foot sign is what you could have at least on one side of an entrance to a residential development. And we thought that size, eight by four, was enough to convey the users that are located on the north side of US. 41. And the staff felt comfortable with the sizes that we were proposing. We didn't try to be greedy, we tried to provide a minimal amount of area to convey there what we thought was their intended purpose. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I guess my question then will be deferred till staff. Because I'm curious why as a staff we don't look at that to take into consideration the recognizability of a sign. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant on B, CorD before we go to staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DUANE: I have no objections if you want to increase the size of the sign, notwithstanding what I said. MR. BELLOWS: It has to be advertised. MR. SCHMITT: It has to be advertised if they're going to increase the sign variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. And staff -- would you like me to just answer questions at this point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that'd probably be simplest. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think we know staffs position. It's in your report. Page 122 February 19,2009 Does anybody have any questions of the staff on any of these signs? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Nancy, can you help me on that as far as the size of the sign? Do we look at it for readability at all? MS. GUNDLACH: I would say yes, we do. Keep in mind that all of these signs are here as variances today because they are larger than the sign code prescribed sizes. And the other point I wanted to make is if you notice, the signs get -- for this particular petition, three petitions, they get subsequently larger as they put more type face on the sign. So that might be a reason why the signs are not all the same size but, you know, slightly different sizes, in accordance with how much sign copy they desire to put on the sign. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You're satisfied with the readability of these signs? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I am. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nancy, thank you. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker. That's Leroy Smith. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Smith, would you mind coming up and using the podium. Right there. You need to state your name for the record and -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Be sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- whatever you have to say. MR. SMITH: My name's Leroy Smith. I'm a full-time resident, Port of the Islands, which is where this is taking place. Thank you for hearing me, and I appreciate your time. I first of all would like to know, what are the 10 entities? I'm only aware of several things. The Gun Club back there; the Orchid Page 123 February 19,2009 Cove, a residential area, as I live in on the south side. So I'm concerned about the size of that sign on the north side. My primary focus this afternoon with you is to tell you that I am very pleased that you are so thorough. This is my first meeting, and I'm quite impressed, so thank you for your service. I would like to share with you that for me personally, I think the size that's already the restriction that's in place of 12 square feet would be more than adequate to identify the residential east location at Cays. To tell you the truth, there's a blinking yellow light there and a blinking red light. You were concerned about the traffic signal or the stop sign being visible, and that's very important. But from a safety standpoint with the blinking light from the residential sites, you need not worry too much about the safety issue; rather the appearance is quite important to me. And I would personally like to recommend that you stick with what's on the books. I think a 12-foot square foot sign for Cays would be more than adequate, especially in view of the blinking lights that are there. And I would please appreciate it if someone could tell me whether or not all of the other signage will be removed. Or someone asked a few moments ago about whether or not the hotel sign, the old one, would come down and the new one would be just a replacement. And I heard that that would be the case. But there are other signs, builders signs, especially on the north side, and I'd like to know if those too will also be removed. Are we talking about, you know, adding or replacing? And I would like to know a little more about just the construction. Is it wood, metal, plastic? Is it illuminated? And finally, I'd like to suggest that the gentleman's comment about the county purchasing the ramp there at Port of the Islands, I think the inclusion of the information for the public to have that on the sign would be very valuable and helpful to most people that use it. Page 124 February 19,2009 And I would suggest that that be considered, please. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I have one question. MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This request, these three requests that are being put forth by the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, I'm assuming that's like a community development district, a CDD. And if it is, that means you have a manager and an elected board of supervisors. Is that the case in your area? MR. SMITH: Yes, as far as I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you express your concerns to your board of supervisors before they authorized the expenditures in the process here today? MR. SMITH: Sir, the first real information I received came as a result of a letter sent from this lady who just spoke, Nancy, and some signs which appeared in the median. That was the first knowledge I had of this, and I knew of it no other way. No one has ever contacted me, written me a letter, knocked on my door. I live there 24/seven. So, you know, if they have done all this, I respect their efforts, but nothing was said to me; I knew nothing about it. And I'm very concerned about the size of these signs, frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. And what I was trying to find out is, the CDD meetings are required to be publicly held, and their elected officials are parts of those meetings, and the elected officials come from the residents within the area to which they represent. I was curious as to why they would not have paid more attention to your concerns. I understand now that you didn't even -- you weren't aware of it. And they might have had a meeting without -- I mean, this was brought up when you just didn't know it was even being brought up. MR. SMITH: Correct, sir. Page 125 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SMITH: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we'll get answers to your questions. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know, Bob or Mr. Cox, I don't know who wants to take these questions, but I think they deserve to be answered. The first one is what are the 10 entities on the north side? What is it you're trying to do there? MR. COX: On the north side we've got several different parcels of property. What we have is a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Cox, you'll have to use -- there's a microphone, a portable, but we have to get it on recording, so you'll have to use the microphone. MR. SCHMITT: Over here, Mr. Cox. You put your hand right on the visualizer. MR. COX: Good, I see what you're saying. In this area here we have our public facilities, which are going to be identified for the purposes of when we have delivery trucks and things like that coming. So one of the uses is going to be our utility plant. We're proposing in the future to build a meeting room and, you know, to have facilities for the community get-togethers and things like that that would be built in that general area. So that's another use. You have the existing gun range, which is going to continue to be operated as a gun range in the future. South of the gun range you have an undeveloped piece of property that there were proposals that there was going to be an RV Page 126 February 19,2009 park there. We don't know what's going to be there in the future. Those plans fell through. And as far as I know right now, there is no other proposed use. But in the future there may be multiple uses on that parcel, is why we're kind of leaving it open, to have a few extra above the actual identified uses that we have right now. South of that you have a hotel, restaurant and lounge. Then south of that you have the residential development known as Orchid Cove. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, does this variance request have anything to do with the copy on the sign or just the variance for distance or the size of the sign? MR. BELLOWS: It's distance and size. It's the copy is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the copy is regulated by separate language and that will be reviewed separately when the sign permit is asked for? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. They're not getting a variance for the language. It's the size of the sign and location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only issue that we're here today on is the size and the location of that sign. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that gets us to the next item. Any other signs at that entry way that are currently existing that are going to be removed because this sign's going in? MR. COX: Well, the only permanent signs that I'm aware of are here at the primary entrance to Orchid Cove, and those were permitted as part of the Orchid Cove PUD, and those will not be removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there anything out by 41? MR. COX: Not that I'm aware of. There's a kind of a historical point of view. We used to have signs, but when they passed the sign ordinance back about six years ago, there was no grandfathering provision. I think there was one year to get your signs permitted. And we couldn't get those signs that we had permitted and so they were taken down. Page 127 February 19,2009 And the 32 square foot sign on the north side is the exact size that the sign was historically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the construction type of signs -- do you know if they're going to be illuminated? MR. COX: I do not know if they're going to be illuminated. They're going to be that high density plastic type material that's laminated over board with the lettering, cut-out lettering. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Reflective? MR. SCHMITT: The only way they can illuminate is backlighting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was just going to ask. Pursuant to the code -- MR. SCHMITT: Pursuant to the code. It has to comply with the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think the last question I have is on the Cays sign, you're asking for, I believe you -- 16 feet, is it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Eighteen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eighteen feet. MR. COX: Eighteen feet. What I would suggest is if the board is willing to entertain approval of the 18-foot variance, then we could meet when we have our meeting at Port of the Islands Community Improvement District -- which as you indicated is a community development district, we have a meeting tomorrow and we have one every month on the third Friday -- we can certainly discuss that at the meeting. And if we end up building the sign a little smaller, we wouldn't have violated the variance and we would still have the flexibility of going to the 18 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that may be a -- since you have a community development district who applied for this and that district is held by elected officials who represent the people in the Page 128 February 19,2009 area, that might be a good forum now that the meeting date is known. What's the location of the meeting? Where is it held at? MR. COX: It's held at the Egret Room in the existing hotel that's on the southwest quadrant of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what time of the day is the meeting? MR. COX: It starts at 10:00 a.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And are your supervisors elected at large, or are they -- MR. COX: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- appointed by the developer? They're elected -- MR. COX: They are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at large. MR. COX: -- all elected. We've been transitioned from the developer representatives for about five years now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I like the suggestion of leaving it up to 18 feet, and then if your board responds to the citizens in the area and the citizens feel it should be less, then that was what the board was elected for is to respond to them. So hopefully that will come out the way it needs to. Okay, I think that takes care of the questions that were raised that we can address with the application that's in front of us today. Are there any other questions of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so the Planning Commission knows, I will close the public hearing and we can entertain a motion. Before we go into the motion, there was no suggestions that I think needed to be addressed on 9.B or C from the comments I heard. But on 9.D -- well, actually, all three, the option to go to either a pole sign or a monument sign was something to be considered in the motion. Page 129 February 19, 2009 And on 9.D, we might want to look at that as up to 18 feet. And we also should refer to 9.C, having language in it that -- we're not approving the language today, but any language that goes in it, we might want to recommend a reference to the public boat ramp. So those were the points I made in notes from our discussion. Does anybody want to start off by making a motion for 9.B? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will make the motion to approve, with the stipulations you had just discussed. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Vigliotti, second by Commissioner Kolflat. The stipulations that would pertain to 9.B, which is the one on Union Road, would be that it could be a pole sign or a monument sign as well. Is that the motion maker's -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- acceptance, and the second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 130 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Is there a motion for the 9.C petition? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved to approve. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Vigliotti, seconded by Commissioner Kolflat. That particular one had the same possibility of going in as either a pole sign or monument sign. Does the motion maker have any problem with that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And before you -- one other thing on that one. The language on that sign should reflect that there's a public boat ramp there. Do you accept that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 131 February 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 9-0, passed again. The last one is Petition SV-2008-AR-13960, and it's for the last sign on Cays Drive. This is the one that we would want to stipulate can be a pole sign or monument sign, can be up to 18 feet in size. Does anybody want to make that motion? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I just want to clarify for the record that that is a freestanding sign and it's not connected to that existing structure. That's not what was submitted. What was submitted was the sign itself, not as part of that existing structure, those pink columns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one we just voted on. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we asked if the sign that was being proposed -- we specifically asked that question, will it replace the sign between the poles, and they said yes. MR. SCHMITT: All right. MR. BELLOWS: I think we covered it, but we just want to make sure we're clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti had made a motion on 9.D for approval up to 18 feet, and it could be a pole sign or monument sign. Mr. Kolflat, do you accept that? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Just to be absolutely clear on what Mr. Schmitt has brought up, on that -- if you observed in that picture that's shown, that sign, there was not only -- seemed to be Page 132 February 19,2009 connected to that wall, but there were also metal supporting straps or whatever you want to call them, braces, and you said freestanding. So now if they were to replace that, will they be able to replace those braces? MR. COX: If! could, my understanding, that it is not going to be in between those two, it's going to be between the front of that stucco structure and the right -- and between the right-of-way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So it's not going to be -- MR. COX: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So then we were in error in assummg -- MR. COX: That one's going away, and we're going to have the freestanding out front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the point is that you're not going to have two signs. And you -- MR. COX: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- agreed that the other sign's going out. That's what the -- that was the -- yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The understanding -- and I'll agree with you, but the understanding I had and I think others may have had the same thing, is that that was actually going to be put in the same place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, understand. Okay, so now we'll call for the vote on the third sign. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. Page 133 February 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you all. Appreciate your time. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, thank you. You've got a public meeting you're going to attend tomorrow. Yes, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'd like to ask the staff a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You are reviewing the sign ordinance now. Would you please direct some attention and study to this aspect of for an off-site sign, what is the safest size of the lettering that would be considered? Or what are some the factors that would indicate the safety? Because we've had several off-site signs that are only 12 feet that on some of these larger roads and so forth you can go by it before you can see it. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I will definitely add that to the list of the issues we're addressing with the sign code revisions. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #9E PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13661, CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH Page 134 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item on today's agenda is Petition CU-2008-AR-13661. It's the Center Point Community Church looking for a conditional use in the Estates zoning district for a church at 6590 Golden Gate Parkway. All those wishing to participate in today's hearing, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a telephone discussion with Mr. Lewis regarding this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I met with the petitioner's agent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a conversation with Mr. Lewis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I too had a phone call with Mr. Lewis about a meeting, but I didn't see the need to have a meeting after I read the package, so we never did get together. Okay, Mr. Lewis, I guess -- Doug, you're making the presentation today? MR. LEWIS: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Doug Lewis. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Roetzel and Andress. I'm a registered lobbyist. I'm here today representing Center Point Community Church on this item. I'm here also today with Matthew McLean. He's a Page 135 February 19, 2009 Professional Engineer with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage. I'm also here today with Randy Spradling, he's a transportation engineer with Vanasse-Daylor. Nick Klein is here as well, he's the facility manager for Center Point Community Church. And the request today involves a conditional use application for a church use. I have some initial comments, and after my comments we're happy to answer any questions you may have. The applicant, Center Point Community Church, owns four parcels of abutting land. We have on the visualizer an aerial. On the south side of Golden Gate Parkway, just west of I-75, totaling approximately 9.22 acres and legally described as a portion of tracts 85 and 86 of the plat of Golden Gate Estates Unit 29. To the north of the church property, as you can see on the visualizer, is Golden Gate Parkway. To the west is 66th Street Southwest. And to the south is 63rd Street Southwest. To the east are Estates zoned single-family residential parcels. The westernmost parcel contains approximately 4.63 acres and is known as Tract 85. Tract 85 contains two existing church buildings, and is not part of the conditional use application today. It obtained provisional use approval for a church use in 1977 by Resolution No. PU77-3C. The two parcels to the east are within Tract 86, and east comprise approximately 1.4 acres each. These two parcels currently have provisional use approval for church use under Resolution No. PU91111. And if you see on the visualizer, you can see where we've identified the provisional use codes, and we've put arrows so you can kind of see where those provisional use areas are in relation to the property. So you can see that the bulk of the property is currently under provisional use for church use. Any alteration of these Tract 86 parcels that I've just described Page 136 February 19,2009 requires conditional use approval. As such, the applicant has included these two parcels, these one-acre plus parcels, as part of its application. The fourth and easternmost parcel is approximately two and a half acres and zoned Estates. It does not currently have conditional use approval; that being the only parcel that's not currently conditional use approved. Our request today is to obtain conditional use approval for these three parcels, these Tract 86 parcels. And all three parcels are zoned Estates. And church use is allowed as a conditional use in the Estates zoning district for these three parcels. And specifically the Golden Gate Area Master Plan encourages a church use on these three parcels. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan provides that existing Center Point Community Church and related facilities may be expanded in acreage and intensity along the south side of Golden Gate Parkway to the east of 66th Street Southwest, but that the total project area may not exceed approximately 9.22 acres. And we meet this acreage limit. In order to meet its current needs to serve the community and its congregation, the applicant proposes a youth worship and administrative church building on Tract 86, not to exceed 34,551 square feet of floor area and 30 feet in zoned height. The building envelope is adjacent to the existing church buildings and is positioned along the westerly boundary of Tract 86 to create as much separation from the easterly property and residences as possible. The proposed building would meet the setback -- would be set back approximately 230 feet from the site's eastern boundary and approximately 268 feet from 63rd Street Southwest. These setbacks far exceed the respective 30-foot and 75-foot side yard and front yard setbacks. Additionally, we are not here today in any way to request any deviation from the Estates zoning requirements. Page 137 February 19,2009 Along the length of the project's eastern boundary where it abuts a single-family use parcel, as you can see on the visualizer, a dry detention stormwater management area will exist, septic field and a native preserve area to further separate the proposed church building from the parcel to the east. In addition, a 15-foot wide Type B buffer will form a transitional screen along the property's easterly boundary. The remaining perimeter landscaping will be comprised of Type D buffers, 15 feet in width along Golden Gate Parkway, reduced to 10 feet in width along 66th Street Southwest and 63rd Street Southwest, as required by the Land Development Code. We have another slide here for you. Internal traffic circulation will be maintained with Tract 85, the existing 85 church parcel, which as you can see from the visualizer has two access points onto 66th Street Southwest, and traffic circulation will be improved or enhanced by providing additional access along 63rd Street Southwest. A neighborhood informational meeting was held on October 28th, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. at the Center Point Community Church site. Several neighbors attended the meeting. At the meeting, Ms. Flanigan, who owns the residential parcel that directly abuts the project to the east, requested an elevation of the proposed building and the site plan giving questions about how close the building would be located to her property and the building itself. She also raised questions about the impact of the project on her drainage and standing water problem. Matt McLean with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage and representatives of the church met with Ms. Flanigan on two different occasions to address her questions and discuss the buffer. Based on these meetings, our engineer thought that Ms. Flanigan was supportive of the project. However, after the staff report was prepared and circulated, we did receive a letter from Ms. Flanigan stating that she does not look favorably upon the request, and her letter states that her Page 138 February 19,2009 objection stems from the expansion of Golden Gate Parkway where the front of her house became the back and the back the front, and that she does not want to take away the aesthetics of country living. Wernet with Ms. Flanigan again this morning, and we understand that she does not want the wall that would normally be there as a buffer between our site and her site. We have agreed with Ms. Flanigan to stipulate here on the record to provide an enhanced Type B buffer with double staggered hedge row to increase opaqueness, and we understand that Ms. Flanagin supports this stipulation. The church has diligently solicited input and support from the community for this project. In your packet you have a copy of a letter from the Golden Gate Estates Civic Area Association, dated October 21st, 2008, stating that they support the project, they feel it's fully compatible with its existing use, and that it's an asset to the community. In addition, the applicant met with the Golden Gate Area Civic Association board to solicit their input on the project, and the Golden Gate Area Civic Association board fully supports this petition. A copy of their support letter, dated September 13th, 2008, is in your packet. In addition, one of the neighbors, Mr. Fred Kraus, who lives at the southwest corner -- you can't see it here on the visualizer, but the southwest corner of 66th Street and 63rd Street Southwest, prepared a support letter that I'd like to present to you at this time to include in the packet. For the record, I have copies of that and I'll give that to staff, as he was unable to personally attend the hearing today. Center Point Community Church has been serving our community in its current location for well over 28 years. And they've worked hard to be a partner in the community and a good neighbor. Staff recommends approval of the application with certain recommendations, and concludes that the proposed conditional use Page 139 February 19,2009 would be deemed consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The applicant is in agreement with the conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report with the following clarifications or modifications. And I have something to put on the visualizer in that respect. F or purposes of staff recommendation number two, our client requests that the maximum area of proposed building be clarified to be floor area as defined in Section 1.0802 of the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doug, before you go any further then, and you're going to recommend language, we want to make sure we're accurate in our understanding of it and so the public can hear it too. Number two reads, the maximum area of the proposed building shall be limited to 34,551 square feet. And if we were to add the words of floor area at the end of that, is that what you're trying to get to? MR. LEWIS: That's correct. Let me-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's very few people in the audience. Is Ms. Flanigan here? MR. LEWIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we get too far along, I want to certainly get her comments on what you're proposing for the record. MR. LEWIS: Yeah, we've put on the language, and I'd like to read into the record the proposed language which I believe staff is in support of. At the very end of recommendation number two, and then also in the conditions, it would read, 34,551 square feet of floor area, as defined in Section 1.08.02 of the Land Development Code. And I can defer to J.D. as to staffs position on that language. He's nodding his head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We heard it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, question on that? Page 140 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And since there are so many floor areas with different codes, what one is this that you chose? MR. LEWIS: It's right out of your code. And according to J.D., that's how staff would look at the square footage requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it the one for parking or is it the other one? It's the other one? Okay, thank you. MR. LEWIS: I can show you on the visualizer right out of the code, but it's floor area under that section. And I have the definition here. As I understand it, that's the definition that J.D. was looking at. We just want to be very clear, because there are different -- as you're well aware, different measurements for square footage. That's what we're operating on and that's what we want to be clear about with respect to the area. For purposes of staff recommendation number three, our client requests that church traffic control be provided at Saturday, if applicable, and Sunday peak hour worship service traffic. The reason for this is that the church does not typically hold worship services on Saturday and peak hour traffic is for Sunday worship services. Also, language has been added to allow the on-site service provider to determine the location of where the traffic control would be needed. They're there -- the sheriff who's there or the provider that's there would be able to make that determination. And I believe staff is in agreement with the language. I do have language that I would like to read into the record for the recommendation and the condition for approval as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it in the language that's in number three written in front of us that we're reading? MR. LEWIS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't -- unless there's a legal reason, I don't need you to waste your time re-reading it to us. We can see it and it's on the visualizer, so move forward. Page 141 February 19,2009 MR. LEWIS: For purposes of staff recommendation number four, our client requests that the on-site service provider be able to make a determination as to whether or not the southbound left in at the project's northerly driveway needs to be closed during a Sunday peak. This allows for flexibility, and I believe that staff is also in agreement with this clarification and the specific language we've identified on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the language that you're proposing to add, you're going to strike the word shall and put may. Be closed. And then it says, CES deemed necessary by the on-site enforcement service provider, which could be -- as deemed necessary by the on-site. And that could be usually the sheriffs office; is that right? MR. LEWIS: That's correct. And it could also be someone that they approve. But that would be someone they'd have to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the asteric at the end of 4.4? Oh, that's the -- that goes after the word to? MR. LEWIS: That would come in after peak hours-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To minimize-- MR. LEWIS: To maintain efficient vehicular traffic flow on public roadways. That's the reason why they would like to do that. And we're in agreement with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. J.D., before we go wandering on to new territory, are you -- is staff in agreement with these changes on this page? MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. I have met with the applicant and discussed the change to number two, and apparently John Podczerwinsky has also met with them regarding the transportation related stipulations and is also in agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, Doug, let's move forward. Page 142 February 19,2009 MR. LEWIS: At this point we're happy to take any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's two staff comments on the next page. You didn't want to mark those up? MR. LEWIS: We're -- as I said, apart from those comments, we're okay with staffs comments and recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, questions. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Lewis, do me a favor. Show us if you will an aerial view of the site which -- if you have one that shows where Ms. Flanagan's home is located. MR. LEWIS: Here's a better -- we just put the aerial on the visualizer and Matt is pointing to her home. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Now, show me on that same sheet where -- where the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Where did her home go now? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where did it go? MS. FLANIGAN: That's my home. The circle-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, I'm sorry, you'll have to just hold off. You can't speak from the audience. We'll get you up here in just a second. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so now I see that over there. Now, right adjacent to that to the left is an area that you're intending to have as a drain field, a septic field? MR. LEWIS: A dry detention, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The septic field is below, though, is it not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's a preserve down at the bottom. Page 143 February 19,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Preserve is the bottom and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Drain -- there's a water management area in the middle and a septic to the top. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. LEWIS: We're going to put another drawing up here for you so you can see it. At the very top -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was happy with the other one. That's good. And I'm glad I got that qualification, because that was a concern I had. I had another question, and now it's gone from me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will come back. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe. With any luck. No, I think I've got the answer. The drain field, I think the septic field is far enough way for my concern originally. I'll pass now, because I can't remember the other question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we go into -- maybe we ought to ask Ms. Flanigan where she stands on this, since there's -- a lot of the issues were raised by her, and you have done a lot to try to work with her on this matter. So Ms. Flanigan, if you could come up and use the microphone and let us know your thoughts on this project, it would be helpful. MS. FLANIGAN: My name is Terese Flanigan, and I live at 3012 63rd Street Southwest. I was at 6490 Golden Gate Parkway, but with the expansion of I - 7 5, they built a road directly behind my house and so my address has changed. So some of the records for my taxes for the tract and that list me as 6490, but my official address right now is 3012. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FLANIGAN: I have the parcel that they had some questions. And the county was suggesting that they put a six-foot barrier wall there. And it would run right along the side of my Page 144 February 19,2009 driveway, and I was very opposed to that. I had some water issues. I thought that the septic field was pretty close to the proximity of my property, but they that said by law they have to maintain that it would never like contaminate my well. And they've assured me that part of their project would be to regularly check that that area is keeping me safe. Because I do have a family that lives with me, and I wouldn't want, you know, that water to contaminate. And then they also assured me that any change to the lay of the land wouldn't cause in a storm situation any kind of water coming onto my property. They said that with the hedge row and the way that they would have to put the berm there, that -- and where they have the water retention, that would be a grassed area, that it would, you know, solve the rain or, you know, provide enough drainage. And so I was satisfied with, you know, some of the things that they had agreed. And I said that I would be opposed to the project if it meant that I had to have a cement wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your preference is to undo the cement wall. And we'll do our best to see that that's followed through. Thank you very much. MS. FLANIGAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, does the wall become a requirement, or is it an option and can it be not put in place? MR. BELLOWS: I was discussing this with John-David earlier, and I believe the conditional use process can implement a new buffer wall or buffer without a wall treatment in lieu of the LDC required. It's not quite the same as a rezoning PUD process, but it is a buffer that can be installed in lieu of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so if we were to stipulate a preference that the buffer would be installed without the wall treatment along the east boundary line, that would make the point? MR. MOSS: I would suggest that it been an enhanced Type B Page 145 February 19,2009 buffer -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. MOSS: -- and possibly a chain link fence, unless the Planning Commission decides that they would like to just waive the requirement altogether. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see how a chain link fence helps anybody. They're as ugly as terrible. And I'm not sure you got anything you need to keep penned in over there. MR. MOSS: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't we just make it look as aesthetically pleasing as possible -- MR. MOSS: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and leave an enhanced Type B buffer without the wall. MR. MOSS: That's normally what we do when there's not a wall provided is a chain link fence with an enhanced Type B buffer. But if you want to waive the requirement for the fence, obviously we have no objection to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the Planning Commission have a concern? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. And how long would it take before that's totally opaque where she couldn't look through it? MR. MOSS: Gosh, I'm sorry. Ray, do you happen to know? MR. SCHMITT: Three years for it to grow. Three years. MR. MOSS: Mr. Submit thinks it takes approximately three years before there's -- what is it 100 percent opacity or is that 80 percent opacity, Joe? MR. SCHMITT: If I recall the LDC, it's whatever the stipulation is for height and opacity, it's a three-year req -- it's over a three-year period, that it has to reach that level within three years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in the meantime the whole building February 19,2009 that's being proposed is 250 plus feet from the property line and her house is still further east on the property, so she's -- the native vegetation and the actual vegetation that is there, quite a bit of it's going to stay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It looks like a preserve there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I think that's a pretty good buffer to begin with, plus you're going to enhance that with a Type B buffer that will have 80 percent opacity in three years. So I think that works. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more thing. She mentioned that you're going to put a berm down that property line? MR. McLEAN: I'm Matt McLean with ABB, for the record, the project engineer. Along with the location of the dry detention area, there will be a small low level berm that will run along that eastern property line to maintain our stormwater on site before we discharge through our hard control structure. So there will be a little berm that comes up a couple of feet there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Have you checked to make sure that she doesn't have any sheet flow that you'd be blocking with that? MR. McLEAN: Well, currently right now -- I'm going to step over here to the aerial photo. Her driveway runs right along the eastern property line, and we have taken a look at the existing topo elevation. Currently there is some sheet flow that does come from the eastern property line over to her property, but her roadway actually acts somewhat as a dam and kind of holds that water back as it comes across that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant, of staff, of anybody at this point? (No response.) Page 147 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. J.D., did you want to have any words of wisdom you want to throw in? MR. MOSS: I don't know about that. I did want to add something to the record, though. I spoke with Mr. Edwin Koert earlier this morning. Unfortunately he couldn't stay later for this hearing, but he did want me to add on the record that he was in support of it and so were numerous of his neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Ray, do we have any other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing. Discussion prior to a motion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask John. And after this gets -- let's assume it gets approved, are these properties then combined together, or are these still going to be two separate conditional uses? MR. MOSS: These three properties that are the subject of this application will be under one, and then the church itself will be under another. It's under the existing PU COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially that property line will maintain? MR. MOSS: They'll come in under one SDP when they do come m. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But will there be a unity of title to eliminate that property line? MR. MOSS: I'm not sure about that. No, I don't know. MR. LEWIS: We're happy to stipulate as a condition for the approval that we're coming in as a unified site development plan. That's our intent. We're happy to stipulate to that, that's what we're doing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the only reason I'm saying that is you'd have a nightmare of fire rating the side of that building if Page 148 February 19,2009 you didn't. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You love that fire stuff, don't you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I've always -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's good. I just get a kick out of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a living out of people that get caught with their pants down like that, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing. Prior to a motion, let me suggest to the motion maker, if the motion's for approval, there are three things that were discussed: The staff stipulations, but as amended and accepted here at the meeting; that the buffer on the eastern side will be without the wall treatment, and that it will be an enhanced Type B buffer without the fence; and that should they be coming in -- when they come in with an SDP, it will be coming in as a unified SDP. So with that, I'll seek a motion. Is there a motion on this particular application? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made a motion -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- subject to the stipulations I just mentioned. Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Same stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 149 February 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you all. Item #9F PETITION: ST-2008-AR-13958, NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT FIRE STATION CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item up on today's agenda is Petition ST-2008-AR-13958. That is the North Naples Fire Control District Fire Station on the east side of Livingston Road, .7 miles south of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. All those wishing to participate in this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. Anybody have any disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I spoke with Bruce Layman on the phone. We were going to have a meeting, but again, there was no reason to, so we didn't waste his applicant's money. Taxpayers money in this case. So Bruce, it's all yours. MR. LAYMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and counc -- or commission members, I'm sorry. My name is Bruce Layman, I'm a Page 150 February 19,2009 Senior Ecologist with Wilson-Miller, representing the Fire District this afternoon. Also here from our team are Allison Swanson from Wilson-Miller and Sal D'Angelo and Joe Hessling from the fire district. The project before you includes constructing a two-story fire department on 3.4 acres ofland, and it will have associated parking and water management. It's located about three quarters of a mile south of Mediterra on the east side of Livingston Road. It's currently zoned rural agriculture and this essential service is an allowed use within that zoning district. So the petition before you this afternoon is requesting approval to impact a special treatment area from the special treatment overlay. As you know, an ST area, or special treatment area, was originally meant to identify resources of environmental sensitivity or archeological significance that would otherwise warrant greater protection than is currently afforded in the LDC. In 1975, the two ST areas indicated here in yellow -- it looks like three, but the middle of one is missing -- they were established by ordinance, 13-E and 13-F. As you can see, the 13-E in the northeast extends into the parcel, as does the parcel-- or the ST area 13-F. What is evident from the northeastern one is these ST areas were originally meant to define the central core of cypress domes in this part of the world. The fire station site plan entirely preserves the portion of 13-E that extends into the parcel. However, it proposes to impact the portion of 13-F that extends into the parcel. As you can see on the visualizer, Livingston Road was built after the ST areas were originally established. And it was built right through the center of 13-F, leaving behind two triangular pieces of that original ST zone. Page 151 February 19,2009 The triangular portion that is inside the parcel of 13-F is composed of pine with scattered cypress, just like much of the other habitat regionally present that does not have ST zone placed around it. The most important part of this is that triangular piece is not composed of cypress that would otherwise indicate its ties to the resource that the ST was established to begin with, established to protect. Also, the project does not include any areas of archeological probability based on the county maps. And during the environmental resource permitting process, the State Division of Historic Resources had no objection to the proposed plan. So the question before you this afternoon is do any environmentally sensitive or archeologically significant resources exist within that triangular piece of ST 13-F? And we believe the answer is no. And we respectfully request your concurrence with that determination with the approval of our petition. Now, I'm available, as are any of our team, to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of the applicant on this particular matter? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So you just stated on the record that there are no cypress in this triangle portion? MR. LAYMAN: There are cypress trees there. It is not predominantly a cypress habitat. There are cypress trees in that triangular parcel, but they're as common elsewhere in all the other non-ST areas regionally. The cypress dome was essentially blitzed when they put Livingston Road through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to staff report. Page 152 February 19, 2009 Bruce, this is too easy now. MS. ARAQUE: Staff recommends approval of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to state your name, young lady. MS. ARAQUE: I'm sorry. Summer Araque, Environmental Services. Staff recommends approval of this petition, North Naples Fire Control District Special Treatment Permit 13958. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is your first time doing one of these? MS. ARAQUE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MS. ARAQUE: Usually these are done as part ofa PUD or rezone, so I don't usually have any reason to do these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't recall seeing you had made a staff presentation before, so short and to the point is well liked. So thank you. Are there any questions of staff on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many public speakers are there? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to recommend approval. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second. Is that subject to any staff stipulations? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Subject to all staff stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Second. Page 153 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Item #lOA OLD BUSINESS: LDC SIGN CODE REVISIONS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up -- and where is Catherine? We're going into old business. The LDC sign code revisions that need to be provided to us for our meeting on March 2nd and 3rd. Catherine's not here. Going once, going twice. This is dangerous, because we don't have enough time to read them if we don't get them. Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: She was here. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, for the record, Joe Schmitt. You've got the handout, the strike-through and underlined version. I thought she was coming today to hand them out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She told me yesterday she'd be here today to do that, plus she's on our agenda for an eight to 10-minute Page 154 February 19, 2009 Power Point presentation to review salient points of revisions and answer any questions. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. She indicated to me late yesterday that she would be working all morning getting all the packets prepared. There were some last-minute things she wanted to get fixed on there before handing them out today. I guess she was hoping the meeting would run a little longer. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How could it have ran longer? That would be a human impossibility. MR. BELLOWS: She indicated she would be here for the afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, all I'm saying is we have this meeting coming up on the 2nd, we need to get the strike-through version. The eight-minute Power Point presentation we can probably do on the 2nd. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I was just going to say, could we wait and just see where she is, take a quick break. And Ray, if she's coming, she's coming and -- MR. BELLOWS: I'll give her a call. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure we need a separate presentation. Why don't we just all do it in the same day and be done with it. This shouldn't take us two days to get through this. We don't have a lot of choice in what we're going to be dealing with. So we're going to listen to a fellow who's paid to be here and probably paid by the hour to talk for God knows how long, and then we're going to see a presentation, all telling us that we don't have much choice to do what we gotta do. Page 155 February 19,2009 So I'd just as soon we can do it on the 2nd. Does anybody have a problem with else (sic)? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: If that needs a motion, I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we don't need a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask Ray another question. Ray, you mentioned earlier that there's going to be two sign things coming through. This one is essentially expediting a fix on the issue of the mobile sign. Is there any other areas that are going to be opened up at this time? MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding that we are in the process of looking at section-by-section amendments to the LDC to fix, as finances allow us. We'll -- as part of this process of fixing the sign code in relation to the lawsuit, we will entertain other suggestions to make other amendments, but the primary purpose is to address the lawsuit. But at some point we are going to look at a comprehensive rewrite of the sign code, because it's quite dated and there's a lot of things that need to be brought up better. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason I'm asking, since I won't be here on the 2nd, could I -- I do have one thing I would like to suggest. Should I just mail that to the chairman and then he can bring it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, if you're going to suggest it to the Planning Commission, it would be better to mail it to staff so they can distribute it. Otherwise -- and I want to make sure we don't have any Sunshine issues. If it comes from staff, then I'm sure we don't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'll mail it to you, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Catherine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or Catherine. Okay. Thank you. Page 156 February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, new business? Nobody's here. Public comment? Nobody's here. Discussion of addenda. We don't need to do that. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion (sic) is adjourned. Tomorrow at 1 :00 at CDES, we will continue our fun with the RLSA. Page 157 February 19, 2009 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:45 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 158 CITY Ai' /1/ L--td COUNT{ ,( ,;c t.' C / tf"/Z..- NA....,E OF BOARD. C. QUNCIL, COMM\S~l~ A~ORI1}. OR COMMITTES / c.',/?,lf/IC/ /""(/ C(1/7?,A>-/J'J,,';,p/ THE BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 SERVE IS A UNIT OF: -" ~ o CITY 0 COUr-IT'( NAME OF POUTI 5tle0\V1SI0N: o OTHE~ LOCAL AGENCY DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED ;j. MY POSITION IS. o E~ECT\V o APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level 01 government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members 01 advisory and non.advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict 01 interest under Section 112.3143. Fiorida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you ha'le a conllict of Interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive posilion. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this lorm before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, mUnicipal, or other local public clllce MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local oHicer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea. sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or sc,e is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which roe or she is retained): to the special private gain or loss 01 a relative: or to the special private gain or loss 01 a business associate. Commissioners 01 community rede'Je'opment agencies uneer Sec. 163.356 or 163357, F.S, and ollicers 01 ,ndependent special ta-x districts elected on a one.aGe. one.vote basIs are not prohibited Irom voting in that capacity. For purposes 01 thiS law, a "relative" includes only tr,e officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wile, brother, sister, lather"n'le','J, mother.in.law, son.in.law, and daughter.in-Iaw. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged In or carr/'ng on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, jOint venturer, com'mer 01 property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stack exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conllict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Allhough you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otheMise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conllict before making any attempt to inlluence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT"TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You must complete and file this lorm (before making any attempt to inlluence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes 01 the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) PAGE 1 _ _~ ....~\1 110n APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATIEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISiON EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You must disclose orally the nature or your conflict in the measure before participating. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vole occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy or Ihe form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. 1,~P6;er // . '/L.' -. t/.. -1 I ," 7, hereby disclose that on DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST Fc.(3 /p ,;.( 00 7 ,1--9-_: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss: inured to the special gain or loss of my business assiJciate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative. inured to the special gain or Joss of whom I am retained; or , by inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agenoy and the nalure 01 my oonll'o:,ng interest in the meaSure is as tollo":,5: ..L ' . - ~"v' ..,... :i'..>'" t':c~J;G' 7' /~'C'R/',-:?"-' C/7'-/Lc:Af/' c7/ LijVC:::/V'/ . '/J. A'>:>~_' c., , which rPe///><>''t/ #- /j{,/~"2 6-" ;< C!(;? /;2 Cl Y ? After consultation with the County Attorney, I abstained from voting on the above matter pursuant toSectioii'28. Florida Statutes, which provides that "no member of any state, county, or municipal governmental board, eommission or ag cy who is present at any meeting of such body at which an official decision, ruling or other official a,t-isto be taken or ad ed may abstain from voting. , . except when, with respect to any such member, there is or appears to be;.-a possible con . rest under the provisions of I 12J.31 I S.112.313, or S.112.3143. In such cases, said member sh.all?l. mply with Osure re uirements of S.112.3143." / / ~. .:.- ::<'/~/7 L" /~ Date Filed / ~.- fl.L /. .'/ . . / ~t/='6-.eT" ';/cr-< /..,//~/ NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REOUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: 'MPEACHMENT~ REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 CE FORM 8S . REV. t/98 PAGE 2