CCPC Minutes 05/07/2009 R
May 7, 2009
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
May 7, 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 (Absent)
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David J. Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Susan Istenes, Zoning Director
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2009, IN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRA nON BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.
INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZA nON OR
GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE 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 I 0 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS
INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRIA TE 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.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 19,2009, APRIL 2,2009
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - APRIL 28,2009
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition BD-2009-AR-14138, Hussein Wafapoor represented by Joshua Maxwell of Turrell, Hall and
Associates, Inc., requesting a 10-foot Boat Dock Extension over the maximum 20-foot limit as provided in
section 5.03.06 of the LDC to allow a 30-foot dock facility to accommodate one vessel. Subject property
is located at 140 Conners Avenue, legally described as Lot 22, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit
No.3, Section 28, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ashley Caserta)
B. Petition: Petition: V A-2009-AR-14139, Hussein Wafapoor represented by Joshua Maxwell of Turrell,
Hall and Associates, Inc., is requesting a variance from Section 5.03.06 E.6. to reduce a required side yard
setback of 7.5 feet for a dock facility to 4.5 feet (along the northwest riparian line) and to 0 feet (along the
southwest riparian line). The subject property is located at 140 Conners Avenue, Section 28, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP)
1
C. Petition: PE-2008-AR-14071 Sandbanks LLC, represented by Michael R. Fernandez, AICP of Planning
Development Incorporated is requesting a Parking Exemption pursuant to Land Development Code
Subsection 4.05.02.K, to allow onsite parking on the contiguous 0.69 acres located at 3114 and 3126 N.
Tamiami Trail of Residential zoned land all under common ownership. More than 67 percent (132 of the
195 spaces) of the required parking are located within the commercial zoned portion of the parcel. Subject
property is located in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Melissa Zone)
D. Petition: PUDA-2008-AR-13801, William L. Hoover, President of Catalina Land Group, Inc. the
Manager of Wolf Creek Estates LLC and Buckstone Estates LLC; and Larry Mayer Abbo, Vice President
of Prime Homes at Portofino Falls, Ltd., all of which are represented by William L. Hoover, AICP of
Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. and Richard Y ovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman et al and Josh
Fruth of Davidson Engineering, Inc. are requesting a PUD Amendment for Wolf Creek RPUD to revise
traffic stipulations. The applicant is proposing to change Section 5.7, Paragraph N and Paragraph o of the
RPUD Document. Subject property is located on 167.96:i: acres in Section 34, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP)
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: SV-2009-AR-14140, Red Roof Inn, represented by Brent Forte of Site Enhancement Services,
Inc. is requesting four Sign Variances from LDC Section 5.06.04. The first variance is from Subsection
5.06.04 c.1. which requires a minimum separation of 1,000-foot between signs to allow 262:i: feet between
signs. The second variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 c.I.a. which allows a 15-foot high sign to allow a
23-foot high sign. The third variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 C. I.c. which allows a sign area of 80
square feet to allow a sign area of 96:i: square feet. The fourth variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 CA
which permits one wall sign to allow an additional wall sign. The subject property is located at 1925
Davis Boulevard, in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Nancy Gundlach, AICP)
B. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13245, Collier County through its Solid Waste Management Department,
represented by David Deans of PBS & J, is requesting Conditional Uses within the Rural Agricultural
Zoning District within the North Belle Meade Overlay and Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMU)
Overlay for Sending Areas to allow 1) a "Collection and Transfer Site for Resource Recovery," pursuant to
Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 2.03.01.A.I.c.12; and 2) "Public Facilities,
including Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Facility" and "Public Vehicle and Equipment Storage and
Repair Facilities" pursuant to LDC Section 2.03.08.AA.a.(3)(b) of the RFMU District for a project to be
known as the Resource Recovery Park. The subject property, consisting of approximately 341 acres, is
located approximately 1.5 miles east of Collier Boulevard and 1 mile north of White Lake Boulevard,
in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem,
AICP)
C. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13679, Edward Larson of Messiah Lutheran Church Inc., represented by
Dwight Nadeau of RW A, Inc., is requesting a Conditional Use in the Estates (E) Zoning District to expand
an existing church and to add an accessory child day care center, pursuant to Subsection 2.03.0 1.B. I.c. I of
the Land Development Code. The S.15-acre subject property is located at 5800 Golden Gate Parkway in
Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss,
AICP)
2
D. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-6829, Collier Davis, LLC, represented by Robert Andrea of Coastal
Engineering Consultants, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) zoning district to the Mixed Use
Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Davis Reserve
MPUD. The project is proposing a maximum of 286 dwelling units and a maximum of 35,000 square feet
of commercial/office uses. An Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement is proposed for this
development that will set aside 20 percent of the units as Affordable Workforce Housing Units (57
dwelling units) for a bonus density of 5.0 dwelling units per acre. The subject property, consisting of
22.83 acres, is to be located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Davis Boulevard and
County Barn Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP)
E. Petition: PUDZ-2008-AR-12804, Avow Hospice Inc., represented by Tim Hancock, AICP, of Davidson
Engineering Inc., requesting a PUD Rezone from Community Facility (CF) and Agricultural (A) Zoning
Districts with a Waterfront Special Treatment Overlay to a Community Facility Planned Use Development
(CFPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as Avow Hospice CFPUD. The 15.25:i: acres subject
property is for the expansion of the existing Hospice use. The subject property is south of Pine Ridge
Road at 1095 Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18, Township 49 South and Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone)
10. OLD BUSINESS
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
5/7/09 eepe Agenda/Ray Bellows/cr
3
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to
the May 7th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
If you'll all rise to be -- not to be sworn in, but to pledge
allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if the secretary will please make
the roll call.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman, you just showed
up.
MR. EASTMAN: Here. Yes.
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 here.
Commissioner Murray is absent.
Commissioner Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here, present.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray's absence will be an
Page 2
May 7, 2009
excused absence. He had other business. He notified us, so
everything's fine there.
Addenda to the agenda.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did.
I'm going to ask for a letter of support for something from the
health department for a Smart Growth grant they're going for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you want to put that on new
business?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would like to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mulhere, before the meeting you
mentioned you may have an issue on the agenda that you want to talk
about?
MR. MULHERE: Good morning. Yes, for the record, Bob
Mulhere, representing Collier County in the Research Recovery Park
conditional use.
I'm not sure the agenda item.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's Item B, 9.B.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. We'd like to ask for a two-week
continuance. We've got a couple of issues that we'd like to try to work
out before we come back to you. I don't want to specify what they are
on the record here, but we'd like to try to resolve a few issues and then
come back to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We normally grant such requests.
Anybody have any problem with that?
(N 0 response.)
Page 3
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just have a motion for a
continuance of two weeks to Petition CU-2008-AR --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 13245.
Made by Mr. Wolfley. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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: Thank you, Bob.
For the members of the audience, the Collier County Solid
Waste application for the resource recovery facility north of 1-75 near
Golden Gate Estates, that will not be heard today. It's been continued
until the 21 st of May.
So if anybody's here for that particular one, we will not be
hearing that today. However, if you are here and you can't make it on
the 21 st and you need to speak today, we can certainly accommodate
your ability to do that. If there's anybody in that position, please let me
know by raising your hands.
Okay, then the 21 st of May is when that one will be heard.
Any other changes to the agenda?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing I'd like to mention. Our next
Page 4
May 7, 2009
meeting is the 21 st. Does anybody here know if they're not going to
make it at that meeting?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looks like we'll have a quorum.
Everybody's here.
Planning Commission absences. That's what I just asked about
and we don't have any.
Ray, on our new schedule that we just received, I thought we
had on June 2nd a sign ordinance meeting. It's not on this schedule. Is
it still on June 2nd we're going to have that?
MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes, Zoning Director.
Yes, that is currently scheduled for June 2nd. I apologize it's not
on the calendar.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was for here in this meeting
room at 8:30?
MS. ISTENES: To the best of my recollection, yes. I'll check
and confirm that later. But it's definitely the 2nd.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 19, 2009 REGULAR
MEETING~ APRIL 2, 2009 REGULAR MEETING
Minutes. We have two sets of minutes that were distributed
electronically. First one is dated March 19th, 2009. Is there a motion
to recommend approval or any changes?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti motioned to approve.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak.
Page 5
May 7, 2009
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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 8-0.
The second packet was April 2nd, 2009. Is there a motion to
approve?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti again.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak second.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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?
Page 6
May 7, 2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
I don't know what to do about Tom sometimes.
BCC report and recaps.
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - APRIL 28, 2009, REGULAR
MEETING
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners met
on April 28th. They approved the PUD amendment to Longshore
Lakes by a vote of 4-1, subject to the Collier County Planning
Commission recommendations.
They also heard the PUD rezone for the Mirasol amendment,
and that was approved 4-1.
And on the summary agenda, the board approved the variance
for the buffer requirements for the McDonald's restaurant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Were all the approvals, including
our stipulations, on all the projects; do you know?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's -- any time if you happen to
catch any points, Ray, where they don't agree with our stipulations, it
would sure be nice to point those out to us so we know what direction
they're going in.
MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, it's been pointed out to me that
the item was on the summary agenda but it was pulled and continued.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one is that?
MS. ISTENES: McDonald's.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was pulled and continued?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
Page 7
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody know why? That seemed
like a pretty easy --
MR. BELLOWS: I think one of the commissioners had a
question or concern, and the applicant decided they wanted to address
it before going back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
Okay, Chairman's report. I have one item. I want to thank the
people in the recording office for the, I guess part breakfast that they
provided to us this morning. We appreciate it. Thank you very much
people up there, you certainly do a good job. And whoever's that home
cook, they do a great job of cooking, too.
Item #8A
PETITION: BD-2009-AR-14138, HUSSEIN WAFAPOOR
Consent agenda items. Moving into our first petition for consent
is Item 8.A. Its companion item is 8.B. First one is
BD-2009-AR-14138, and it's a dock extension at 140 Conner's Ave.
Does anybody have any problems with the submission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend
approval of consent agenda Item 8.A?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron.
Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.)
Page 8
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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 8-0.
Item #8B
PETITION: VA-2009-AR-14139. HUSSEIN WAFAPOOR
The second petition is the companion to that one. It's a variance
2009-AR-14139 and it's for the side yard setback changes.
Any changes -- or any recommendations, corrections on this
one?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Ms. --
MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. BELLOWS: I do believe there is a correction staff is going
to make on the -- unless you got the revised one. But the one I had,
Page 9
May 7, 2009
there was an incorrect setback for the northern riparian line, and we
are making that correction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you tell us -- show us where
it is.
Ms. Caron, you're going to hold your motion until this is
clarified?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, absolutely.
MR. BELLOWS: It currently says the resolution of the Board of
Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition No.
V A-2009-AR-14139 for a variance from the Land Development Code,
Section 503.06.E6, to permit or reduce side yard riparian setback from
seven and a half feet. And it says in the version I have 4.5 feet, and it
really should be 3.0.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The diagrammatic works, that's
what I reviewed.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we got the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thanks. That's a technical
question. Thank you, Ray, appreciate it.
MR. BELLOWS: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that correction, is there still a
motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
Page 10
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Item #8C
PETITION: PE-2008-AR-1407L SANDBANKS, LLC
Next one is a petition, again consent, PE-2008-AR-14071,
Sandbanks, LLC. It's for a project on North Tamiami Trail.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnone, is there a motion to recommend
approval based on consent?
Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the motion.
Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Page 11
May 7, 2009
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Item #8D
PETITION: PUDA-2008-AR-13801, WOLF CREEK ESTATES,
LLC
And the last consent item is Petition PUDA-2008-AR-13801,
William Hoover on Wolf Creek Estates. Modification on 167.96-acre
section.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak, ladies first, Mr. Vigliotti
second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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?
Page 12
May 7, 2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
And Cherie', I'm going too fast. I'm sorry, I wanted to get
through consent.
Okay, now we get down to the meat of the meeting. We'll get
into our advertised public hearings.
Item #9A
PETITION: SV-2009-AR-14140. RED ROOF INN
The first petition on today's advertised public hearings is Petition
SV-2009-AR-14140, and it's the Red Roof Inn at 1925 Davis
Boulevard, for sign variances.
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: Disclosures on the part of the Planning
Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't look like there have been any,
so the applicant, you might proceed with your presentation, please.
MR. CLEMENTS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Kyle Clements. I'm with Site Enhancement Services. We're
here on behalf of the Red Roof Inn at 1925 Davis Boulevard.
With me is the general manager of the hotel, Dawn Hughes.
We are here today respectfully requesting the use on the sign
variance for three signs: Two wall signs and one freestanding sign at
our site.
As you can see, the freestanding sign, it would be culled out as
sign C. Sign A and B are the wall signs. Currently there are two wall
signs and one freestanding sign existing at the property. Red Roof Inn
Page 13
May 7, 2009
is going through a national re-branding, hence the request.
And for both of the wall signs we're going to be decreasing the
total amount of square footage quite significantly. And the
freestanding sign, we'd like to maintain the same size and height, but
just essentially reface it with the new branding image.
One of the issues that we're here today is because there is an
IHOP that is located on the same parcel as the Red Roof Inn and it
requires a 1,000-foot separation between freestanding signs.
Currently the IHOP sign is located here and about 254 feet away
from our Red Roof Inn sign, so we require a variance to allow for both
signs to exist on the property.
As you can see, there's no way that we could meet the 1,000-foot
requirement. So without the approval of that variance, Red Roof Inn
would not be allowed to have its own freestanding sign, which would
be very detrimental to the business and to people's ability to find the
entrance.
We've done some overlays to show the sign that is currently out
there with the Red Roof Inn, the old logo implemented in the mid-
nineties. And here we are showing the new logo with the accent roof
marker and the new letter set that will be implemented nationwide.
The signage is just one part of kind of a changeover for Red Roof Inn
to kind of update to kind of a new brand and a new image.
The sign that's currently there is 34 square foot. Our request is to
drop that sign to 22 square feet or reduce the sign by about 11 and a
half square feet.
On the side elevation here, on the western elevation, we
currently have a sign that is about 235 square feet, again, the old letter
set.
Weare proposing to utilize the new logo at 108 square feet or
reduce that side sign by 126 or 127 square feet. So again, some
significant reductions in the wall signs.
And again, the freestanding sign, we would like simply to utilize
Page 14
May 7, 2009
what's currently there; not increase it in any way, just simply reface
using the new letter set. So there would be no change.
So kind of to give you a breakdown: What's currently at the site,
364.95 square feet of signage. Our request coming to you today would
reduce that number all the way down to 226 square feet, or
approximately a reduction of 138 square feet, or reduce the overall
signage by about 38 percent at the site.
Now, looking at what code currently allows for: Code allows for
one wall sign at 200 square feet max, and a freestanding sign at 15 feet
in height and 80 square feet, or 280 square feet.
So again, our request coming in at 226 square feet, we're
actually 53 square feet under what code allows. We're just asking to
allocate it in a slightly different manner.
And the main reason that we are here for the freestanding sign is
because our building is set so far off of Davis, there's really no way
that we can implement wall signage to be used as a building
identification tool. We're set back over 170 feet from Davis, and we're
only three stories tall. Unlike the Fairfield that's next to us that's five
stories, they can put a large building sign and be seen. We can't do
that.
Here's the sign on eastbound Davis. As you can see, this is taken
from a driver's perspective. There's trees blocking it everywhere,
there's a road sign here. You cannot even see the Red Roof Inn sign at
its current size and height.
So we understand that we won't be gaining any visibility from
eastbound Davis, but westbound Davis, this is currently what's there.
And I apologize, with the sun in the way a little bit. But again, this is
from the driver's perspective. You can see the -- there's Capital Pawn
Shop sign right here. And then here's the Red Roof Inn sign.
So you can still see the sign on westbound Davis; however, if
we're forced to come into compliance we're going to have to drop that
sign eight feet and shrink it by about 15 square feet.
Page 15
May 7, 2009
As you can see from the photographs, that sign's going to be
completely blocked. So because of the site setback, the buildings that
block our hotel and coming into compliance with all the landscaping
and the other signs in the area, without this variance the Red Roof Inn
would be essentially completely invisible to people along Davis and
Tamiami Drive.
So we're here requesting that we be allowed to essentially just
reface our signs, shrink the signage that's currently there, but
implement it in a manner so that people can still safely navigate and
find our hotel.
So at this time I'm more than happy to answer any questions that
the board may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of the applicant?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. On the pylon sign--
MR. CLEMENTS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you have a red background
with white lettering.
MR. CLEMENTS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you also have a version of
that with a white background and the red lettering?
MR. CLEMENTS: I don't believe so, because it's -- the logo
itself is a federally registered trademark, as well as the colors. So the
registered trademark is red on white -- I'm sorry, white on red.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But on the building you're
going to be red on white-ish beige?
MR. CLEMENTS: Yes. When it comes to freestanding signs,
they implement it in one way, wall signs are implemented in another.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're not available to
reverse the color on the pylon?
MR. CLEMENTS: I don't believe that that is something that we
can do at this time. It's something that we could check into. We'd have
Page 16
May 7, 2009
to check with Red Roof Inn headquarters and see what implications
that has through marketing, through different registered trademarks,
but that's something that hasn't been implemented in Red Roof Inns
nationwide as of yet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll hear from
staff. Thank you.
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a different context for you.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, something different.
Ray Bellows.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This must be a very serious one. We've
not taken this one serious enough, I guess, huh?
MR. BELLOWS: No, no.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ray, how many hats do you
have today?
MR. BELLOWS: Just two.
F or the record, Ray Bellows, Department of Zoning and Land
Development Review. I'm filling in for Nancy Gundlach today who
couldn't attend today's meeting.
The applicant has done an excellent job explaining the variances
to you, so I won't go into any more detail.
I think what I'd like to do is just talk about staff
recommendation. And staff recommendation, we are supporting the
wall signs. However, we are not supporting the size increase -- or
retaining the same size pole sign. It's staffs opinion we're in a
redevelopment area and that the large sign is not in keeping with what
is being intended for that redevelopment area. It has a good visibility.
And I do have a sign -- or a little better photograph to show you.
Page 1 7
May 7, 2009
Not much better.
When -- I discussed this with Nancy. The sign appears to be
visible from a certain distance. And as the applicant showed, further
out it's hard to see, but it's hard to see any sign along Davis Boulevard.
What we're trying to do is make the signs a little more conforming in
size within the general keeping of reducing the blighted kind of look
of large signage above and beyond the code requirements.
One of the things that we're trying to do is when redevelopment
occurs in this area is bring them into conformance wherever possible.
I'll be happy to answer any other questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I had a question, Ray.
Part of the problem here for these people is the IHOP sign. Why
is it that these out-parcels even had monument signs granted to them
in the beginning? I mean, it would have seemed logical that the people
from in behind needed the signage, not the person sitting on the street.
MR. BELLOWS: Are you referring to the pole sign for IHOP?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. BELLOWS: I did have Nancy check and there was a
building permit pulled and issued for the IHOP sign, so I assume that
they as an out-parcel are allowed their pole sign.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just -- because we have these
separations and we have -- obviously nobody looked at this except in
isolation here, once again.
MR. BELLOWS : Well, this is an older sign that may have been
before that 1,OOO-foot separation.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
Mr. Schiffer, and Mr. Wolfley after that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, the concept of out-parcel,
and this is essential one parcel. The two buildings, one is the IHOP,
Page 18
May 7, 2009
one is the -- so don't we look at this thing in kind of a unified sign
planning, or --
MR. BELLOWS: Well, these are all signs that date back over
15, 20 years, and prior to the current sign code requirements, and so
they're preexisting nonconforming in that regard.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But if we were doing this
project today, we would want all the signs on that one site --
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- unified together --
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and working together.
Okay, so in the consideration of these signs, we totally ignore
the existing IHOP sign?
MR. BELLOWS: That's the purpose of one of the variances, to
get the distance separation. So it's not totally ignored, but it's a
preexisting nonconforming sign that has a valid building permit for
that sign, so it's allowed to remain.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I can appreciate your picture
here, but the other one really shows a more -- a real picture. When
you're looking for a Red Roof Inn and, you know, not necessarily
looking at addresses but looking for the sign, that pawn shop really
does block it.
MR. BELLOWS: I agree. And I drove it myself just to see, when
I knew I was going to be filling in for Nancy. It is a little bit more
difficult to see.
But as the photograph tries -- we tried to convey with this
photograph, the closer you get, you are able to see the sign rather well.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, which may cause cars to
immediately -- because the driveway's right there to get to it. And my
concern is that for the sake of traffic flow and not slamming on brakes
Page 19
May 7, 2009
that -- you know, I'm more in agreement with the Red Roof Inn, with
all due respect. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, the only reason that they're in here
for this sign variance on this one in front is because they're changing
the copy; is that right?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they weren't changing the copy,
they wouldn't have to come and that sign could stay up there forever.
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the copy I think is an improvement,
based on what I'm seeing. And they're also reducing the size of the
signs on the building itself, which is a plus.
So my perspective, I think we're gaining on this. Even with the
granting of the variance, we're still ahead. So -- and I personally don't
see a problem with it, but that's my thoughts.
MR. BELLOWS: I understand what you're saying. And I think
staff debated the issue at length. And you're right. You know --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys got to stick to the --
MR. BELLOWS: -- an existing sign. But we also were thinking
that we are trying to improve the area in here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I also know that's best, to adhere to
the confinements of the code and make the recommendations pursuant
to that. But a variance is something that is up for review by this board,
so we have more latitude maybe than you have. So --
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any other
comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers?
Oh, Ms. Caron.
Page 20
May 7, 2009
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one thing. The sign A on the
side of the building, when I did my drive-by and drove by both ways,
I'm not sure that anybody can even see that sign from the road. You
certainly can't see it -- I mean, it looks like you can see it here, but
when you're out on Davis making that turn to head toward the Red
Roof Inn --
MR. BELLOWS: I agree, it is difficult --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- you see trees.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I agree.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't see anything on that
side. I'm not sure why we even have it there. I mean, why wouldn't
they just save the money.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the document I thought it was
internal direction more than anything else.
MR. CLEMENTS: Obviously the wall signs are all for internal
direction. It's a very complex corridor. There's a couple of different
restaurants, couple different hotels. So all the building signs are so that
once you're kind of in the complex you can identify the building.
That's really what they're there for.
COMMISSIONER CARON: There's no way to get lost on your
site. You drive in by the IHOP and you're right there. I mean --
MR. CLEMENTS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- there's no place to go.
MR. CLEMENTS: Once you enter the actual site, there's really
no way to get lost. But what it helps people do, is a lot of people are
coming at night. They want to be able to -- it establishes right where
the office is. So people see a sign, they know that's where the main
entrance is, so it's something that helps people with directional in that
COMMISSIONER CARON: Sign A helps -- is by the office?
MR. CLEMENTS: The office is right below it. Right here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Sign A?
Page 21
May 7, 2009
MR. CLEMENTS: Yes, ma'am. Let me make sure. Yeah, sign
A, right here on the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's B.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's B.
MR. CLEMENTS: I'm sorry, I apologize. I have a different
rendering.
There we go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're not so bad after all.
MR. CLEMENTS: I was like -- so, no, I apologize.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, sign B.
MR. CLEMENTS: And honestly, we feel that with dropping all
the wall signs under the 200 square feet, it's something that we've
worked hard to stay within the intent of the code. But in all honesty, if
-- the freestanding sign is obviously paramount for us. It's obviously
the most important.
So if the board felt that for whatever reason that sign -- the west
wall sign was overkill for whatever reason, we would be more than
happy to look at other alternatives for that sign, if we can just please
keep our same size freestanding sign.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The relationship with Red Roof
and IHOP is in other places, correct? This is not the only site that has
IHOP sitting with a Red Roof; is that true or not?
MR. CLEMENTS: I'd have to ask the general manager to speak
on that.
MS. HUGHES: Good morning. We actually --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to identify yourself for the
record, please.
MS. HUGHES: I'm Dawn Hughes. I'm the general manager of
the Red Roof Inn there on Davis Boulevard.
Page 22
May 7,2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. HUGHES: We actually own the building but lease it to the
IHOP.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially it's the food for
the hotel.
Did you ever think of combining your sign with the IHOP sign
so you did have one sign on the site?
MS. HUGHES: Not to my knowledge, no.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
MS. HUGHES: But that could be a possibility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
MS. ISTENES: May I make a comment?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MS. ISTENES: I appreciate you bringing that up, because I
think that is an ideal situation to resolve the problem. Weare always
looking to try to in these redevelopment areas find opportunities to
bring things back to code, the current code. Otherwise, why bother, we
might as well apply the code 15 or 20 years ago, which is essentially
what you're doing.
So maybe that's an opportunity they would be willing to explore
and we could maybe see some benefit to that as far as the intent of the
code and be able to recommend approval.
I'm not promising, but I certainly would be willing to explore it
from staffs perspective.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the location of the IHOP
sign would prevent your pawn shop from blocking you. So maybe --
you know, I would be more favorable to the size in the IHOP location
than I am what you're trying to do today.
MS. HUGHES: Ifwe combine the IHOP and the Red Roof, then
the Red Roof would not be at the main entrance.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There you go.
MS. ISTENES: But you could have a directional, a small
Page 23
May 7, 2009
directional sign by code at the driveway to assist with that.
MS. HUGHES: We do have a small directional there at the main
entrance, but it's not seen because of the bushes.
MS. ISTENES: It could be relocated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, you'd be already past the
driveway at that point is my thing.
And let me just talk about what's up there. The west facing
signage I think to me is critical. I mean, it is branding, and that which
would then be visible from Tamiami Trail. And I don't see an issue at
all with keeping that branded sign on the west side. Besides, it's facing
their competition, so --
MR. CLEMENTS: And pointing out the directional, we do have
this photograph as well. And as you can see here, there is the
directional sign currently -- currently we do have the directional sign
that is placed right here next to the tree.
And as a condition of the approval, as staff has recommended,
we're out of -- it's only about a five-foot setback right now. Code
requires 10 foot. So we would have to set that further back in within
all the landscaping. And as part of the condition of staffs approval we
agreed to remove that sign, because we wouldn't need a directional
sign being able to utilize the exact same sign, the size that's currently
there, just re- facing it. We feel that that monument sign would give us
the visibility at our main entrance, which is very much needed for
patrons to, you know, safely identify the site, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers, other than the applicants.
MS. HUGHES: I would like to mention one more thing, if I
may, please.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
Page 24
May 7, 2009
MS. HUGHES: Being the general manager there for five years
now, we are constantly called, where are you located. And we have to
use the Capital Pawn sign and the IHOP sign as reference. And as a
couple of you did mention, there goes our branding.
And if we combined the IHOP sign with the Red Roof Inn sign, I
mean, yes, we do have a business relationship, but we'd like to
separate ourselves as a hotel with that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Separate brand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll comment on that. I mean, I
actually do support working with staff to bring all the signs in
compliance. The fact that what you just said there shows that your
location for the existing sign's not that good if you still have to point it
out to everybody.
MS. HUGHES: But to update it with the colors and the scheme
that we have, it could and will be visible more from Davis Boulevard.
MR. CLEMENTS: And honestly, sir, there's -- and I apologize, I
put all the photographs away. With the -- we need to be at our main
entrance so the people can identify our main entrance.
Also, with the amount of landscaping and all the trees along
there, there's not a better location. If you drive up and down the
corridor, either the IHOP sign's blocked -- honestly, the Fairfield Inn
sign is blocked because of the amount of trees as well.
This is -- there's not a great location. This is the best location,
because it gives you westbound visibility to Davis and also keeps you
out of the tree line as well. So that's something that we're trying to do.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments from the
Planning Commission, questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything -- no further from the public,
Page 25
May 7, 2009
Ray?
We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a
recommendation for approval approving both variances, even though
staff recommended to disapprove one. Again, I'm going to approve
both variances.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your motion is to make
recommendation for approval, but not using staffs recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: There are four variances, aren't
there?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Four variances. He said two.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti is recommending approval
of all four variances --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but not incorporating staffs
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that correct, Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Now, is there any discussion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair, if I strongly
disapprove of one of the variances, do I vote no for this and then --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to you, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- pull it off of the summary
agenda?
Page 26
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I can't -- I think if we take them
one at a time and they end up with the two and not the one that they
need, then I'm not sure that they've gotten anything out of it. So either
way, it may not be beneficial for them.
MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. BELLOWS: I'd also like clarification on the motion.
There's also an additional item number one below which talks about
the directional sign E. So it's -- that was being requested to be
removed by transportation department. That is basically this --
transportation has asked for this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the other recommendation by
staff -- staff had recommended acceptance of the first and fourth
variance, but not the second and third.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the second thing that staff had
recommended was the removal of the directional sign.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mr. Vigliotti, your motion included a
variance approval for all four variances. Would you accept the
recommendation to remove the directional sign?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I recommend approval for
all requested.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The directional sign isn't part of the
variance, it's a separate issue. This number one isn't part of the
variance request, it's a separate issue that came up in reviewing the
variance request. So basically they're saying, and the applicant has
agreed, that he would remove that sign.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine then, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, you got any problem with
that?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I don't.
Page 27
May 7, 2009
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Sorry for the confusion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, back to the question.
Mr. Klatzkow, this is applied for as one variance, variance
number 14140. There's four categories to it, but it's applied for as one
.
vanance.
Is there -- what's your thoughts on breaking it up?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm trying to think what I would do if I was
representing the Red Roof Inn on this one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably go to another county.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, but that's where I'm coming from on
this. Yes, you can vote for these separately, I'm okay with that. But I
will tell you that if I'm representing the Red Roof Inn and you give me
my other three variances and say no to the big sign, I just keep the big
sign as it is, and I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I kind of was heading in that same
direction. I think that there's -- no matter what way we look at it, this
is an improvement, both on the walls of the building and on the copy
on the big sign. And I think it's real difficult to expect an applicant to
tear down a large sign to put a smaller one in, just because they
changed the copy, and in essence they really improved the copy.
So I don't see any problem with the motion as made, and I'm
certainly going to support it.
Brad, does that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, I'm -- I mean,
just the fact that they had to add this entry sign means the sign in its
present location isn't working. The changing of the branding is not
going to change the impact of that sign. If anything, it might even
make it less visible because the letters are smaller.
So unfortunately one out of the four I'm going to vote no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Since we're asked to
express the reasons we go for a denial of staff recommendation, would
Page 28
May 7, 2009
the -- would the one thing in the proposition please identify what
would be the reasons we're denying the staffs recommendation?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will you ask him to provide that?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Beg your pardon?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who did you ask to provide that
information?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Whoever made the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, we're recommending -- no, no,
we're not -- we don't have to recommend why we're denying staffs
recommendation. We're recommending a motion to approve the
request. But we're not incorporating staffs recommendation into that
approval.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anybody else have any comments,
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With all that, we'll call for the vote. All
in favor -- I think we'd better do this by a show of hands as well --
signify by saying aye and raise your hand.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess it's going to be -- let me
vote yes so it stays on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, which way do you vote?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes.
Page 29
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's unanimous, 8-0, motion carries.
Thank you all.
MR. CLEMENTS: Thank you very much for your time,
gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Our next petition would have been CU-2008-AR-13245. That
was continued. I'll just say that again. So if anybody came in late,
that's the Solid Waste Management Department's Resource Recovery
Facility that's been continued to May 21 st.
Item #9C
PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13679, MESSIAH LUTHERAN
CHURCH~ INC.
So the next petition up is CU-2008-AR-13679. It's the Messiah
Lutheran Church at 5800 Golden Gate Parkway.
All those wishing to participate in this hearing, please rise to be
sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning
Commission.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had -- Mr. Nadeau called me. I think
he called me, or e-mailed me. But I had a conversation, I told him I'd
try to get back to him if I had any concerns. Since I was on vacation
last week, I didn't get the time I needed to get back to him.
I did talk to Bob Mulhere and asked him to relay my concerns to
Mr. Nadeau, which were to do with the child care and the variance
request, along the lines of staffs comments. So we'll discuss that more
today for sure.
Okay, with that, Mr. Nadeau, it's all yours.
Page 30
May 7, 2009
MR. NADEAU: I had to run up the stairs, Commissioner. Bear
with me to get my stuff together here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Elevator not working?
MR. NADEAU: Oh, the elevator was working. Mr. Mulhere
failed to let me know he was going to request a continuance this
.
mornIng.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He did that on purpose.
MR. NADEAU: As of 6:00 last night he told me no, we're going
forward, so --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I see, he failed.
MR. NADEAU: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
my name's Dwight Nadeau, I'm planning manager for RW A. And I'm
very happy to represent Messiah Lutheran Church this morning for
this conditional use 2007 -AR-13679 (sic).
I was hoping to have a transportation consultant here with me
this morning. He apparently didn't get word that the meeting was
moving forward quicker than we thought.
We do have Pastor Tony in the audience, and he may offer any
answers to questions that you may have.
The project requests a conditional use for the expansion of the
existing church facilities. The subject property is zoned Estates, had
an original provisional use at that time, now known as conditional use
PU764C, which permitted the church and place of worship.
The existing church facility is on a S.lS-acre parcel and has a
seating capacity of 80 persons in the congregation.
The expansion is proposed to construct a new sanctuary
building. It will accommodate a seating capacity of 300 parishioners.
And additional church related buildings, multi-purpose buildings,
classrooms would also be included in the expansion.
Messiah Lutheran Church estimates that their congregation size
is approximately 170 English speaking members and about 150
Spanish speaking members. The English speaking services occur at
Page 31
May 7, 2009
9:30 and 11 :00 a.m., and the Spanish speaking services occur at 12:30
p.m.
We are requesting as a part of this conditional use process the
opportunity to have a private school. Private being it's funded by the
State of Florida. It's for pre-kindergarteners between the age of four
and five. And we can get into that further. I understand I have a staff
recommendation of denial on that.
Further, the primary access to the site is from 58th Street
Southwest, which provides direct access to Golden Gate Parkway. Site
provides two full movement access locations to 58th Street. And that
given church services are offered Sundays, local weekday traffic will
not be disrupted or affected.
The addition of 220 seats to the church capacity will increase
traffic on Sundays. The increase will be proportional to the size or the
growth of the congregation.
The -- there would be some existing grass parking, which is
currently being used in the southern portion of the site. That's going to
be rehabilitated to comply with county standards, but will remain to be
grassed, as is provided for in the Land Development Code.
For those of you that aren't familiar, the Land Development
Code allows for church land uses to have 70 percent of their parking
as grassed.
We were also requesting a sign height that is commensurate with
the conditional use standards along Golden Gate Parkway. The subject
property, the first 300 feet, does fall within the corridor management
overlay . We were directed by staff previously that we could request
additional signage as a part of our conditional use request, and that
additional signage would only be in the form of height from the CMO
restriction of four feet to a fence height of eight -- excuse me, a wall
sign height of eight feet.
We did have our neighborhood information meeting. It was very
productive. Weare ensuring the compatibility with the adjacent land
Page 32
May 7, 2009
uses to the west, being the Step By Step day care, will be ensured
through greater setbacks than that which is provided for in the Land
Development Code. And the single family home to the south will be
ensured compatibility with a setback of225 feet with a 112-foot wide
native preserve that would be located on the southern portion of the
property .
As you can see on the visualizer in the large plan that I put up
there, in addition to that there would be a six foot masonry wall that
would be associated on the north side of the preserve area, and that
would also provide the compatibility.
Really, Commissioners, that's the crux of what our conditional
use petition is. The church does have expansion plans. They will be
doing a phased building construction. The first building would be a
multi-purpose building for gymnasium classroom opportunities, and
then they would ultimately transition into the larger sanctuary.
And while I still would like to request potentially some
discussion on the additional sign height and the BPK pre-k schooling
program, I'm open to comments and questions from the commission.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions from the Planning
Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got one, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dwight, the setback up at the
front, if there is the proposed right-of-way dedication, what is that
setback to the facade of the church going to be?
MR. NADEAU: To the side of the church or the new sanctuary
on Golden Gate?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The new sanctuary, how close
would that be to the right-of-way?
Page 33
May 7, 2009
MR. NADEAU: It would be approximately 35, 40 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, I mean, what's the
.existing setback now?
MR. NADEAU: Seven -- well, the proposed sanctuary is being
set back from the original property line before the easement was
taken. It's 75 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, all right. So it's going to
be -- the answer is 34 feet would be the new -- all right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: This building that is up closest to
Golden Gate Parkway, that's a sanctuary?
MR. NADEAU: It would be the new sanctuary, yes,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That will be the new sanctuary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dwight, the preschool that you want to
do is not one that's going to be limited to operating when the
parishioners are in mass or in service of any kind?
MR. NADEAU: That is accurate, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to be opening it
up to the public and other times during the week, operating it much
like a regular preschool; that's what your intentions are?
MR. NADEAU: It would not be associated or an accessory use
to the church facilities. It's a state program. They look for space to
have these brief training periods for our youngsters, and that's the
opportunity we were looking for. I realize that we did not get the
support of our comprehensive planning staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I'm just curious, how were you
planning to get around that?
MR. NADEAU: We were going -- at the pleasure of the board.
Page 34
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Because it's not a -- it's a
GMP issue, which means you normally would have to amend the
process to get here. And this isn't the process you would normally use,
that's why I'm --
MR. NADEAU: That is accurate, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And likewise with the sign, it's a
variance request and you're trying to get it down under a conditional
use application. I'm a little -- that's different. I'm not -- I give you -- if
you can get it through, good luck. But I'm not sure how the legal
process makes that possible.
MR. NADEAU: Sure. We were just -- if I may, Commissioner,
we were just looking at 5.06.02(A)(8) of the Land Development Code
where conditional uses within the agricultural and residential districts,
the board may approve additional signage as may deem appropriate
during the conditional use approval process. We were trying to insert
this extra sign height as a part of this process, understanding that there
is a variance process and then there is a post-take plan process also
available to pursue. We just thought that it may be the pleasure of the
Planning Commission and the board, given that the old eight foot high
site (sic) was removed as a part of the Golden Gate Parkway
improvements, that there may be some latitude on the part this body
and the board to grant that extra height. That's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the additional signage
referenced in that conditional use language may be referring to
additional signage, not the same signage modified at a higher height.
And that could be the difference between a conditional use of that
application and a variance application.
MR. NADEAU: I understand, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Chairman, on item six, do
we have the abil -- let me explain. Do we have the ability to allow a
full-time child care facility, or no?
Page 35
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my concern. Because the
GMP would have to be modified in order to get there, and that's not
what they're doing, they're going through the conditional use. So I'm
not sure you can do that under a conditional use process. That's why I
thought it was interesting in the way it was applied.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So we can't. The answer is no,
we can't approve a full-time --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My opinion is, but that -- that's what I
would believe, but I guess that would either be up to staff or to the
County Attorney to clarify.
MR. KLA TZKOW: You as a board would need to find it to be
consistent with the GMP, okay? You don't have the power to grant
exception to the GMP.
And what I'm hearing from the applicant is they're admitting that
it's inconsistent with the GMP, but they're looking for some sort of
dispensation. You can't grant that dispensation.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So we cannot do it, okay.
MR. KLA TZKOW: You cannot do that. The process is to amend
the GMP.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other thing, the church is not
intending to operate during the week days?
MR. NADEAU: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only reason, that your TIS did not show
any indication of weekday traffic.
MR. NADEAU: That is correct. The Sunday schools are held on
Sundays.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have no other questions.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dwight, thank you.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you.
Page 36
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll hear from planning staff at this
po int.
MR. MOSS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development
Review.
Staff is recommending approval of the church expansion, finding
it consistent with both the GMP and with the LDC, subject to the
provisions -- or excuse me, the conditional use conditions that have
been provided in the exhibit to the resolution.
As you've already noted, staff is not supporting the sign variance
from the CMO or the expansion of a child day care service on the site,
finding it to be inconsistent with the GMP.
That's all I have. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, thank you, J.D.
Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any final comments by the applicant?
MR. NADEAU : Yes, Commissioners. I would not want to
jeopardize the unanimous recommendation of approval for this
conditional use for the church expansion based on any objections to
the sign request or the BPK school request. We would like to have
your unanimous recommendation for the church expansion as well,
though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah, I just had one question. You
made a comment about a gymnasium. So if they're going to build a
Page 37
May 7, 2009
gymnasium, that gymnasium is only going to be used on Sunday?
MR. NADEAU: Well, it's a multi-purpose room. So I'm not sure
if you're familiar with these type of facilities, Commissioner Caron,
but really what it is, it could be a half court basketball court that has
carpeting on it and the striping on it. But it can also be used as
classrooms or social gathering places for the congregation.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But in answer to a question
about how the TIS was done, you stated that there would be no
weekday activities.
MR. NADEAU: No, there would not be any formal weekday
activities. I'm sure if some of the congregation's kids wanted to come
in and shoot some hoop, I don't think that that would be an issue
during the week. But no, there would not be any formal activities.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant,
planning staff, anybody at all?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and there's no public speakers, so
with that we'll close the public hearing and discussion before a
motion.
I think the applicant kind of presented it very well in regards to
the conclusion that they'd like a unanimous vote. I certainly would not
favor child care or the sign variance, as staff has recommended. So I
would think an approval of the expansion, based on staffs
recommendations, with staffs recommendations would be sufficient,
if that works for everybody on the commission.
Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number six is prohibiting child
and day care. If the GMP was ever changed in that area to allow that,
this would override a GMP. So could we somehow either eliminate
that and word it such that if the GMP ever changed they would be able
to come back with that option?
Page 38
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the GMP did change, they could
come back with that option. So I would rather leave it in and force
them to come back with the option so the neighborhood would be
adequately notified.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the fact that we're going to
strictly prohibit it here --
MR. KLATZKOW: The only motion that's being made is that
you're approving the expansion of the existing church use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the staff recommendations.
MR. KLATZKOW: The rest of this is off the table, okay, so
there's no ruling here as to the signs, there's no ruling here as to the
day care. So that if the GMP changes down the road, they can come
back at that point in time and ask for it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But staffs recommendation that
no school or child care shall be permitted on this site, would that --
MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't even think you need that, because
this is superfluous.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I'm saying.
MR. KLA TZKOW: The only thing we're approving here is the
increase to the church. They can't do anything else.
MS. ISTENES: I agree, I think we can take six out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So does the--
MS. ISTENES: Making it clear, understanding your
recommendation as it currently stands.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the motion maker accept the staff
recommendations, excluding number six? Who made the motion?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No one's made a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no one's made a motion, okay.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will make that motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so Mr. Vigliotti made a motion to
recommend approval of the expansion of the church pursuant to staff
recommendations, with the exception of striking number six.
Page 39
May 7, 2009
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Is there any discussion now?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, all those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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: The motion carries 8-0.
Thank you.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have an issue. Where's Mr.
Pritt? Ah, there we go. Bob, we weren't sure you caught the advanced
schedule we had, so I was looking for you.
MR. PRITT: I am here, but we're inquiring as to the location of
my client. I know he's on the way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take a few minutes to
sign some papers, and so we'll shuffle around here for a few minutes,
then we'll get back with you.
Everybody on the Planning Commission, that last petition was a
conditional use, so please sign the form and give it to Mr. Vigliotti.
Okay, you know, I think what would be a good thing to do
would be to take a break right now, because this next one is going to
Page 40
May 7, 2009
be long, and I know that the applicant is still searching for some of his
people. So why don't we come back here at 9:45 and resume at that
time.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back to (sic)
the break.
Item #9D
PETITION: PUDZ: 2004-AR-6829, COLLIER DAVIS, LLC
When we left we were anticipating a collection of people to
discuss Petition PUDZ-2004-AR-6829, the Collier Davis, LLC,
MPUD at the southeast quadrant of intersection of Davis Boulevard
and County Barn Road.
Mr. Pritt, has everybody arrived?
MR. PRITT: Yes, sir, they have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we are ready to go.
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: Disclosures on the part of the Planning
Commission.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one disclosure. This was
heard before the Portable Housing Advisory Committee, which I'm a
member. That was done purely in the sunshine, but --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You were outside?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I received correspondence from
Tony Pires' office.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All of us did that. Do we have
to disclose that?
Page 41
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Tony went from killing trees to
killing the Internet. Yeah, I think all of us have received information
from Tony Pires.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, he's still killing trees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, killing trees too?
Go ahead, Ms. Caron, did you have any more besides Tony?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-uh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I met with Evan Steingart from
Napoli. And the e-mail from Tony.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had none.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, no discussions with
anyone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I met with Evan Steingart, I talked to
Tony Pires and got numerous e-mails, as all of us I think have, and I
met with Mr. Pritt.
The issues I went over with everybody will be the same issues
that I will be going over today.
And with that, we'll move forward. Mr. Pritt, it's all yours.
MR. PRITT: Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the
Commission, good morning. I'm Robert D. Pritt, I'm with Roetzel and
Andress Law Firm. I'm here on behalf of Barry and Lee Goldmeier.
Barry Goldmeier is right here today. They're the owners of Collier
Davis, LLC, which is the owner of the property in question.
Also with me is the project team, Robert Andrea; he's also the
agent and the planning consultant with Coastal Engineering
Consultants, Inc. Brian DeLony from Coastal Engineering, next to
him. Tammie Lyday, who's an environmentalist with Earth Balance.
Traffic engineer Ted Treesh from TR Transportation Consultants.
Some of you know Ted, I believe. And Matt Polak of Chisholm
Page 42
May 7, 2009
Architects.
I'd like to reserve the opportunity for cross-exa -- or I would like
the opportunity for cross examination and reserve a few minutes for
rebuttal. I think that that's part of your rules and regulations anyhow,
but I just wanted to put that on the record.
I'd like to talk to you about this project which is one of the oldest
projects probably in the -- pending in the county. This is a culmination
of a planning and zoning process that's been going on since 2004. It's a
proposed mixed use PUD with affordable housing elements.
The petitioner requests the Collier County Planning Commission
consider rezone of the subject site from Estates zoning district to the
mixed use planned development MPUD zoning district for a project to
be known as Davis Reserve MPUD, and we'd also ask for the approval
of an affordable housing density bonus agreement.
We'll have more details on the subject property, but it consists of
22.83 acres. It's located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of
Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road. And Robert Andrea will
cover the details of that, but we do have that up on the visualizer.
Thank you, Mr. Bellows, for doing that.
The good news is that except for the calculation and dispersion
of allowable density, we concur with the staff report. We believe that
the staff report is overall positive. Unfortunately for both parties, I
guess, there is a disagreement about a math situation and interpretation
of language having to do with a density calculation and what is
allowable.
I would like to concentrate my comments -- before we turn this
over to the real experts, I'd like to concentrate my comments on that
issue and explain what the difference is and why we think that our
interpretation is the better interpretation.
We hope that this single issue does not override or override the
proceedings here today to a point where we lose focus of the fact that
on almost everything else -- I think everything else we're in
Page 43
May 7,2009
concurrence with the staff.
As a background, you have to understand that the sub-district
has some distinct features. Primarily it's a product of the wishes of the
county commission to provide for affordable housing. And I know that
seems very remote in 2009, but it was not remote in 2005, I assure
you. And you probably remember, most of you were on this
commission at that time.
Fortunately the Goldmeiers were then and still are familiar with
and involved in developments that consist of or contain affordable
housing. They made a commitment to the board for an affordable
housing component. In doing so -- and this I'm talking about here is in
the GMP amendment process.
In doing so, they based the commitment on discussions and the
actions that were taken at board hearings. The transcript of those
hearings from the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing were
not included by the staff in the staff report appendix. We ask that
those be included, and we appreciate the County Attorney indicating
to the staff that that ought to be sent to you. And hopefully you have
the transcripts of January 25th, 2005, and June 7th, 2005. Both of
those were board hearings.
I'm going to ask today that those be admitted into evidence in
this hearing, and I'm going to talk very briefly from at least one of
those appendices.
As much as I dread -- being a little bit of a math phob, as much
as I dread doing math and doing it on television, I have to do a little
bit of math. And anybody here can correct me on the math
calculations if I've made them improperly, but I don't think so.
Fortunately we have Mr. Eastman here from the school district,
maybe he can help.
Staff says we're entitled up to 234 units. We calculate that we're
entitled up to 302 units. However, we're only asking for 286 units.
Importantly, since the sub-district commits 20 percent of that
Page 44
May 7, 2009
differential to affordable housing, there are 10 units of new affordable
housing at stake.
And the difference of course is 286, what we think we're entitled
to, minus 234, what the staff thinks we're entitled to, times 20 percent
is 10.4 affordable housing units that would be lost under the staffs
interpretation.
Now, I know from attending the Affordable Housing Committee
meeting the other day that the county is busy purchasing existing
foreclosures and paying to fix them up at a pretty large cost. However,
but there's not much if any new affordable housing being built, to my
knowledge. And we think that that is an important factor for you to
consider.
The basis of the staffs calculation is that the project is not
entitled to the additional units, it's at the bonus density, which is
calculated on three units per acre times 22.83 acres, or 68 units, is not
available since the sub-district requires affordable housing.
And that's where we get into an interpretation of the law.
Nowhere in the sub-district provisions or anywhere else in the code
does it say that we forfeit our right to bonus density by committing to
a minimum affordable housing allocation in the sub-district.
If you look at the language of the -- I presume you have, but
certainly I'm happy to go over it with you. But looking at the language
of the sub-district itself in the Growth Management Plan -- it's a little
bit unfortunate because the way it was written, some of which was
written on the fly at the Board of County Commissioners meeting.
And I'm sympathetic to that problem.
But if you look, if you take a look at it, you will not find
anywhere in there, that we could find, anyhow, that says that just
because it's a required density calculation that we forfeit the right to
those units. And essentially that's what the issue is.
The matter did come up in the January 25, 2005 hearing, and the
assistant county attorney at that time stated to the board that the
Page 45
May 7, 2009
project would qualify for the density bonus. And that's in the transcript
from that meeting. I could read it to you, if you'd like, but it's in the
transcript.
That assurance was correct. It was part of the board's
understanding. It was critical to my client's being amenable to agree to
provide affordable housing. That statement went unchallenged until
the staff interpreted differently.
A review of the June 7th, 2005 transcript of the Board of County
Commissioners indicates the staff had other problems interpreting the
actions of the board. Again, as a long-time governmental attorney, I
can attest that this happens. However -- and by the way, that's why we
have tapes and CD's and things like that and transcripts.
However, the bottom line is the actions of the board were
intended to require this type of housing, affordable housing, and they
were talking about minimum number of units, but that nowhere in
there is an indication that we know of that they intended not to allow
the density bonus provisions to apply.
We asked that this be brought to the attention of the legal staff.
The staff concluded that the interpretation of the board's intent is
inconclusive. Under principles of statutory construction, when there's
an ambiguity the intent of the legislative body is the pulstar -- and the
Supreme Court of Florida uses that word -- the pulstar of statutory or
ordinance interpretation. Both sides agree that the board in the final
analysis should make the determination.
Now, since I'm talking about statutory or ordinance
interpretation, the staff seems to imply that somehow if our proposed
interpretation is accepted, the development violates the Growth
Management Plan.
Well, that is impossible, since the sub-district regulation is in the
Growth Management Plan. If there were a conflict between the
provisions of the GMP itself, which there are not, that had to be
resolved in the process of review and adoption of the GMP by the
Page 46
May 7, 2009
county staff, by the Planning Commission, by the Board of County
Commissioners or the Department of Community Affairs. And there's
no indication that there's an internal conflict between that section and
anything else in the Growth Management Plan.
Even if there were, the -- under rules of statutory interpretation,
the specific governs over the general. And this is very specific as to
this sub-district and, therefore, those rules would trump any rules to
the contrary that are generalized in the GMP.
If Mr. Goldmeier would have been notified when the county
unilaterally without his knowledge amended his sub-district, as
happened in 2007, he probably would have challenged the whole thing
at the time. However, that's water over the bridge, under the dam, or
whatever you want to call that, whatever the metaphor is. And we're
here with a document that can be interpreted and is capable of being
interpreted and should be interpreted to allow the density that we have
asked for.
Now, the second quibble that we had with the county's staff
position on density is that it is improperly confusing the term
component with the term parcel. The sub-district -- GMP sub-district
regulations refer to a residential component and a commercial
component. It does not say anything about there being a separate
parcel for each component. These are just components of one parcel,
one 22.83-acre parcel. And there's a reference to the component in the
Growth Management Plan, but that does not mean that density has to
be allocated only as to one portion versus the other portion. It's an
overall calculation, and there's a methodology for that. And it's our
position that the calculation of density should be done for the entire
parcel, and that the location in the parcel is not a function of the
density calculation process.
Again, this is a single parcel. Mixed use is specially permitted in
the sub-district regulations, and allowing residential development in
the commercial component with an interrelated traditional
Page 47
May 7, 2009
neighborhood plan. The sub-district regulations do not promote
inflexibility, and neither should the staff analysis.
I think that you received a report from the Affordable Housing
Subcommittee -- or Committee. And if so, I would ask that that be
made part of the record in these proceedings.
I do want to -- before I turn this over to Robert and the analysis
of the rest of the plan itself, I do want to refer you to language in the --
I'm sorry, in the plan document itself. There is a reference -- bear with
me just one second here, I'll find it. Oh, thank you. Yeah, there's a
reference in the plan -- in the Growth Management Plan where it says
eligible density shall be as determined by application of the density
rating system.
Now, as I said, unfortunately that shows up in the residential
component. However, if you look further down, you'll find that there
is a further discussion of the density rating system as it applies to
Davis/County Barn sub-district, and there's nothing that prohibits that
calculation from applying also in the commercial component.
Again, we could all go back and draft it better if we had lots of
time, but that's a little bit of the problem. We're not faulting staff for
their interpretation, but we just think that the interpretation that we
have based upon the transcripts and the intent of the county
commission are the better interpretation of this ambiguous issue.
So again, I don't want to beat this horse any more than we need
to. I'd like to get on to the presentation itself. If you have any
questions, I'll be glad to entertain them on the density issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt, I think there's going to be a lot
of questions, at least on my behalf, but I know that staff is planning to
present their side of it too, so it might be beneficial -- at least I will
hold my questions until I hear everybody's side of it before I start
trying to understand it better.
MR. PRITT: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? As long as that's okay withi
Page 48
May 7, 2009
everybody on the panel?
One question I'd like to ask the County Attorney before we go
too far. Mr. Pritt brought something up in the beginning, I didn't want
to interrupt his presentation, but he wanted to reserve the right for
cross examination. We have not done that in the past typically.
Normally residents and people come here to address this commission,
they don't come prepared to defend themselves with an attorney's
questions, nor do they bring attorneys themselves.
I don't want to put an air of concern or stress unnecessarily on
the public from speaking, so I don't want to start something that isn't
going to give us a free flow of information.
So Mr. Klatzkow, is that something that we're obligated to here?
MR. KLA TZKOW: In this context I think it's probably not a bad
idea to allow Mr. Pritt to question people. Because I think we all know
where this one's going to be heading, given the amount of e-mails and
phone calls I've gotten, anyway. And just to get a full record before
the board. So in this context I think it's not a bad idea.
I would say that the Chair has some latitude in keeping the time
on this down, all right. This isn't going to be a three day hearing. But
if we have pertinent questions and we can get them done fairly
quickly, I don't have an issue. Especially if Mr. Pritt wishes to
question staff. If staffs going to take a position, I don't have any issue
with them being questioned on that position.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about members of the public?
MR. KLA TZKOW: They're just here as witnesses. I don't think
cross examining them would be appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you.
Okay, with that we'll move forward. Go ahead, sir.
MR. ANDREA: Good morning. Robert Andrea, with Coastal
Engineering.
As Mr. Pritt said, we're here today requesting a rezone of22.83
acres from the Estates zoning district to a mixed use planned unit
Page 49
May 7, 2009
development known as Davis Reserve MPUD.
The location as you see on the map is located on the southeast
corner of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road. The property is
surrounded on the west with Napoli condos; to the north Glen Eagle;
to the east, Seacrest Schools; and to the south, Berean Baptist Church
and Seacrest Schools also.
The subject property lies within the urban land use designation
area, and it also has a designated ( sic) with its own location specific
sub-district within the urban mixed use district since June 7th, 2005. It
is known as the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use sub-
district.
It was then later amended by Collier County in January, 2007.
Policy 7.1 through 7.7 under Objective 7 of the Future Land Use
Element were approved on October 26th, 2004. This objective and its
policies adopted certain Smart Growth provisions into the Future Land
Use Element.
Since the adoption of Objective 7 and its policies, methods to
encourage such planning, the county has gone into implement them
further. (Sic.)
The future land development regulations were formulated, then
adopted as future land use element provisions for this specific Davis
Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use sub-district.
This is one of Collier County's earliest opportunities to apply
more of the practices found in the towered better places, the
community character plan for Collier County. The community
character plan provides that the county with the policies document
featuring the most useful aspects of traditional neighborhood design,
smart growth, traffic calming, new urbanism, and other planning
contemporary planning practices.
These policies are implemented and referenced generally by this
mixed use sub-district future land use provisions.
The Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use sub-district
Page 50
May 7, 2009
is comprised of22.83 acres. The intent of this sub-district is to provide
for development that incorporates the traditional neighborhood and
mixed use design features, as well as recommendations of the Collier
County community character plan. These include pedestrian friendly
and bicycle friendly streets, parks, small plazas and other open spaces,
and a mix of residential and neighborhood commercial uses.
Integration of residential and commercial uses in the same building is
encouraged.
The commercial component shall be interconnected with the
residential component, and the commercial component shall be
conveniently located to serve residents in the nearby surrounding area.
Additionally, this sub-district is required to develop a percentage
of its units as affordable workforce housing, and was the first in the
county to volunteer to do this.
This specific requirement reads: A minimum of91 residential
units shall be developed in the sub-district. This reflects the density
rating system base density of four dwelling units per acre applied to
the entire site acreage for the project total density, whether it is a
minimum of the 91 dwelling units or a greater amount, as allowed by
the density rating system, density bonus provisions and approved via
.
rezonIng.
A minimum of 10 percent must be affordable workforce housing
units, provided for those earning less than or equal to 80 percent of the
medium household income. For the Collier County and other -- I'm
sorry, for Collier County. The other 10 percent must be affordable
workforce housing units providing for those earning greater than the
80 percent, but no greater than 100 percent of the medium household
income for Collier County.
What we are proposing for this sub-district is the mixed use
planned unit development where we will be applying the new
urbanism design principles, along with the traditional neighborhood
design and mixed use features. This includes a denser design with
Page 51
May 7, 2009
pedestrian friendly and bicycle friendly streets, buildings that are
closer to the streets, achieved by reducing setbacks, sidewalks along
the roadways, parking along the streets, small plazas and turnabouts,
which are all traffic calming techniques, public open spaces, and a mix
of residential and neighborhood commercial uses.
It will be similar to other recent most popular developments in
Naples, like Bayfront or the Mercado. We envision people being able
to work and live in this community. They will be able to bike or walk
to work.
The proposal includes up to 35,000 square feet of commercial
uses, which will be located in the northwest corner of the project. Let
me put a site plan up.
And we also propose 286 multi-family residential units, which
equates to 12.5 units per acre across the entire 22.83 acres.
There will be a mixture of buildings with residential over
commercial and strictly residential buildings, 20 percent of which will
be affordable workforce housing, as required by the sub-district.
There'll be 5.29 acres of preserve. And you can see it located
there in the southeast portion of the project. There'll be one point of
access on Davis Boulevard, which will be a right in and right out. And
one on County Barn Road, which will be shared with the Berean
Baptist Church, with (sic) the shared access is encouraged.
We'll provide all the required landscape buffers, the open spaces
around the lake, as well as other public spaces and a community
center.
The architectural theme, as required by the subject, will be
common throughout the project.
We believe this project is an excellent location for this type of
development. It provides much needed affordable and workforce
housing within close proximity to employment opportunities within
Naples.
And attending the Affordable Housing Committee meeting the
Page 52
May 7, 2009
other day we learned that they are also looking for this type of
affordable housing close in. It's been very difficult for them to find it
this close in to Naples.
We appeared before them, and they seemed to agree that this
was an excellent location, and they did seem to support the project.
The project has been going through this county process for
many, many years. We've done as many as eight reviews, and we have
worked closely with staff and also reached out to the surrounding
property owners. We've held at least three neighborhood information
meetings, as well as met with individual groups, as requested.
We feel we are in compliance with all county requirements. And
other than the outstanding density issue, we believe that we do meet
all the requirements and they will have a recommendation of approval
once that issue is resolved.
At this time we ask for your approval and your recommendation
of approval to -- for this rezone of Estates to mixed use planned unit
development. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions of the
applicant? And I might suggest to the Planning Commission members,
on this density issue I know that staff has got a side of it to present in
regards to how they calculated it. Mr. Pritt has provided us with the
way their applicant calculated it. So before we get into that one,
maybe we ought to wait till staff here presents their side of it to us on
this issue.
But certainly we have other issues in this document that we
normally would ask questions about concerning the PUD and other
things like that. So are there any questions at this time within the PUD
document?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. But let me just ask one
question about density. It's a one number answer. In the affordable
housing bonus system, in the package you're showing, you were
Page 53
May 7, 2009
asking for five units based upon what was circled in that application?
MR. ANDREA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yet Mr. Pritt mentioned three
units. What is the exact -- the right number?
MR. ANDREA: Well, the eligibility we believe is five, but we're
requesting the three.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll carry exactly the next
one.
In terms of the layout of this thing, one of the major parts of this
thing is, you know, new urbanism, new towns, traditional, all that
stuff, yet we're not seeing anything other than a vin diagram for a
plan. Do you have anything further that could actually -- in other
words, there's nothing here that shows that. I mean, the cul-de-sac
kind of -- the circles, giving some hints, but --
MR. ANDREA: Right. At this time I'll let the architect stand up.
MR. POLAK: Good morning. My name is Matt Polak, senior
vice-president of Chisholm Architects.
I have an overlay here.
What we've gone ahead and done is gone ahead and attached to
the plan that you're seeing there, based on Robert's kind of bubbled
diagram a potential layout for the units in keeping with traditional
neighborhood design concepts.
As you can see -- I'm not sure if there's a way to point to
anything here. One of the basic concepts here is that we have a main
entry that's coming off of Davis that leads you down a main
boulevard, which is fronted by units on both sides of the street.
And, you know, one of the design concepts that we're trying to
do is to create a neighborhood design where we have eyes on the
street, as well as eyes into the parking area.
What you're seeing here is basically a ground floor layout of the
plan, where these would be two and three story buildings. The ground
floor would be predominantly made up of two and three bedroom
Page 54
May 7, 2009
flats. And along that street, corridor here, you circle down along a
main boulevard, which terminates into a circle, and from there you can
either go enter into the parking areas which are hidden back from
view, so you have a very formal front facade to the buildings in
creating -- where you're going ahead and creating a streetscape design.
In that we create a section where you also have a side-walk
along here. We've allowed for parallel parking along the street here.
One, it acts as a street calming, it provides street calming there. It also
allows for visitor parking, people can park, they're going to visit, they
can park nearby to the people they're going to see.
Again, like I mentioned, we went ahead and are tucking the
parking behind, and those are being buffered by the wetland area
along the perimeter of the project.
Then that residential component then terminates into a
commercial component, which also has residential units on top of it.
We foresee those commercial uses being very -- you know, very small
neighborhood uses, predominantly maybe a small convenience store, a
lot of professional offices, graphic artists, architects, lawyers,
accountants could utilize that space there in acting as a live/work
opportunity there.
And then we've created focal points. You know, we have a --
we're taking advantage of the lake as a focal point, and also we're
taking advantage of the wetland area too to add as a focal point.
One of the other issues, you know, you get with going with a
traditional neighborhood design concept is the walk-ability. The --
from this unit to the commercial complex is less than a five minute
walk. So it really promotes people to walk along and through the
neighborhood, as opposed to just kind of coming in and going into
their unit. It allows interaction between people. Most -- all these units
will have terraces facing the street. They'll either be terraces from the
living units or private terraces from bedrooms, so that you begin to get
an interaction between people. And it also is a very, very good passive
Page 55
May 7, 2009
security in that people are looking at all -- around the entire perimeter
of the building. You have people looking down the street, you have
people who are able to look out into the parking areas. So you take
care of a lot of issues where you -- where people could cause
problems, typically where you have with some other apartment
complexes where the building is kind of surrounded by parking.
And then in keeping with the scale of the buildings, like I said,
these would be two and three story buildings. We did bring some
photographs of projects similar in scale and appearance. Although this
is not a fait accompli, and certainly not presenting it as such, but to get
an idea of what it could potentially look like.
Basically what you're seeing here is a streetscape. The streets a
bit wider than the one we're proposing but you have your parallel
parking along the street, you have your sidewalk, you have a green
strip. And I think our particular instance is about 15 feet deep where
you have landscaping, as well as some private terraces.
You're seeing the flat buildings along here, and then these units
on top are two story sort of I like to call them like a townhouse type
unit where the living areas are on the second floor and then there's a
set of stairs that takes you up to the bedrooms that are up on the third
floor.
There's a few more pictures here I can go through.
Again, this is kind of a shot of a -- this is a bit of a larger
boulevard option there. But the buildings are sort of going down in
scale. You're seeing the units here. And the access to the units is
actually not from the street but actually internalized in the building
itself.
Again, a similar shot. This is actually access to the second floor
units.
And then we have another picture here just to give an idea of
what the commercial component could look like, taking advantage of
providing -- actually, can you go to the picture -- that one's mostly just
Page 56
May 7, 2009
trees.
What you're seeing here -- that's good, thank you. What you're
seeing here is there would be -- you'd have your commercial
component here, which could be offices, small minor neighborhood
related retail components. And then above that you have apartment
units, either rental or ownership.
One of the things we like about having a mix -- in a mixed use
and a traditional neighborhood design concept is that by having units
above, you don't -- that area doesn't shut down at 5 :00. You have
people there all the time. So again, you're increasing the security,
you're giving it more life, you're giving more things for the residents
to do in allowing them to kind of go around the neighborhood. It
really -- you know, the key component is livability and walk-ability,
and allowing -- giving people kind of a neighborhood that they can
walk around and through and get to know their neighbors. We find
that that, you know, is one of the things that makes these plans
successful is that people tend to interact more often with people as
opposed to other types of apartment buildings where you tend to park,
go into your unit and not see anybody.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do me a favor, would you put
up the site plan again?
MR. POLAK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is a representation of
the ground floor?
MR. POLAK: This -- yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the only commercial is that
white area that you're talking about?
MR. POLAK: There -- currently what we're showing right now,
we have a commercial component here and a commercial component
here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what's the square footage
of that?
Page 57
May 7, 2009
MR. POLAK: I believe it's somewhere between 13 and 14,000
sq uare feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason I'm bringing that
up is for the mixed use concept of that, you know, we had kind of
higher hopes than that. I mean, 45,000 square feet is what we were
setting as a cap. Thirty-five is what you're capping your application.
But providing 15, 16 is not exactly fulfilling the other half of the
traditional neighborhood, which is the commercial.
MR. POLAK: Well, I think there's a couple of issues here
specific to this site that make that number ambitious. One of the
reasons is really very -- we don't have the access here to County Barn
because of the intersection and the future widening of County Barn.
So it turns that commercial -- you know, the idea of bringing in a
commercial component where people from outside are going to have
ease in getting into the site makes it very difficult to promote that at
that particular intersection.
So the mixed use here is more of a live/work mixed use idea in
that you could live here and you could also work here and promote
that, as opposed to trying to promote a large number. It would be ideal
if that would be possible to get a higher number. I don't know -- and in
fact, Mr. Goldmeier can probably speak to that. But I don't know how
realistic it would be with the -- given the fact of the access to the
commercial site from Davis and from County Barn.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Both of those roads are pretty
major arterial roads, yet you're putting housing right up at the corner
where most banks would die to have their branch situated. So what's
the logic of putting in -- and I hope the answer's not that's the
affordable housing up there.
MR. POLAK: No, the idea here was that we tried to turn the
commercial component inward to support the balance of the site.
Because as I said before, that although it would be ideal to have a
bank on this corner, the fact is is that getting into that bank is not
Page 58
May 7, 2009
going to be possible. Access to that bank would have to occur all the
way down here, and typically that's not very good for banks that --
trying to get there, you either have to get there from here or you have
to circle around and get there from -- I believe that's about 1,800 feet
down Davis Boulevard, which I think is one of our closest cuts
because of the Davis Boulevard intersection.
And Davis is a divided road, so you're only picking up traffic
heading east on that. So that's one of the reasons why, although it
seems like an ideal commercial parcel, access to that parcel is very
limited.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think, you know, we're
limiting other parcels that same way.
Did you -- so essentially the only commercial you have here is
what you feel would be supported by this --
MR. POLAK: That's what we are -- we've done a lot of different
kind of ideas with this. This was -- this is one of the concepts that we
were working on that we've developed. And I think part of that
development had to do with some takings of some land for easements
and for buffer areas.
So this is a (sic) option. It's not obviously the final option or --
but it is a option to consider.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, let's not hang here. I
can talk a lot about some of that, but let it go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I've got a question.
If you never really intended to do commercial but only as a
convenience for the units inside the development, which is minor, and
you even said it was going to be a convenience store, why didn't you
pursue a GMP amendment for the amount of commercial square
footage you wanted, even going so far as dividing it up into one
section, saying you wanted 20,000 square feet possibly for a grocery
store, when you never really seems like (sic) you intended to use any
of that?
Page 59
May 7, 2009
MR. POLAK: I'm going to allow Mr. Goldmeier.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Barry Goldmeier, representing the
developer.
This was a process. We recognize the same elements that Mr.
Schiffer and Mr. Strain pointed out, that this was a prime corner.
However, when we began the -- and that was our intention originally.
But when we began dealing with the right-of-way department and
found out that we had to locate our entrance I think 1,300 feet from
the intersection of County Barn and Davis in the residential portion
and we could not have a direct access into the commercial portion,
that we were forced to have a shared access with the commercial --
with the Baptist church next door, this became less of an attractive
commercial situation.
So what we did was we responded to those limiting factors by
having a mixed use project that would be more or less self-contained
within the spirit of a traditional neighborhood design project rather
than a commercial project and a residential project.
Now, as far as why it was divided up into two sections, that was
at the request of planning staff. It was not our idea. This project was
one 23-acre project with one application, one, you know,
environmental study, one traffic study, et cetera. But staff gave us
some rationale as to why they insisted on having a different
designation for the commercial project than the residential project.
And we just followed their -- the request.
But it was not intended to differentiate the project in any way as
being a different -- entirely different project, as some may now
contend.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're an experienced developer.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At what point along the road did staff
inform you that your entranceways were going to be such that they are
to a point where you realized it wouldn't be good commercial?
Page 60
May 7, 2009
MR. GOLDMEIER: I think it was -- was it in 2006, Robert? It
was -- at that time the right-of-way department was planning an
expansion of County Barn Road. They had -- they were in the -- they
were in the design process. They were not complete with the design
process, so it was a work in progress. And as I said, this thing evolved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only reason I'm bringing this
up is because in 2004 when you applied, you knew then that the
entrance had to be on the church's -- sir, I have a master plan from
your application right here when you first applied for it. It's done by
Coastal Engineering, it's dated 4/23/04. It's close to what the master
plan is you're using now, and it was part of the adoption package
given to us.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Then I stand corrected.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then again, it goes back to
my original question: If you knew that this was a difficult entry for
commercial, why would you go for so much commercial under the
premise to us that you wanted to have a mixed use process that we
envisioned as what we have always expected to be, like Mercato and
others where you have a mix of residential above and below and side
by side with the commercial, when in this case you're basically putting
a convenience store in with apartment housing.
And I'm just wondering where the change came. Because that's
not the way this was conceived, or at least it doesn't appear to be the
way that it was presented to us back in '04 and '05.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Well, what happened was we -- when we
had our initial meeting with staff to prepare for zoning, for a zoning
application, we had presented them with the opportunity to build a
traditional neighborhood design community, which we had done
elsewhere in the state and which we thought would be very well
received in this market.
And we were informed by staff that they had a newly enacted
traditional neighborhood design friendly statute that included both a
Page 61
May 7, 2009
commercial and a residential component, and that we should tailor our
project to fit the -- that recently passed statute.
So we tried to take our traditional neighborhood design concept
and fit it into the statute that we wanted to follow. And that's how it
evolved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I know that part of the
density calculation for this property -- or at least even for the -- I think
it's for both sides of the property was the fact you're going to have
what we were presented as a bona fide mixed use project with up to
45,000 square feet of commercial. And that's not what we're seeing
here. Yet I still think you're utilizing the bonuses, or possibly you are
-- and I'm sure that I'll hear more on that as the meeting goes on -- that
were created as a result of the intention of doing the mixed use that we
thought you were intending to do back in '04 and '05.
MR. GOLDMEIER: You are correct. And that was held out to
us as a reason to apply under -- you know, to fit our project to the
already existing statute. And -- but what we've found out as the project
developed and the entranceways became set in stone, that it was less --
from a market point of view less attractive.
And also we also became aware at some point that the parcel at
the corner of Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevard, which is very close
by, was being developed for major retail usage. And that would sort of
remove the appeal from a retail point of view. And we had looked for
the -- we had looked toward the professional offices, which were
being developed to the west on Davis Boulevard just down -- you
know, down the road, and were being well absorbed at that time as a
model rather than a strict retail model.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, Davis and Santa Barbara is a
long-standing activity center --
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so the commercial was always going
to go in there.
Page 62
May 7, 2009
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you've done with 22 acres here,
especially in the plan that's in front of us now as one concept that has
been presented, you're more or less a residential community with
some commercial, convenience commercial for the community as a
typical PUD might be.
And I'm just wondering, you went to great length to go in a
different direction that you ended up being in a direction that was
probably a lot simpler. And I'm just surprised at it. And I don't
understand all the reasons why it went that route. And I'm sure before
the day's over we might understand more.
MR. GOLDMEIER: It was an evolution that wasn't our original
intent. I can show you drawings in which we had the 35,000 square
feet. But it became increasingly -- we became increasingly aware that
it was less attractive as a retail location than the Santa Barbara
location, and that it would be -- we should orient it more toward a
professional office situation from a market standpoint, and that's the
evolution that took place.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Any others on this matter before we go back to the architect, I
guess.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question.
So the commercial that you are planning on here is to be office?
MR. POLAK: As a potential use it could be office. It would be,
you know, neighborhood related retail uses, whether -- you know,
whether you would have -- I use the term -- I don't want to say a dry
cleaner. I mean a dry cleaner in the sense that you wouldn't have
actual dry cleaning going on there, but it could be a -- a dry cleaner
could be there also. You know, fundamental uses like that that the
residents would be able to take advantage of.
You could have a small -- you know, I don't know if you'd have
Page 63
May 7, 2009
a small cafe of some sort, ice cream or some sort of use like that. But,
you know, your predominantly small neighborhood retail type uses.
That's why we see more of a, you know, insurance
agent/realtor/attorney/designer type of use where it's not so site
specific for walk-up traffic.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It definitely looks like instead of a
genuine mixed use project we're getting a couple little strip malls
stuck inside this PUD, this residential PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While you're up there, sir, the -- in the
commercial parcel or the parcel that was supposed to be commercial,
the very south end of it that abuts that out-parcel, you show a
driveway going out to County Barn Road.
MR. POLAK: Yes, that's -- you know, that is inaccurate.
Basically I think what Robert was showing on the PUD plan where the
actual entry is actually down -- is happening down here. It's a shared
access plan with the church.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. POLAK: That's the actual connection that's -- we're
showing it here. It's actually happening -- it's actually going to happen
down here adjacent to the church.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're the architect, so--
MR. POLAK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so you're not necessarily the land
planner. The land planner is the other fellow?
MR. POLAK: We've been working together on this for several
years, so we've sort of been working hand-in-hand developing that,
along with the environmental issues that have come up on it also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because we have -- I'm sure -- I
have more questions and I know some others might.
Are you guys done with your presentation then at this point and
ready for questions?
MR. POLAK: Sure, yes.
Page 64
May 7,2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. PRITT: I do want to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to come to the mic, Mr. Pritt.
You know that probably better than I do.
MR. PRITT: Yes, I'd like to have Ted Treesh, traffic engineer,
come forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. PRITT: There are just a couple of issues that have come up
lately and I would like him to address those.
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have the spelling of your
name, please.
MR. TREESH: T-R-E-E-S-H.
For the record, Ted Treesh with TR Transportation Consultants,
just briefly.
I know there were some questions raised and discussions
previously, and I just wanted to make a few points.
Our analysis was completed utilizing the shopping center land
use code for the trip generation of the retail uses, and we do in fact
feel that's a worst case analysis for this facility, based on the proposed
schedule uses that are included. Shopping center land uses are a very
diverse group of land uses that are included in the ITE trip generation
report that includes out-parcel uses; for instance, fast foods, gas
stations, convenience stores that might be on out-parcels of shopping
centers, of which this parcel does not have.
As you can see from the plan, there's no -- gas stations are
specifically prohibited from the site plan, as are fast food.
So we feel the trip generation in terms of the retail uses were
perhaps over-analyzed in this analysis, but in any case a worst case
impact.
Also, the report that was prepared was dated back in February of
'08. Since that time, the new AUIR has been put out and the volumes
on Davis have dropped just about six and a half percent since that
Page 65
May 7, 2009
time. County Barn is right about the same as it was when we first
analyzed it back in '07. So I just wanted to put that on the record that
the volumes have decreased.
There wasn't any capacity issue on Davis in our analysis.
The analysis did show future deficiencies on County Barn, but
what we did in the supplemental analysis that was submitted to the
county was looked at the impacts that the four-lane extension of Santa
Barbara would have. That project's currently under construction.
Basically what that will do is provide parallel relief to this
two-lane segment of County Barn, providing a new four-lane facility
that would extend south of Davis down to Rattlesnake. And again, that
segment is currently under construction.
Our analysis, looking at the modeling of how traffic would shift
when that new roadway opens, indicates that County Barn will be --
there will be capacity available on County Barn to accommodate this
project, but we do have conditions in our zoning that accommodate
both of those projects, both the widening of Davis as well as the Santa
Barbara extension.
That's really all I had to offer, and I'd be more than happy to
answer any questions either now or at the conclusion of our
presentation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of transportation at this time?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. In your negotiations with
transportation, they would not allow you a right-in/right-out on
County Barn Road?
MR. TREESH: Not between the church access and Davis, that's
correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they would not allow you
the same thing anywhere until you hit that intersection that you show?
MR. TREESH: On Davis?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, on Davis.
Page 66
May 7, 2009
MR. TREESH: Davis is a Florida DOT roadway, so we have to
meet their access spacing standards. But I don't believe there was
anything asked for on Davis in between County Barn and that access
that's currently shown. If there was, I'm not aware of it. Perhaps
another member of the team would be able to address that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So maybe there could have
been a right-in/right-out up closer to the mixed use area. The lake is
manmade, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, from a traffic spacing standpoint,
did the FDOT standards allow a point closer than the one on Davis
Boulevard from County Barn Road that you currently show? I think
that's the crux of the question being asked.
MR. TREESH: I'd have to defer to your transportation staff on
the exact spacing standards. I haven't looked recently what they are on
Davis, but on what -- it depends on what access management class that
roadway has been classified as FDOT.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sure we'll get John Pod
-- John up here. I can't hardly say his last name, but we'll get John up
here at the time staff presentation is -- anybody else have any
questions of the applicant's transportation engineer at this time?
(No response.)
MR. TREESH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, don't go away. I've got several. I
hold off till last and let everybody else ask first.
Your use of the shopping center code, that sets a certain level of
service component for traffic. Every time you use one of those codes it
gives you a different outcome. The fact you could have a 20,000
square foot freestanding shopping -- or grocery store, grocery store
has a much higher intense traffic component than the 820 category for
a shopping center does. Is that a fair statement?
MR. TREESH: I haven't specifically looked at a 20,000 square
foot grocery store to be able to answer that. Most food stores that I
Page 67
May 7, 2009
work on, Publix, Albertson's, I mean, they're 70, 80, 90,000 square
feet. I don't know what it is on a 20,000.
But typically you are correct, a standalone grocery store would
generate more trips than a shopping center.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
You had -- in your TIS you used 35,000 square feet.
MR. TREESH: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You used it under the shopping center
category. And today we're finding out we're basically going to have a
convenient store and maybe possibly some others on this one concept
the plan had.
So you wouldn't necessarily need 35,000 square feet. But at the
time you used the 35,000 square feet, your daily trips were 5,000,
reduced by internal capture and some pass-by, so a net of 3,520
external trips.
MR. TREESH: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this property wasn't -- doesn't
function for that kind of traffic because of the commercial -- to
support the commercial that 3,520 trips would have supported, why
did you even do this TIS in that manner?
MR. TREESH: I have to do the TIS consistent with the
application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we're finding out the
application, even though it said they're requesting 35,000 or 38,
whatever the number is, they're only going to be using a substantially
less amount. So that would correspondingly lower your daily trips and
everything else.
MR. TREESH: If that's the way it was ultimately developed,
that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you look at the entrance access
through the church's property?
MR. TREESH: We looked at it in terms of the assignment of
Page 68
May 7, 2009
trips and the analysis of that intersection in that manner in terms of
this analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the stacking capabilities, the
turning radii and the width of the lanes and the number of lanes, both
left-hand turn and right turn on the church's property, did you check to
see what sizing and capacity that area would have to take in order to
accommodate the 3,520 external trips going into that property?
MR. TREESH: At this stage of our analysis in the zoning, no,
we do not look at those detailed issues. Those are issues we look at at
the site development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you given the graphic of the
easement for that church's property to look at?
MR. TREESH: No, I was given this graphic that's on the
visualizer, the master concept plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Anybody else have anything of the transportation -- the
app I i cant's transportation engineer?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. TREESH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we can go back to the other -- the
applicant's presentations.
Does anybody have any questions from either the architect or the
planner in regards to the PUD document or the rest of the issues from
the applicant's perspective?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got a few of the planning side
of it. Let's start with the PUD. In your Exhibit A is where I'll be
working from.
MR. ANDREA: For the record, Robert Andrea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2, under B, section 1.2, number
three. It says -- number three reads, allowable commercial uses
Page 69
May 7, 2009
permitted by right and conditional use approval in the commercial
mixed use component shall be limited to those uses permitted in C-1,
C-2 and C-3.
The language approved by the Growth Management Plan under
A-5 says, allowable commercial uses and commercial component shall
be limited to those uses permitted in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zoning
district, as contained in the Collier County Land Development Code.
Those uses permitted. Conditional uses are a permitted use. And
I'm just wondering why -- how is that consistent with the GMP?
MR. ANDREA: I believe that was just put in there as the LDC
reads, that if someone were to apply for a conditional use that is
permitted as a conditional use in C-1, 2 and 3, that it would be -- they
would be able to apply for that conditional use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope Mr. Weeks is making notes,
because I'll have to ask him why the interpretation of the GMP -- why
the GMP says very specific that it would be the permitted uses in C-1,
2 and 3, and if then the conditional uses can be allowed. But I'll wait
and collect my numbers of questions for him then.
The last part of that, it says, unless otherwise provided in this
section. That again is inconsistent with the GMP language. It's very
specific; it's C-1, 2 and 3.
And then if you get into the other sections that you have there, it
says 3-A. And then 3-A, Band C read the same way in the beginning
parts. It says, commercial, professional and general office district in
effect at the time of the SD P approval. And those same languages
occur in each one of those.
Yet in the GMP it says, the zoning districts as contained in the
Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as
amended, in effect as of the date of adoption of the sub-district.
Ordinance No. 2005-25, adopted June 27th, 2005.
I'm not sure if that's the same as what you're trying to say here.
Because one says in effect at the time of the SD P and the other says in
Page 70
'-_""~_"'_"_""'__'M.~,'n.."_"-"'... ,___'''''''",_ "l.; III "..- ''''"''~.'''_'''''~''';''"'
May 7, 2009
effect at the time of the adoption of your sub-district.
And I'll have to ask David Weeks his opinion on that. I'm sure
that you probably don't have -- that's just boilerplate language from
your perspective.
MR. ANDREA: Yeah, to be honest, it's been worse so much
over the years that at one point it was being viewed for consistency --
or redundancy, rather -- with the LDC. So a lot of language has been
moved around and taken out so we wouldn't get redundancy. How it
came to be this particular way, I honestly don't remember at this point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about under your accessory
uses, under B on Page 3. B-4, you talk about recreational uses. And
most of them are typical things, pretty passive.
Then you get to one called the band shell stage. That produces a
lot of noise. And that will be heard probably down to the activity
center.
Where do you think you're going to put this band shell stage?
MR. ANDREA: Again, I believe it was originally put in the
there when the original concept of the PUD came along and they
wanted the flexibility to be able to have neighborhood functions and
create something in a little park area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure before this is over today we'll
probably explore that a little more. Thank you.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Since he brought it up, where is
the little park area?
MR. ANDREA: They would be -- well, again, with the other
concept, up there by the community center would be one. And to be
honest with you, I don't know where the other ones are now. Around
the lake.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Page 5, your Exhibit B,
development standards, how are these units being sold? You've got a
series of townhouse, multi-family and clubhouse, recreational
Page 71
May 7, 2009
buildings. Are they fee simple or are they condo; do you know?
MR. ANDREA: I believe both. We're doing both -- condo?
Condos.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your minimum floor area, 600
square feet? I don't know of many projects I've ever seen come
through Collier County with 600 square feet. Do you know of any
others?
MR. ANDREA: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's not much bigger or about
the same size as a two-car garage.
MR. ANDREA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't typical to Collier County.
Would those be the affordable units; is that what you're aiming for?
MR. ANDREA: I don't believe so. A small one bedroom unit is
what the architect tells me.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, small's the right word. It's not a
very comforting thought to think we're going to be introducing 600
square foot units. I don't know how that's really compatible with other
projects in Collier County. But I'm sure we'll -- I'll ask staff about that.
From your -- there's a minimum yards. It says from MPUD
boundaries, 10 feet. And that's where you can have your principal
structures. Can you show me on this plan where the MPUD
boundaries are that you're referring to? I think I understand, but I'd
like to know where you think you can be 10 feet back from. All your
external boundaries?
MR. ANDREA: It would be the external boundaries. And
basically as this plan sees, there's no 10 feet there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. But the ability for you to
put it there for a three -- well, let's see, the height is going to be --
could be 55 feet and 65 actual. So you want to put at 65-foot building
10 feet off of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road?
Page 72
May 7, 2009
MR. ANDREA: Well, it wouldn't be 10 feet out. We'd still have
our -- actually, now I look at it, it's -- but we'd still have our buffer
areas that we have to contend with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to get to the buffers,
because I don't agree with your buffers either. But let's just keep on
this. This says you could have a building 65 feet high, 10 feet off of
Davis Boulevard. Now, is that what your intentions are?
MR. ANDREA: It said from external roadways would be 20
feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but see where it says minimum
yards external from MPUD boundaries, 10 feet?
MR. ANDREA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're -- where are you talking about?
You must be far ahead of me.
MR. ANDREA: Just above that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right above that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, the 20 feet's still a
disaster.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, so is the 10 feet. I didn't mean--
now we're in conflict, because one is in conflict with the other. But on
your -- you've got preserves on two sides of your project so you don't
need the 10 or the 20 feet there.
On the south side facing the church you've got a buffer
requirement there that is greater than -- I know your plan says 10 feet,
but I think you've misconceived the -- or misread our landscape buffer
requirement, so we'll talk about that. But I think you're going to need
at least 20 feet there. And then to have a 65-foot building that close,
even at 20 feet.
We just got done discussing a Target in here not too long ago
that was going to be less height than this and we wouldn't allow it on a
six-lane U.S. 41 in East Naples. I don't know how we would think this
is practical for an application in this particular program you're
Page 73
May 7, 2009
producing here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually, they run it
through the center of the building, which is even more confusing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Explain that to me.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, look, the MPUD
boundary. In other words, what they're saying is that the boundary
between the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- mixed use and the residential
is a 10-foot setback, but it's running right through the center of the
unit.
So I don't think -- first of all, I don't think that setback's
necessary, but I do think we should focus on the 20 feet on the
property line.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Mr. Strain, can I clarify one point you were
just asking? And that was about the 65- foot tall building within that
setback.
This is something that we found ourselves pushed into by staffs
interpretation of some of the elements of the PUD. Because one of
staffs interpretations is that if we're going to obtain a mixed use
bonus, we have to utilize the entire amount of that bonus in the
commercial portion of the project. That means it would be 111 units
on a five acre site, one acre of which being a lake, forcing us into a tall
and dense solution, which we do not want to go into and which is not
what we're trying to demonstrate on that plan.
But if staffs interpretation is adhered to, then that leads us to all
of these other requests.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, sir, I mean, there's a lot of options
available to you to offset the concerns of staff. And I'm not sure the
concerns of staff are interpreted in the same manner that you've just
Page 74
May 7,2009
said them, based on their findings -- their understanding. But we'll
certainly find out later today.
I think there are other options that you could have gone to, and
we'll just have to, as the day goes forward, explore those.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're going to have a serious
concern, at least me as one member of this panel, with the setbacks
you stated there. So before the meeting's over, I would suggest to you
that we will be providing some standards that might be a lot more
appropriate.
MR. ANDREA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The minimum yards internal, can you
tell me how that zero foot front yard fits? Show me on this plan, for
example, where that would apply.
MR. ANDREA: For accessory structures, you mean?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're on principal structures. And
our minimum yard's internal. Says minimum yard zero feet for a
townhouse and zero feet for multi-family and zero feet for
clubhouse/recreational building.
I'm trying to figure out where and how that applies. Zero feet
where? You're going to have no setback?
MR. ANDREA: Again, that was done for flexibility in the
original design to bring the buildings closer to the road. The other --
MR. POLAK: Currently on the graphic that's up there, the
setbacks from the sidewalk are between 10 and 15 feet to the main --
the principal part of the building. Terraces may in fact infringe upon
inside that setback, but the principal building itself would be between
10 and 15 feet set back from the sidewalk.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the roads would be -- because it's a
condo they won't be platted, but they will be then a common area to
the condominium?
MR. POLAK: Yes. If it was a condo, yes, that would be the
Page 75
- "__"""'~_'_'~~'_"'V__~'-_~'_,_.,__",_________"_.___._,,._a.""_",_,.>___;___.""~_^"";""",,,,,",,,,,,,,.,,.~.
May 7, 2009
case.
The intention there from a design standard was to set the
principal part of the building back from what we call the common
sidewalk area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's a reference that's
missing. When it said zero, I can't tell where you're talking from. And
if it's from the ending of the common area, that includes the roadway
parking -- well, is there any parking spaces in front?
MR. POLAK: There are parking -- there is parking--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Parallel parking.
MR. POLAK: -- on the street. There's parallel parking on the
street.
The street section you're looking at there, you -- from the center
line of the street, you're probably, you're looking at a 10- foot drive
lane with a gutter with probably an eight or nine-foot wide parallel
parking lane, a curb, a five-foot sidewalk, and then the beginning of
what would be the setback area or green space back to the building,
anywhere between 10 and 15 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the zero would actually be a setback
from the edge of the common area, which would include the sidewalk,
the parking spaces and the roadway; is that correct?
MR. POLAK: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So maybe an asterisk identifying where
the zero measurement comes from would be more appropriate.
The same with the side yard -- go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one thing, Mark. Should we
deal with these now? I know we want to come back. But if they're
saying they've got 10 to 15 feet, why don't we just change that, get
their agreement now and move on and be comfortable with it? Or are
we going to come back and try to remember all these things?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. I mean, I was going to
get through -- I wanted to get staffs opinion on some of these as well,
Page 76
May 7, 2009
but I don't mind detailing it out now, Brad, if we can save time.
Based on his comments, what would that zero -- well, see, Brad,
what I'm suggesting is, is zero feet is acceptable if it's to the edge of
the common area that includes the sidewalk, parking spaces and
roadway. So then they would just need an asterisk identifying where
the zero feet comes from, where the zero feet is measured from.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially what you're
saying, you'd be comfortable with a unit right on the sidewalk. In
other words, that could be a front porch, it could be -- but there'd be no
yard whatsoever.
MR. POLAK: Well, you could -- in fact, you could have the
front porch on the sidewalk. That's not the intention, but you could
have -- it could step back. You could have a wall, a small wall area
enclosing it and then it could step back and have some green space. So
the building could get some movement popping in and out along the --
we'll call it the zero foot setback.
It's not how we're showing it right now, but it's a potential
possibility. We've done it in some other projects where the terrace
wall, if you will, is on the -- would be on the property line, for lack of
a better term. But it doesn't need to be.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the wall wouldn't be
included in the yard dimension.
MR. POLAK: It would be in the yard dimension, correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern I have is that
what he's describing could be 55 foot and then obviously there could
be elevator components higher right on the sidewalk on both sides of
the road. I mean, we have to imagine worst case.
MR. POLAK: Yeah, that is -- that's not even -- that's like a
nightmare. So yeah, you're correct, the way it would be worded now
would -- I think it needs to be worded a little bit better.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we got to the height, Brad, my
next -- I mean, I certainly have questions about the height. They're
Page 77
May 7, 2009
limited to three stories. 55 feet gets you a heck of a lot more than three
stories. So I don't know why you need 55 feet, because that dictates
your actual height, which is 65 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But even a three story building
on both sides that close. And essentially this is the roadway that since
it is a mixed use somebody could be visiting that shop or that
architect's office and driving down that road to get up on Davis. So it's
essentially a public access to Davis from the little --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, this is for just the R tract now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the R -- I mean, what --
isn't that -- it's a mixed use --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the only -- the R tract is the--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is not mixed use, but the
roadway's connected. I mean, is there going to be a gate to not let the
people out of the mixed use? No.
MR. POLAK: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway. And then I think the
other thing is we really have to discuss how close we want to let
somebody build a house to Davis Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I agree with you. I'm pointing all
these out because they need to be thought about, they need to be
discussed, they need to be resolved. But at the same time we've got a
lot of other issues to go through on this project today.
I'm not sure where this whole thing was headed. I mean, we
could spend hours working on all these various standards and still not
come to a conclusion on the balance of the project that's more
important and end up wasting a lot of time until we get through the
whole discussion today.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we'll come back later and
walk through the PUD?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's -- if this thing gets to a point
where it's starting to work through all the analysis we have to have on
Page 78
May 7,2009
the density and all that, then we may want to spend more time on this
to try to fine tune it in the form of a stipulation. But I'm just trying to
put everything on the table that's problematic. And then when we get
into discussions with staff and other people, they can at least express
their concerns about the things that have been pointed out. That's
where I'm going with this.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm good. As long as we
come back, and we traditionally do walk page by page, I'll be happy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was going to do that with the
applicant as we traditionally do right now, but no one else had
questions, so I was going into mine. If you want to --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, no, no. If this is not the
walk-through, I'll keep quiet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it was.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, we normally, when the applicant
makes a presentation, we ask all our in-depth questions at that time.
The only thing I haven't gone into is focusing on how to correct all
this until we hear what the density resolution's going to be. That's the
only thing I was holding off on. If that isn't something -- if you want
to go into it further, go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, as long as we come back.
I mean, I don't want to walk away from, for example, the setback on
Davis. But we'll come back. Let's hear everybody, you're right, we'll
come back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your side yards, could you describe to
me how your zero foot side yards fit in? And let's put that other plan
back up as a concept for discussion. I understand it's just one concept
plan, it's not your final, but it is a little more easier to talk from than a
bubble plan.
Your side yards of zero feet, how would you apply those?
You're a condo, so that means you don't need the fee simple separation
Page 79
May 7, 2009
of a property line, so you don't need distance between structures like a
-- like internal structures where you have a four-plex or something like
that, you just need separation between buildings. And you're looking
at zero feet between buildings?
MR. POLAK: Well, the separation between the buildings, what
would drive the separ -- for example, what's going to drive the
separation between this building and this building is going to be
driven by the building code is going to drive it. The fire rating
required between those buildings is going to drive that. So you're
looking at anywhere from 15 to 30 feet, depending on the type of
construction for that building.
I think maybe a more -- a better way of looking at it from a
traditional neighborhood design is how long do you want a building to
be before you want to put a break in it. And then what do you want
that distance of that break to be is probably a better way of wording
that.
And I'd have to take a look at the plan again but, you know, I
think our long -- I think this building here -- well, probably could use
a -- this is probably 400 feet, I think here. I think these are -- we have
a break here. So I mean, there's an opportunity to provide a -- set a
standard as to where you want to occur -- you know, a maximum
distance on the length of the building.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you ever designed a project like
this in Collier County before?
MR. POLAK: Like this in Collier County, no. No, I have not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because your standards are real
hard to follow. And maybe -- and I don't mean to keep badgering with
my questions, but I've got to understand this myself in order to
understand how to go through the day.
MR. POLAK: I think kind of how we worked it is we were I
guess trying to adopt the standards, kind of a working back and forth
to try to get it. So what I'm really trying to do is to I guess convey to
Page 80
May 7, 2009
you some of the principles that we use when we design with
traditional neighborhood design concepts in mind, some of the kind of
the rules of thumb that we typically use when we go through that
process. So trying to assist in that kind of looking at it from another
perspective as to see how we could address to make sure, you know,
you're kind of getting, you know, what you think you want or what the
intention is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before the day's over, we'll
probably come back and visit all these standards. I just want to get it
noted now so that when staff and others come up, they'll know where
the questioning's been focusing on and we'll hear some response to it.
Your minimum rear yard -- well, first of all, your minimum side
yard is zero feet. I don't believe that's a practical way to reference it,
so at some point we'll have to come back and figure that out.
I don't -- as a Planning Commission member, I don't rely on the
vertical building standards to dictate distances between buildings or
separations. Those are a different set of codes reviewed by a different
board. We have to look at it from a planning perspective, and our
development standard tables set the codes that we abide by, as does
the LDC.
The minimum rear yard of five feet, where is that five feet
measured from? Let's take the -- well, your parking spaces, for
example, where would you measure that five feet from?
MR. POLAK: I think in this particular, in the plan that we're
showing now, we don't really have a rear yard idea here. What you
have is you have units that front both the street and also front the
parking area.
And you have a similar situation here where you would have a
sidewalk and a setback from that particular building. So there's really
not a rear yard concept in this particular layout that you're seeing here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in this layout you would -- if you
were to go into an SDP with this one here at Collier County, you
Page 81
May 7, 2009
would argue you don't have a rear yard, you've got two fronts. And
you would do that and your intention would be zero and zero,
basically. Is that --
MR. POLAK: The way we addressed it with the front setback
issue on how we are addressing it would be the same concept that we
used here. How we get there, I'm not quite sure. I'll defer to Robert on
that.
But in concept the idea was that we have units fronting -- we
have units looking at the parking area, we have units looking at the
street, and we created a similar sidewalk situation here for pedestrian
connectivity that connects all the way through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So these units aren't even through units,
they're front and back units. They're split in the middle.
MR. POLAK: There are some through units. The units on the
corner are through units. And then the townhouse units, actually as
you go to the second floor, the townhouse units in some instances are
through units. On the second floor units there's a variation of units.
So not all the units are through units and not all the units are not
through units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in effect there's no back yards in
any of these units. I mean useable back yards. You've got -- if you
have any -- I mean, you don't have any grass areas or a place that
could be put up where a family could have a barbecue unit or small
pool --
MR. POLAK: No, that would all be part of the -- it would be
part of the common area concept there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So all units in this project then
would have to, for those type of things, go over to that common area
up on Davis Boulevard?
MR. POLAK: That's a potential area. Whether we could identify
other areas throughout the site, we haven't done that yet. I'm sure that
as we get further along in the design we could identify other areas that
Page 82
May 7, 2009
could be used for common areas for the residents, whether it's a tot lot
or a playground or a barbecue area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, when you come into an area
where you're trying to introduce I think a fairly new concept in regards
to the standards you're using, the more detail as to the functionality
and how it fits and works, the better success rate you may have.
Because I'm having -- I'm learning a lot as you're talking regards to
how you laid this thing out, and it's quite different than anything I've
seen before.
Anyway, I think the more detailed of study before today's
meeting would have been more of an advantage than a bubble plan
that we received.
Let's move on down our list of issues on the setback table.
When you say the maximum yards internal. Maximum fronts
yard, 16 feet. Now where would that apply? How does that fit into a
plan like this?
MR. ANDREA: The explanation is number one there, Page 6.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still on Page 5 -- oh, I'm sorry, the
explanation is on Page 6?
MR. ANDREA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying this -- your intention is
to move the buildings back and forth, but if they move back and forth,
they'll move no further back than 16 feet?
MR. ANDREA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any regular -- is there any
parking in front of these buildings -- well, yes, you do, now that we
know the fronts are in the back. On your parking lots for your parking
spaces -- are there any garages on this property?
MR. ANDREA: No garages.
MR. POLAK: No garages.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'll move past my 16-foot
question, now that I --
Page 83
May 7, 2009
MR. POLAK: The concept behind the 16-foot is so we kind of
get uniformity in how the buildings -- in setting the buildings back. So
you're not setting buildings back 30 feet. It was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
MR. POLAK: -- in order to allow movement in the building at
the same time. So that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. I just needed a little
clarifying and you did that, thank you.
The minimum distance between structures is 10 feet. I believe --
most of the time we're looking at half the sum of the building heights.
You're looking at 10 feet between 65-foot buildings? I know you nod
your head yes. Okay . Well, again, it's --
MR. POLAK: Well, I think what we're saying, a minimum there.
And obviously the idea there is that some buildings are -- you know, if
they are smaller in scale, they're not 65 feet high, that would set a
. .
mInImum.
Now, perhaps we need to set a maximum or set it to a standard
on height. But the idea was they wouldn't be any closer than that. And
in fact on that plan there, I believe we have them. I want to say
somewhere between 15 and 30. I don't have it right on the tip of my
tongue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we've got to look at this
under the worst case scenario, because we do have some people that
would come in and try to build the worst case scenario and then we're
struck with it.
So my previous statement that three stories doesn't need 55 feet.
How do you get the 55 feet for three stories? I mean, you're looking at
each story being almost 20 -- I mean 17 feet height high. How are you
doing that?
MR. ANDREA: Again, we were looking at the closest -- next
closest zoning language is where that came from, and the flexibility to
do different peaks in the roof line.
Page 84
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that would be under your actual
height.
MR. ANDREA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why do you need a zoned height of
55 feet?
MR. ANDREA: Again, that was -- I believe that came initiated
from the next adjacent zoning district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My concern's going to be to keep
you to three stories, and logical three stories in regards to what height
is. And I don't know how you can justify at this point 55 feet.
But again, I'll be talking to staff about that, and before the
meeting's over we'll get to that point.
Under your accessory structures, all the same concerns from
above apply there that we already talked about. I'm not going to get
redundant; we'll get into those further.
Your zoned and actual height for accessory structures, what
accessory structures will you have on a project like this? I mean, if
you've got two front yards, what are you going to put out front that's
an accessory structure?
MR. ANDREA: Again, when the PUD was originally created, it
was to give the flexibility. At one point it did not look like this when
we started this project. So again, that was put in there for flexibility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to Page 6. In your
footnote one it says buildings shall primarily front public right-of-
ways in order to create a sense of place in relationship to the street.
What do you mean by that? I mean, how do we measure
primarily?
MR. ANDREA: I don't know. The design of the concept here is
you can see all the buildings mostly do front the public right-of-ways,
except where they do make the turns.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but your -- you have the ability in
your language, from what you described, to vary the front setbacks
Page 85
May 7, 2009
from zero to 16 feet, right?
MR. ANDREA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess it really doesn't matter, if that's
the way you want to build it. But I just couldn't understand what the
word -- how you determine what's primarily fronting public right-of-
ways. Because usually it's a distance that half the building's going to
front the public right-of-way or so many lineal feet will front the
public right-of-way. But I'll let it go.
Under -- well, C, same kind of language, but it's fine
architecturally.
Let's go to Page 7. All the same issues I just brought up on this
development standards table generally apply to this one here. I know
it's got some commercial components, so it's a little different. But I'm
going to have the same questions of staff as comparison to
compatibility with all the standards that are there.
On your master plan, I went through the buffer requirements in
the landscaping buffers that are shown on your master plan, and the
one to the south by the church, you have a Type A. From what I can
determine, it takes a Type B, because your uses against an Estates
zoning -- I know there's a church there, but the zoning is still Estates.
Do you know why you've got a Type A or who determined it was a
Type A?
MR. ANDREA: Yes, that was determined early on, probably--
well, a few years ago.
The area there by the church, that originally was a 15- foot
buffer, and it was switched to a 10. Through conversations with Nancy
Gundlach, that it was determined that the church had enough there in
their preserve to compensate for the area that we needed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's funny, because they don't
have preserve there, they have a parking lot. So I'll talk to staff about
that when they get up here.
I'm just trying to get past my staff questions to get into any more
Page 86
May 7, 2009
that I have of you.
That's it for now.
Anybody else have any final questions of the applicant before
we start staff presentation?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. ANDREA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, we generally break for
lunch sometime between 11 :30 and 12:00. So we'll see how much of
staff section we can get through before we break for lunch and we'll
have to resume afterwards.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem. I am a principal planner with the Department of Zoning
and Land Development Review.
With me I have several staff members that will be addressing
their certain areas of expertise, including David Weeks, who is the
manager of compo planning. Corby Schmidt, who is also a principal
planner in compo planning. Susan Mason, who is working as part of
the environmental staff. John Podczerwinsky for transportation. And
Frank Ramsey is also here from housing, so he can help address any
affordable housing issues you might have.
Two things I wanted to mention. One was the fact that the
artistic renderings that were submitted today, just to -- you know,
we've seen some. They were originally attached as part of the PUD
document. It was determined by the county attorney that was working
on the project at that time that it wasn't appropriate to include them
because they weren't scaled, they weren't reviewed for compliance
with any code, they were just ideas of what could possibly be.
And so the ones that are submitted today are just that as well,
they could possibly be what it looks like, but it could possibly look
different. So they may comply with code, they may not. We don't
know.
Page 87
May 7, 2009
The same way with the option A that is currently on the
visualizer, I have no idea if that particular document complies with the
PUD regulations that they're proposing or that might get adopted, or
whether it complies with the GMP requirements for this sub-district.
And we've not seen this plan, we haven't reviewed it, so I don't know
what it might comply with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And Kay, I think I tried to make
that clear. This is -- we -- I was using that for a talking point trying to
get an example of how their standards fit. I think they said it was one
of several plans that they were going to try to come up with. It wasn't
complete. And that's -- I think all of us realize that. And I appreciate
you making those statements for the record, so thank you.
MS. DESELEM: I just wanted to make that point.
Okay, for the record, you do have the staff record that's been
submitted. It is document dated revised 4/28/09. It's a 24-page
document. And I'll just hit the high points, since we have had an
extensive discussion from the applicant, that explains where the
project is, description of the project, who the agents are. Going on to
Page 2 of the staff report it talks about the surrounding land uses and
zoning. And there is an aerial photograph. This has all been provided
by the applicant as well.
The Growth Management Plan discussion begins on Page 2,
identifying what sub-district this is in. That's also been discussed by
the applicant.
Corby Schmidt is prepared to make a presentation that will help
explain the Growth Management Plan issues for this particular project,
understanding that that is a large part of the dissention between staff
and the applicant.
Going on through the GMP analysis, you do have the
transportation's recommendations for the transportation element, and
they do discuss the Davis Boulevard impacts, the County Barn Road
impacts, and the Santa Barbara Boulevard impacts. And they discuss
Page 88
May 7, 2009
the mitigation that's been agreed upon between staff and the applicant
to bring this particular project into compliance and, therefore, staff can
recommend consistency for our recommended density for the project,
based on the mitigation being provided.
There is a discussion also on Page 10 about the conservation and
coastal management element of this project and the recommendations
as far as consistency with the applicable elements of that.
Environmental staff is recommending that the project be deemed
consistent with the CCME.
Staff provides a GMP conclusion on Page 12, noting that our
particular recommendation for this project has a consistency caveat in
that we reviewed and our analysis shows a certain amount of density
is appropriate. We are holding that only our recommendation can be
found consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
Staff has also provided you analysis from the other reviewers;
again, environmental review, transportation review. There is a brief
synopsis from utilities, and emergency management and parks and
recreation staff. Those are on Page 13 of the staff report.
There is a synopsis from housing review on Page 14 that talks
about a waiver that's being requested as a separate action that would
be applicable to this project, should the board approve that.
Staff has provided a zoning review that looks at the findings of
fact that would be required by the Land Development Code, both for a
rezone petition and for a PUD petition, which this is.
These particular findings address consistency with the goals and
objectives and policies of the GMP. And as I mentioned, staff is
recommending a certain portion of it be consistent, limited to our
review and analysis.
We have reviewed the existing land use pattern. We believe that
this project, as limited, will be compatible with the surrounding area.
Based in part because any other use other than a school and a church
are separated by two major roadways, County Barn and Santa Barbara
Page 89
May 7, 2009
Boulevard.
Staff has also evaluated the possible creation of the isolated
zoning district. We believe that it will not. We have also provided an
analysis of the existing district boundaries, believing that they are
logically drawn.
We've noted particularly that changed or changing conditions do
warrant this rezoning, based on the fact as noted throughout in other
sections as well that there is a specific sub-district that's been adopted
for this particular parcel in the rezoning to PUD in some fashion as is
proposed today would bring the land more in compliance with that
adopted sub-district than what the existing Estates might be.
On Page 16, item number 17, as far as findings, talks about the
increased traffic. And again, as staff has noted earlier, with the
mitigation being provided and agreed upon by county staff, we believe
that this is consistent and should not create an excessive increase in
traffic or create congestion.
Going on to some of the more pertinent things, the others still
being included, obviously, is Item No. 12 that talks about whether the
proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner, as contrasted with the general public.
Again, this gets into the idea of how you calculate the density.
And we believe that if the petitioners' proposal of density were to be
adopted, that that could be construed to grant a special privilege. We
believe that staffs is the correct rendition of how it should be
interpreted.
There's other findings of fact as far as the adequate public
facilities and services. That falls again into the mitigation that's being
provided.
We have evaluated compatibility of the proposed uses and we
believe it will be consistent, again, going back to the fact that any
other residential uses are separated by major roadways.
Finding number six on Page 19 talks about the timing and
Page 90
May 7, 2009
sequence of development, and there is a specific condition as part of
the transportation element that relates to timing, to which the applicant
has agreed upon. And this talks about the Santa Barbara extension,
and that has to be substantially complete before COs will be issued for
this project.
On Page 20 of the staff report is the Environmental Advisory
Council's recommendation. This petition was heard on February 4th,
2009, and recommended for approval by a vote of 8-0.
And there are conditions that they had asked be included, those
are on Page 20, relating to the site development plan or final
plat/construction plans, asking that this project go back to the EAC for
approval to make sure that the hydrology of the preserve area is
maintained or enhanced and that the storm water does not discharge
below the existing seasonal high water level.
On Page 21 it notes the information contained in the several
neighborhood information meetings that this project has had.
On Page 23 is the staff recommendation -- oh, I'm sorry. If I
may, before that, related to the neighborhood information meeting,
there have been two letters from surrounding property owners that
have been submitted. Those I have e-mailed to you. I do have them, if
you'd like me to enter them into the record. Plus there have been
several letters and e-mails going back and forth, as noted earlier, from
Andy Pires -- not Andy, Tony Pires, sorry about that -- and you have
that, as far as I know also.
Staff does have a recommendation for approval. We are
recommending that you approve the rezoning, and its companion
affordable housing density bonus agreement, but subject to the two
things -- either of two things must occur. Those are on Page 23.
One: That the petitioner has to amend the PUD document and
the affordable housing density bonus agreement to reflect staffs
interpretation of how the density should be taken care of in this
petition.
Page 91
May 7, 2009
Or number two: The board makes a policy decision regarding
some of the areas of contention between staff and the applicant.
The only other thing staff would note, that two separate motions
would be required for this petition, because you are acting on a PUD
rezone and an affordable housing density bonus agreement.
With that, I can address any specific questions you have for me,
but I think it would be better to go on to Corby Schmidt's presentation,
because he's going to go into the Growth Management Plan analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Corby's going to take a lengthy
period of time with a lot of questions and answers. I don't want to start
it before lunch, being dropped and then having forgotten most of what
happened by the time we come back. So I would rather we focus on
questions other than that right now. We'll come back from lunch and
we'll focus on Corby's.
Is that okay with everybody here?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of Kay. Go ahead, Mr.
Schiffer, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, anywhere in the code, is
there any kind of a threshold that establishes when a mixed use is a
mixed use? We've had a conversation similar. Remember how the
open space requirements, if you have commercial on it for residential
are different. And sometimes people put a tiny bit of commercial,
maybe a phone booth, and then they get the benefit of that.
But is there anything that would establish any kind of a
minimum as to when this becomes mixed use?
MS. DESELEM: I'm personally not aware of any. I would refer
to either Ray or Susan, they may have more information about the
issue than I do.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning
Manager.
To be deemed a mixed use, you have to have uses allowed in
Page 92
May 7, 2009
commercial and residential units. That is the two uses that it qualifies
a mixed use. There is no minimum square footage, however, and that
is something that has come up on several occasions in the past.
Especially the last one I remember was the one down in Goodland that
had a postage stamp size commercial lot. But it technically met their
criteria and was approved as a mixed use proj ect.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the best of your knowledge
and belief, this is a mixed use --
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- development within that
mixed use area?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Kay, going back to the
criteria number 11, says whether the proposed change will be a
deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in
accordance with existing regulations.
Because there now has to be shared access with this project and
the church to the south, is that any kind of deterrent to them to be able
to redevelop their property, should they want to move the entrance, for
example?
MS. DESELEM: Not to my knowledge. And there is an
agreement that's been accepted by the church and the applicant to
allow for that joint access. So I assume that they would have evaluated
their needs.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So they've essentially
abdicated that situation, okay.
On the criteria in the sub-district, one of the criteria is for there
to be parks.
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, for there to be what?
COMMISSIONER CARON: A park.
Page 93
May 7, 2009
MS. DESELEM: A park, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not seeing any park on this
master plan anywhere. I mean, I'm not seeing much on the master
plan, I might add, but --
MS. DESELEM: I might direct your attention to ironically
almost where the arrows pointing. There is an area that's shown as
community center. My understanding is that is the area that is to
function to meet the park requirement.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So now in this county we're going
to consider a pool and a clubhouse a park? That's how we're going to
define parks in this county?
MS. DESELEM: In this particular instance, I mean, the park
would not necessarily be open. It wouldn't be a neighborhood park
that would be open to other people. And I don't think that's the intent
of the sub-district. I'm sure David Weeks is here and he can actually
testify to the intent.
But I think the idea behind the park is to require -- or to provide
some amenities for the persons who may live here or work here, rather
than to be a full-scale park, what we're accustomed to that the county
provides. It's not anything that the county would run.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, I'm not expecting it to
be the water park. But there is a difference between a clubhouse and a
pool, which is an amenity for the people who live there, and the park
that was supposed to be included as part of this mixed use
development.
I think they're two different things. If staffs going to interpret it
differently, I sure would like to know.
MS. DESELEM: We didn't get into the specifics as to what the
park would provide, not knowing what the age of the people might be,
what needs might be. Oftentimes that's something that's determined by
the developer.
I can speak to sometime in the past where Parks and Recs has
Page 94
May 7, 2009
asked for tot lots to be provided wherein there isn't really any criteria
that requires any developer to put in a tot lot. That kind of leaves it
open-ended for the developer, whomever that might be, to provide the
amenities. It would be most coveted by people that live in the
development.
For example, if it were adults, it might be golf tee kind of things;
or if it had children, it would be playground equipment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that Ms. Caron's referring to a
sentence on the general criteria in the GMP, and that's what makes the
difference. The tot lots and other issues that we have stood against in a
lot of ways because their exactions were the requirements that weren't
in the LDC for tot lots that Parks and Rec was putting on all the
processes that came through here.
But in this particular case, and it's an accepted part of the GMP,
so it's a different animal. And it says that some districts shall include a
park, small plazas and other types of open space. And I don't think that
that's been clearly defined on this site plan. So to give us a level of
knowledge that that's there.
MS. DESELEM: I think perhaps what would fix the situation
would be to call the area designated as community center, change that
designation to a park and it would be clear that that is where the park's
going to be.
The master plan does include the areas with plaza notation, but I
guess through the evolution it was determined that the community
center would fit the bill as a park and allow them some flexibility in
what they were providing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to continue with Kay until
11 :45, by the way, and then we'll take our break for lunch.
You had mentioned something I wanted to catch before it's
forgotten. You had responded to Ms. Caron about the access way
where the church is. That access way is established by Memorandum
of Agreement that has four exhibits, Exhibits A, B, C andD. Exhibits
Page 95
May 7, 2009
A and B are legal descriptions; Exhibits C and D to my knowledge
have not been seen by anybody at county staff that I know of. Have
you seen those?
MS. DESELEM: No, sir, I do not believe I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then you don't know if the
graphics attached to that Memorandum of Agreement are adequate
enough to provide any kind of access there, just that there is a
Memorandum of Agreement that says they have access there.
MS. DESELEM: That's true, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Kay, where are you with the
lack of detail on these plans? Are you comfortable with these?
Because as far as I'm concerned there's a whole lack of detail that I
just can't get comfortable with.
MS. DESELEM: And I understand that that's been a discussion
point on this particular project.
A lot of it, we looked at the master plan, bearing in mind --
although it's no excuse and I don't mean it to be -- this particular
project's been in the work since 2004. And as Robert Andrea testified,
it's been evolving. It's gone through several staff people, several
county attorney staff.
And in trying to come up with something and not having to
knee-jerk the applicant around every time we change, we tried to
come up with something. This particular plan I think was accepted, if
you'll use that term, by the county staff back in October of 2008.
I did go back through the criteria after this issue came up for this
hearing and I looked, evaluating it I think fairly carefully, as to what
was shown and what isn't shown.
True, there are no typicals. That is one thing where you don't
have building footprints, you can show typicals. We don't have those.
But many of the details, you kind of have to put it together as far as
Page 96
May 7, 2009
here's the master plan and you look at the PUD document and
hopefully from that you can extract what the buildings would look
like.
Again, a PUD gives a good deal of flexibility. You don't want to
so regulate that PUD document that anything they want to do would
require an amendment to the PUD. That's counterproductive as well.
But yes, there could be more detail, it would be helpful.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, you lost me at the word
hopefully, okay? That's where you lost me. I would think after all
these years we'd get more detail, not less, and I don't like to hope.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, during the discussions that we had
over the development standards table, were you aware that they were
considering the buildings having two fronts?
MS. DESELEM: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm just using that as one
example of the detail that has been lacking in the presentation today.
Because even if staff didn't anticipate that, it's equally as hard for this
board to anticipate such things. And we're learning a lot about what
those details are, based on the questions that we've had today.
Again, more detail on a unique project such as this would have
been much more helpful for all of us to understand better.
Under your rezone findings, there are two issues on this project
involving density calculations: One comes out at 12 and a half units
per acre and the other comes out I believe at 10 and a half.
The basis of your rezone findings, on which acreage did you do
your analysis?
MS. DESELEM: The smaller of the two, which is the one that
staff is supporting in our recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your rezone findings are based on 10
and a half and the applicant accepts your rezone findings, as he stated
earlier in the meeting.
MS. DESELEM: Ours was based on 10.25. And I can't speak for
Page 97
May 7, 2009
what the applicant accepts, other than to say that I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I heard that in the beginning
of the meeting, but I just wanted to double check what you based your
findings on.
Environmental Advisory Council recommendations. They have
two, actually three in a way. They want to review the site
development plan. And I am extremely objecting to that. And I
certainly won't support anything any time their review of an SDP is
sought, because I don't know the basis for it in the Land Development
Code. Do you know of one?
MS. DESELEM: No, sir, I do not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know any of the members of the
Environmental Advisory Council have the credentials equivalent to all
the different departments in Collier County that review SOP's?
MS. DESELEM: I don't have an opinion on that one way or the
other; I truly don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just don't see what's gained by
such recommendations. I don't see when they're positive without LDC
references saying why they can be utilized. And I'm disappointed that
whoever was monitoring this from a legal viewpoint at that meeting
didn't advise them that unless they can provide an LDC reference to
require such, and possibly the standards that they would have to have
as credentials in order to review such, that why they're even allowed
to make such a recommendation.
So whether this project is approved or not, that particular issue is
one that will always have a problem with me. I just don't understand it,
so --
I have a lot of questions on the GMP, but I think we'll wait till
we get back and we get David up here for that.
On that buffer, the buffer between the church and the project,
both commercial and residential. I have done review of the LDC and
the buffer requirements, I can see it's a Type B buffer. Can you
Page 98
May 7, 2009
explain to me why staff decided not to go with the Type Band
allowed a Type A? Especially when there isn't a preserve on the
church's site, there's a parking lot with a driveway. So how does that
fit?
MS. DESELEM: I can testify that since this came up yesterday
and I was made aware of the issue, I did go back and try to find e-mail
messages, and I called the applicant to try to have him go through his
mind to see what he could come up with.
I found two different staff reviewers that were involved in this
particular project. Both reviewed the buffer requirements. And at one
point the applicant was seeking a deviation from the buffer
requirement. And if I may, I'm going to put his information on the
visualizer.
I draw your attention to item number two. And at that time the
petitioner was seeking a deviation from the I5-foot buffer
requirement, seeking to go down to 10 feet. And the e-mails I was able
to find from review staff at that time indicated that okay, you've
proven to me that there's enough green space there and you wouldn't
need to provide 15- foot buffer because as you explained to me it does
exist; therefore, a 10- foot would be all that was required.
Based on that interpretation from that staff person, the applicant
withdrew this deviation.
So in fairness to the applicant, if it's determined that they do
need a deviation, they did seek it. And --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does staff have the latitude to make
those kind of I guess subjective decisions in regards to deviations in
our code?
MS. ISTENES: In PUDs there is a provision that allows us to do
that. I'm guessing that is perhaps what the staff person at the time --
again, this was a while ago -- probably used. But I can't say for sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
MS. ISTENES: And it has to be relocated on another part of the
Page 99
May 7, 2009
site. So that may -- I may be wrong on that, I'm just guessing at this
point without actually talking to the staff person.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So what you're saying to us is that
if I have a PUD and I'm adjacent to somebody else who's got really
nice landscaping, I can use their landscaping?
MS. ISTENES: The Land Development Code does provide for
in PUDs the ability to administratively change the requirement
through the review process. For example, a plat or an SDP, and
relocate it onto other areas of the site when certain conditions exist,
perhaps on a neighboring property, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get back from lunch, can you
have those conditions available? Because I'm looking at the aerial, and
it's clear that it's barren property almost up to the property line. So I'd
like to know what conditions someone waived this --
MS. ISTENES: Honestly, Commissioner, I'm guessing at that.
And I'm also making you aware of that provision. I have e-mailed
Mike Sawyer. Nancy's out and I've e-mailed -- my question to him
was how, question mark, question mark.
So I am trying to get the answer to you. And I actually won't be
here after lunch, but Ray certainly will be, and we'll get that.
And honestly, if you don't agree with that, then just make it a
Type B buffer or more, if you think there's a consistency issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And with that, we will take
a one-hour lunch break, we'll be back here at 12:45 to resume with
staff. Thank you.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, David Weeks walked
in the room, we can start the meeting.
Corby cautioned me, he said please don't ask me up here until
David gets up first, so -- Kay, thank you. I think we'll move right into
David and Corby and start getting into the other issue that we have.
Thank you.
Page 100
May 7, 2009
MR. WEEKS: Well, I know not to be late.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, a minute is a minute, you know.
MR. WEEKS: David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning
Department.
Commissioners, I thought I would give a little bit of additional
background information and some responses to perhaps some things
that the applicant had stated.
I realize you have some specific questions, Mr. Chairman, and
perhaps other commissioners. My suggestion will be that I make a few
remarks and then Corby will walk through the density analysis for the
site and then go back to your questions of whatever they may be that
might deal with density or commercial or other aspects of the project.
The first thing I wanted to stress to you and really remind you,
because I think you're aware of this, density is not an entitlement. The
only density this project is entitled to, or I should say this property, is
based upon its existing Estates zoning. This has historically been the
case since the Growth Management Plan has been adopted in 1989,
that's the way it's been applied; that is, density is not an entitlement.
And a few years ago we amended the density rating system to
explicitly state that density is not an entitlement.
When you review any given project, part of your analysis of
course is compatibility, infrastructure impacts and some other
considerations that are identified in the Land Development Code, any
of which could ultimately result in a determination that the eligible
density is not appropriate for the given site or given project.
FLUE policy -- Future Land Use Element Policy 7.5 does
encourage mixed use development. However, it goes on to explicitly
state that this policy is implemented through specific provisions in
specific sub-districts in this Growth Management Plan.
The point merely is that the policy does encourage mixed use
development, but in and of itself it is not a basis of reliance for why a
project should be approved.
Page 101
May 7, 2009
This specific Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use
sub-district was patterned after the residential mixed use neighborhood
sub-district. And Mr. Goldmeier had made some reference to that sub-
district, without naming it, referring to some existing legislation that
was in the Growth Management Plan. And that's what he was referring
to.
And I certainly would concur with him that staff did suggest,
when this Growth Management Plan amendment was submitted back
in 2004, that that other existing sub-district should be the foundation,
should be the starting point.
This subject sub-district complied with most of the requirements
of that existing residential mixed use neighborhood sub-district. Two
notable exceptions were the spacing criteria for commercial. A
commercial tract could be no closer than a half mile to the nearest
commercial. And in this particular case it is closer to a half mile; that
is, less than a half mile to commercial zoning at the Santa
Barbara/Davis Boulevard intersection.
And secondly, the ratio of residential to commercial acres, this
project does not comply with that existing sub-district provision,
hence the need for this particular amendment. And that was discussed
way back at the pre-application meeting for that plan amendment.
I think I'll stop there, Commissioners. Some of the other
comments I have pertain to some specific questions.
And again, I would suggest that Corby -- unless you have
questions of me right now, allow Corby to walk through the specific
analysis that staff went through for our determination of the eligible
density .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question that is more generic.
Does this project or any typical project receive additional
density bonuses for declaring themselves a mixed use?
MR. WEEKS: It's a case-by-case determination. And most -- in
some specific sub-districts, and this is an example, there is specific
Page 102
May 7, 2009
text within the sub-district that does provide for additional density for
doing mixed use.
In this particular case the commercial tract is allowed to have
residential density on that tract at four units per acre. But based upon
the acreage of the entire sub-district, not just that commercial tract,
that is the incentive built in to try to get people to do mixed use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this project did benefit from
the incentive for doing a mixed use project.
MR. WEEKS: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, then I will have certainly another
question when Corby is done. Thank you.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon. Corby Schmidt,
Comprehensive Planner with the Comprehensive Planning
Department for Collier County.
I was one of the staff members involved in preparing the
consistency review and going through the evaluation of the proposal
through all its iterations or, as characterized by the applicants, its
evolutions.
What I'm going to begin today, trying to simplify and clarify the
assessment that the staff did, and especially the calculations for
density in this sub-district as one of the points of disagreement
between staff and petitioner. And I'll be doing that with some
illustrations.
All right, thank you.
I'm simply providing here a generalized image of the sub-
district. And the entire page is all 22 some acres.
And that's what you have. I've divided it up between two parts.
But first I want to start with what would be the entitlement or the base
density on this property in the Estates district. And that would be four
units per acre. And that's the base on this property.
With the introduction of a commercial component, some of that
base density is lost to those five acres in the calculation. In order to
Page 103
May 7, 2009
regain some of that residential density, another allowance or a mixed
use allowance inside this sub-district language was provided for. And
I've simply drawn the bubble over the line to illustrate that that
calculation for those additional mixed use allowance units is based on
all 22 acres.
As a requirement in the sub-district for allowing for those
additional units -- and the four units on the base is 71 and the four
units on all of the acreage is 91. In order to derive those 91 units, a
requirement was to provide or is to provide 10 percent of the -- of all
the density or the total units on the property in affordable housing, and
the category is given there, from 80 to 100 percent of median
household income. And additionally, another 10 percent for below 80
percent median household income.
That 20 percent is consistently applied to that calculation of the
total number of dwelling units for the remainder of what I'm about to
show you.
Again, in this sub-district the density is calculated to begin with
with the base on those 17 point some residential acres. And that's four
units per acres, which derives 71 units.
From the last sheet to this, of course conversations and
presentations during the creation of the sub-district and testimony led
that well, what about additional density. Those 91 and 71 may not be
enough to make this a feasible project. And I believe that's 162, and
you'll see a common theme in some of those board minutes of
numbers around this 162, 71 and 91.
In order to achieve additional density the offering was and the
provision in the sub-district language is that the density bonus system
would be applied. It's applied throughout the county and that's the
method to do so for any project like this, how do I derive additional
density. Not me personally, but --
The density rating system allows for a number of bonuses. And
in order to derive density, the first bonus that applied to this sub-
Page 1 04
May 7, 2009
district was the access bonus. And an additional unit per acre, again
calculated on residential portion only, is given as a bonus for being on
major roadways, access to both County Barn and Davis.
The next applicable bonus offered by the density system, or the
density rating system is that density band or proximity bonus for being
near enough to another or a mixed use activity center. And that bonus
is applied at three units per acre, again in accordance with the density
rating system and language in the sub-district to the residential
portion, that three units per acre.
Then back to the mixed use idea with the sub-district. The
calculation again we see for providing additional housing in the
commercial component afforded an additional density allowance as
part of the sub-district by the county board.
And I've again drawn that bubble on the line to illustrate that the
calculation is done over and using the entire acreage more than 22
acres. And a reminder that again, there were 10 percent of the total
dwelling unit count and 10 percent of the dwelling unit count required
for two different affordable housing categories. And those affordable
housing categories were part of what the petitioner's agent presented
to you as being one of those changes during the many years this has
been in process. I'll go into that a little bit later.
This is the calculation that you see just illustrated here, but you
see many times in your staff report and the consistency review that
results with the total dwelling unit capacity or density of 234 units.
Here is a representation of the petitioners' calculation and how
they attempt to derive their density, we believe, of286. Again, the
base density, the access to major roadways and the proximity to a
mixed use activity center, giving us those initial and bonus units. In
this case the petitioner has used the calculations for the mixed use
allowance of those four units per acre, and provides the 10 percent and
10 percent. And if this were shown in color, you would see that the 10
percent and 10 percent that they're proposing is different than the 10
Page 105
May 7, 2009
percent and 10 percent affordable housing that's required by the sub-
district. You saw that in your consistency review in the staff report.
There's a consistency problem with the kind or the types of categories
of affordable housing being offered.
Plus from the same number of units, they're asking to derive an
additional three units. Their calculation goes to five, but they're only
asking for three of those to approach 286 units overall.
But the same 20 percent and -- of the affordable housing is being
used to derive seven units per acre for their bonus density. And
certainly this bonus on bonus activity is not encouraged or written into
any of the sub-district language or the density rating system or the
density bonus program.
And what the staff has found, this is inconsistent. The sub-
district language clearly says, and I believe the cite would be the
language for the sub-district under A-8, and I'll turn to that page
myself, I can direct you to it.
This I believe might be on Page 4 or 5 of your staff report,
because the language is rewritten there. This is that sub-district text
itself.
And under the commercial component it states, residential uses
are allowed and may be located above commercial uses in the same
building or within an attached building. Residential density within the
commercial component is allowed at four, four dwelling units per acre
and shall be calculated based on the gross acreage in the sub-district.
That's not what you see represented here. You see seven units
per acre attempted to be derived from those mixed use or that
commercial component.
And the same limitation is found later in the document so that
you're also looking at C-l1. And that's the general criteria I believe
earlier referred to by the applicants. And there, part of the statement is
for the project's total density, whether it is the minimum of 91
dwelling units or a greater amount allowed by the density rating
Page 106
May 7, 2009
system, which has been applied consistently by the staffs example.
Bonus units -- I'm sorry, bonus units -- bonus provisions and approved
via the rezoning, a minimum of 10 percent and 10 percent shall be
supplied.
Again, that brings us only to the 234 units.
The staff was asked to provide the applicant back in February
with alternatives or methods by which they could reach those 286
units, and they certainly can, by continuing to apply the density bonus
program by which they've derived some of these bonus units, to apply
it further.
And how to do that? Well, the last remaining bonus available to
them is with affordable housing. So through applying the density
bonus system and providing additional affordable housing, they can
derive those necessary or required three unit per acre -- or three units
per acre. Again, because it is part of the density bonus program, that
calculation is applied only to the residential portion of the property.
And by providing additional -- that's additional residential units of
affordable housing instead of double dipping into those units already
being provided as part of the requirement for their mixed use
allowance, they could derive additional density to reach that 286 units.
However, that's not what they've asked you to do.
I think I'll pause there. If there are questions about just the
bubble diagrams I have used to simplify what seems to be a
complicated and confusing calculation to some -- and it may have
been for you when reading the staff report -- I hope that the
illustrations assisted you with some better understanding of how the
staff arrived at numbers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of Corby at this time?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Corby, in the affordable
housing calculation, they allow you to increase the base density. And
they give you a little example, that the maximum allowable density
Page 107
May 7, 2009
equals base plus affordable -- the density bonus, right? When they
refer to base, what do they refer to? Let me just say something, do
they mean the four units per acre or do they mean four plus any other
things you might get for location, access and other things? Does that
derive the base?
MR. SCHMIDT: I'm not familiar with that cite. Can you direct
me to it first?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's in our report, Page 17
of 29 is the table we have. I think it's an old table, but it is the one in
which they derive the ability to get five additional density -- it's in our
staff report --
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- attached to the back of it. It's
the form they're using to calculate the density.
Now, I know you stated they only really want three, but they're
circling to get the five. I asked them in the hearing how many they
were entitled to and they said five.
So -- but the question is not that. The question is the word base
density. Does that mean after you take the four units, which is the
county-wide base, add to that what other things they're eligible for,
you could then on top of that use this density bonus? Or does this
mean this is only available on top of the four units?
MR. WEEKS: David Weeks again for the record.
Commissioner, the answer is the base density is referring to the
four units per acre.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Now, make sure I'm clear, that doesn't preclude
other bonuses being applicable. But specifically with this table, when
it says base density, that's that four units per acre.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So this equation could
read base density plus affordable housing density bonus, plus -- and
you could list other bonuses to come up with what is the maximum
Page 108
May 7, 2009
allowable density then.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: But of course the focus of this table is only
affordable workforce housing --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Agreed.
MR. WEEKS: -- that's why there would be no mention of those
other bonuses.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I wanted to make sure the
confusion wasn't that if you use affordable housing, you only can use
the base and add affordable to it. That was my concern.
I guess, you know, we can go through it. I guess we're
comfortable now that the word component really defines site, since it's
referencing acreage as the component. Are you comfortable with that
too? I mean, there was some testimony that is component a physical
description of a site or is it a use.
MR. SCHMIDT: I believe the question has been asked and
answered a number of times by a different number of staffers and
different bodies that the petitioners have come before us. And I have
always said that's an unanswerable question the way it's asked.
It's both, because the calculations are based on one or the other.
And other calculations are based on all of the acreage. But that's never
been --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. SCHMIDT: It's one of the contentions of the applicant, that
the calculations can be adjusted according to a definition they prefer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
The other thing, in the mixed use component, or whatever it is,
the four dwelling units that they reference there, do you interpret that
to be a maximum or do you interpret that to be a base?
MR. SCHMIDT: It's a calculation, so it's a given. It's neither. It's
both the maximum and the minimum. It's an allowance that was given
Page 109
May 7, 2009
as part of the sub-district language because they would provide
housing for the acreage lost in the residential area that is now -- was
then proposed to go to some 35 to 40,000 square feet of commercial.
And it was a reasonable provision or an allowance to add density back
in for those lost acres. And that is four units per acre. It can't be
additional under that provision.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So do you think -- but could
that also mean that that's the most number of units you are allowed to
put on that site? Regardless of what you calculate the site to hold, does
that statement maybe mean that the greatest density you can put on the
mixed use component is four dwelling units, essentially the 91 ?
MR. SCHMIDT: It's been interpreted that way by a number of
people to say that there is a maximum number of units that can go on
the commercial portion of the property.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. SCHMIDT: Staffhas given you a number of options,
especially in the consistency review sheets only. There were
supplemental pages that do not appear in the staff report that's just part
of the commercial -- or part of the comprehensive planning staffs
report.
And those supplemental pages attempt to show you that we
expect a minimum actually located on the commercial portion, a
minimum number of residences. And there's a maximum. We do
consider that maximum to be 91. But it's a flexible number, based on
the way the density blending or the transfer of units is applied upon
the ultimate decision for density.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the reason I asked
that is that could -- we're never calculating the density based on the
total sub-district acreage, we're always calculating where we split it
up; is that right? In other words, why wouldn't we just run a
calculation for the gross acreage and then take that sentence to say you
can't have more than four units on that mixed use site, the rest of them
Page 110
May 7,2009
obviously can be left behind on the other site.
MR. SCHMIDT: There is no other provisions in the Growth
Management Plan or in the LDC that would allow us to do that. The
sub-district's specific allowance for density in the commercial portion
of it through that mixed use allowance is specific to the sub-district,
and it's the only way to get a calculation that includes the commercial
acreage. The density rating system does not apply to the commercial
portions or industrial portions of mixed use developments. And the
LDC has a backup provision that copies that.
The only way to provide additional density reasonably to the
applicants, when this sub-district was created, was to have this sub-
district specific allowance that is the only calculation based on all of
the acreage. And that way they do account for the five acres.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything of Corby?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I've got a few questions.
The four units per acre that you had overlapping the two
different uses, commercial, residential, if they did not agree to do a
mixed use project, could they have gotten that four unit per acre?
MR. SCHMIDT: They would not have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SCHMIDT: It is only --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I'm just trying to get you to say
yes or no, that's all.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the fact that they produced a
mixed use/commercial/residential project on a portion of their
property, they got the benefit of four more units per acre on the overall
property .
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You've seen the presentation as
Page 111
May 7, 2009
an example. And I will absolutely tell you, it was a one concept, it's
not necessarily the one they will end up building. But if they were to
try to submit the concept plan that we saw here this morning with that
few areas of commercial made to service the inside of the project,
meaning the residential units there, is that considered a mixed use
project? Would it have been considered a mixed use? Was the
intention that that was the form of mixed use project that would have
generated a four unit per acre density bonus?
MR. SCHMIDT: In a diminished form, I believe so. Although
their original intent was to provide some 35,000 to 45,000 square feet
of commercial floor area on about five acres, now your request is for
only -- or your evolved proposal has now reduced that to somewhere
around 13 to 15,000 with the same five acre calculation. So the
calculation would still apply.
There'd be other reasons why that evolution Exhibit A wouldn't
be acceptable, but that's not one of them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the original transmittal of this project
through this Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners and in the adoption process, collectively in those two
documents -- and they're packaged as documents, and this is them --
that were provided by the applicant in part and in staff by part. In both
circumstances, both by the applicant and by staff, the capping of the
number was 238. And at some points in ranged from I think it was 164
something or 146 to 238. But that was the range that was always told
to us at the time of the transmittal and adoption. And then when it got
to the BCC through adoption, obviously there were some changes.
But the purpose of this mixed use bonus was also spelled out in
some of that documentation, and it's a short paragraph, so let me read
it to you.
The proposed district will be in harmony with surrounding
development and land use activities and will actually support them to
some extent by the proximity of proposed facilities. Residents of the
Page 112
May 7, 2009
apartment development and the PUDs across Davis Boulevard and
County Barn Road will be able to walk across the street to find a
variety of goods and services. Faculty for the nearby school may live
there and both school faculty and church members may dine in cafes
and restaurants and use services. Local residents will benefit as well
by not having to leave the village to purchase goods and services. This
proposed mixed use sub-district is compatible with nearby land uses
and activities.
I read that because that seems to have a lot more intention of
commercial component than the example we saw here this morning.
And I think that's what's got, at least myself and maybe other of us a
little bit surprised. Because when we envisioned mixed use, we
envisioned it, as a lot of references have been made, that they're going
to have a commercial component with residential up upstairs.
And instead what we're seeing is a convenient store with some
residential buildings attached to the back of one side of it and then
nothing -- and of course to the south a separate building.
That just doesn't seem to get us where we thought the intent
might be when we originally saw this thing coming through.
And another thing, I think it also is clear that during the Board of
County Commissioners' hearing on May 19th, 2005 -- and there were
a lot of discussion concerning the density. I've got several examples,
but this one is the most telling.
Commissioner Henning spoke and he said, well, yeah, that's
okay, but I just want to tell you that above your base density, it's 143
units.
And Mr. Goldmeier said, yes, sir.
And Henning went on to say, 10 percent of that or 14 units will
be affordable and 10 percent will be workforce, and then they went on
with that kind of discussion.
But it was 143 units above the base density, and the base density
has been noted as 91. And I think that's how you got to your 234.
Page 113
May 7, 2009
But originally at transmittal it had 238, so those numbers are
relatively close. That's why I'm having a hard time getting to their
density of 286 or wherever it is they're up to now.
MR. SCHMIDT: Let me help with that a little bit, if I may.
MR. PRITT: Mr. Strain, what was the date --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the mic, please.
MR. PRITT: Mr. Strain, Bob Pritt for the record.
You're apparently reading from some documents that are not part
of the record, as far as I know. You said this was from a May, 2005?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one are you talking about, the
quotation from Commissioner Henning?
MR. PRITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was a one -- I'm sorry, January 25th,
2005 BCC --
MR. PRITT: The January 25th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- meeting.
MR. PRITT: Okay, that is in the record. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, May 19th is also as well, May
19th, 2005. But that's two pages back. I was two pages forward. And
the one I have is May --
MR. PRITT: Okay, the one I have is June 7th, 2005. That's why
I was wondering what the May 19th -- what meeting was that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says right here, document
named BCC minutes, January 25th, 2005.
MR. PRITT: Yes, that one I understand. But you said May 19th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: May 19th is -- would be the Planning
Commission meeting.
MR. PRITT: Oh, Planning Commission, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. PRITT: We'd be happy to respond to that question when--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, when we get done with staff,
then we'll certainly get you back up here and try to straighten out yourn
Page 114
May 7, 2009
end of it, too.
MR. SCHMIDT: Let me address the question for the numbers.
Somewhere near 143, 144.
When you consider the number of affordable units that are being
requested by the petitioner, 57, those numbers reflect the 10 percent
and the 10 percent, or the 20 percent of the total count of dwelling
units that they intend to development here. And from that they would
derive 144 bonus units, more than half of the density. That may
include some of the other bonuses, but from that 20 and -- from that
10 and 10 percent, more than half of the density is derived from
bonuses. And I think that may be the way that that commissioner was
referring to the base there.
What was -- what is calculated by staffs version is that at a
minimum you already have the 10 percent and the 10 percent of the
required affordable workforce housing. And in order to obtain the
three additional units per acre to reach their desired number of total
dwelling units, again at a minimum, depending upon the mix of the
kinds or the categories of affordable housing they propose, that would
be an additional 10 percent and an additional 10 percent, about 40
percent of the units, to derive the same 144 bonuses. And that's where
that 143, 144 comes in.
So by most calculations in other sub-districts where we've done
these kinds of calculations, 40, 50, 70 percent of the project is
affordable housing to derive that density. And here they propose just
20.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a couple of other
questions, and one is can you explain the comment made by the
petitioner earlier about some issue involving the change was made
during the EAR, they felt it was un -- I don't know if unfair is the right
word, but there was something they felt was inappropriate in the way
that was done in regards to their subdivision. Could you explain that
change and --
Page 115
May 7, 2009
MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how we did whatever we did?
MR. SCHMIDT: Sure. I'd like to put part of that on the
visualizer for you, if I may.
What occurred during the length of time that this proposal has
been in front of us, other changes have taken place, including EAR
based amendments. Part of what took place in those EAR based
amendments is a re-categorization or the addition of gap housing to
what we used to call the Cormac matrix. Those categories shifted. And
I believe the EAR based amendments -- and you'll see in the struck
through, underlined version here -- simply clarifies, does not change
anything, does not revise anything, does not require anything different
of the petitioner than was required of them before EAR based
amendments took place.
This simply points out what the categories were at the time the
sub-district was approved and accounts for what was required then. So
that their expectations would be the same. It's all it did. I'm not sure
what other contention they have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, I have a question of you,
since -- and maybe I think you'd be the most appropriate one.
What was your intent of the meaning of this sub-district's
language as it was written? Is what -- the staffs analysis your intent?
Does that meet your intent of that understanding of what this sub-
district is supposed to be?
MR. WEEKS: If I understand the question, you're asking does
the staff analysis reflect what --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You wrote the sub-district language.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to find out, does your --
MR. PRITT: I need to object then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. --
MR. PRITT: -- his opinion's irrelevant.
Page 116
~_~^""'~'~"_"~_"'''C''.'_'.''_'___~'_'''~'~''_~__'_''~'~",_~.,.<<,..._"._;__,_..._..,.,.,_" -_ 1 _--.__
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt, it's my question. I can ask him
whatever question I want for the public record.
MR. PRITT: I have to protect the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you can do so in just a minute
when I finish my question.
The intent of the sub-district language that you wrote, was the
intent of that language reflected in the staff analysis that's presented to
us in regards to the density calculation?
MR. WEEKS: With regards to the density, let me answer it this
way: The version of the sub-district that was presented to the Board of
County Commissioners is not the version that they adopted. It was at
-- as you referenced minutes a few moments ago, read from some.
At the County Commissioners' hearing for adoption of the sub-
district is where this new provision came about that required the
minimum of 91 dwelling units and most specifically this 10 percent
and 10 percent provision. That was not something that staff had
drafted.
So I would answer the question this way: The analysis that was
provided to you by the comprehensive planning department reflects
what we believe the language says and that language I believe reflects
the intent of the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the language that you wrote,
that you interpreted from the Board of County Commissioners, do you
believe that's also the intent of the Board of County Commissioners?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Pritt, did you want to make a
statement?
MR. PRITT: No, I object.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Next thing. David, I had some questions concerning the
permitted use language, some very specific references in here. And I
had reiterated earlier and called it to your attention while you were
Page 11 7
~"~"_""_"__W~""""""_"'^"'__"~'~".~.' "'~"--"-"'" "'__'_'"~_""___"_"__h.",-=..,~..=""*-,,,"_._.~_,,",_ ...._.... -" 'It 'P:".. "I'r l7 1T
May 7, 2009
sitting back there. If you're not familiar with what I'm referring to, I
can read it again, if you'd like.
MR. WEEKS: I am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Once you posed that question or that issue earlier,
I took the time to look through the various sub-districts in the Future
Land Use Element and Golden Gate Area Master Plan, which allow
commercial development to see what terminology was used there.
Most of them use a phrase allowed or allowable as in uses in the
C-1, 2, 3, whatever commercial zoning districts are allowed or are
allowable, or those are the uses, uses shall be similar to, similar types
of phrases.
This is the -- one of the few -- I believe this is the only one that
specifically uses the term permitted, permitted uses in the C-1, 2, 3
zoning districts.
There are some that are very explicit. One in particular that says
uses permitted by right. That is very clear. That's in the downtown
center commercial sub-district in the Golden Gate Master Plan.
And then there's I think a couple of examples, more recent ones,
where the terminology says uses permitted -- excuse me, permitted or
conditional uses of the so-and-so commercial zoning districts.
The point I'm trying to make here, I'm walking through some
examples, but to show that more recently staff has been
recommending and then the board adopting language that is explicit
that it does says permitted and conditional, if that's the intent. And if
the intent was just to be permitted uses; that is, those allowed by right,
that it would explicitly state that.
But most of the sub-districts, and this goes back to the original
adoption of the plan in '89 and then some amendments to create
individual sub-districts since then, most of them use the phrase
allowed or allowable, which is vague in the sense that well, does that
mean permitted by right, does that mean conditional, or could it be
Page 118
May 7, 2009
either.
Historically staff has recommended, and in most cases I believe
the Board of County Commissioners have approved, zoning to
implement these sub-districts on a case-by-case basis where the
determination is made what uses are appropriate, what uses are
permitted by right in the allowable zoning districts and what uses, if
any, that are only allowed by conditional use.
And I'll quickly make this point. You go through the same public
hearing process as far as the notice requirements, the number and type
of hearings for a conditional use as you do for a rezoning. So that
when in this case this petition is before you now to rezone the
property, they're asking for some conditional uses from some of the
commercial zoning districts. You and the Board of County
Commissioners will have the ability, do have the ability through this
hearing and theirs, to evaluate those requested conditional uses to
determine if you think they're appropriate for the property.
The big distinction, though, is that you're reviewing them en
masse; whereas an individual conditional use petition, when it comes
before you, that's the only thing you would be focused on for that
project site, and you would have a lot more details. You would have
the details of the conditional use being considered. In this case there's
a whole range of conditional uses being proposed and you're
considering them en masse as to whether or not they're appropriate.
But I think I'll boil it all down to the short answer, because I
think that's what you're looking for. This language says permitted. Did
that mean permitted by right? I do not think it did. I think it meant
permitted in a generic context, not permitted as it is defined in the
LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're saying that even further
then by the word permitted but not permitted by right we could
actually go in and weed out certain C-l, C-2 and C-3 uses that may be
deemed -- that we may feel are inappropriate for this particular site.
Page 119
May 7, 2009
MR. WEEKS: I certainly do. I mean, the Growth Management
Plan sub-district is establishing what uses -- the range of uses that are
allowed on the property. But it's through the specific analysis of the
rezone petition that comes before you that you determine which of
those uses are appropriate. Because you're looking at more detail now,
more specifics of the project that you would not have at the GMP
amendment stage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And my other question would be
the language involving the effect at the time of SDP approval.
Whereas the language that's in the GMP, I seem to read, it says in
effect at the time of adoption of the sub-district. Which is it? Because
their PUD is trying to hook it to SDP approval? Is it that or is it
specifically what the GMP says?
MR. WEEKS: In this case I would have to say the GMP is
explicit and it's clear that it's based on the adoption date of the sub-
district, not some future date.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Now, questions any further on the density? David, did you?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have any, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Corby, just bear with me a
second. And maybe David, you could -- Corby, let's run through the
available density on this site, okay? Let's forget which component
we're on right now, okay?
MR. SCHMIDT: All right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is the first one, where available,
every site in town's available four units, correct? That's the base
density of Collier County.
MR. SCHMIDT: It is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. They would be allowed
Page 120
~'-'.""''''"''~''>'-''''-;~'''~'-"-__.'______''i_ lP _"_"'__"'*'_.1 ....r ~ ,."___~,-",...,_._.~~".~~"";"...,,.,......._.~.,,
May 7, 2009
the access density of one.
MR. SCHMIDT: They would.
MR. WEEKS: I need to interj ect.
I don't agree with the first scenario, unless you meant it
hypothetically. Because in this partic --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well --
MR. WEEKS: Did you mean it hypothetically, just a general
piece of property?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Finish your sentence, because
maybe I didn't.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. Because in this particular case this is not a
general piece of property governed by the urban residential sub-
district. There's a very specific sub-district on this property. And its
only provision to allow residential density to be generated from that
commercial tract is that provision that allows for four units per acre,
based upon the entire site acreage. Otherwise --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How do you come to that
conclusion from the words in the sub-district?
MR. WEEKS: In the sub-district language, Davis
Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use sub-district, paragraph A-8
states residential uses are allowed -- excuse me, 8-A is commercial
component. And then number 8 is residential uses are allowed and
may be located above commercial uses in the same building or within
an attached building. Residential density within the commercial
component is allowed at four dwelling units per acre and shall be
calculated based upon the gross acreage in the sub-district.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, when I read that, how
come I get the feeling that they're limiting 91 units in the mixed use
segment of the site --
MR. WEEKS: Well, because that--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- not adjusting how we
calculate the base density? In other words, how do you determine that
Page 121
May 7, 2009
that means -- forget about our normal base in this case, we're going to
go by this.
MR. WEEKS: Sorry, but I don't understand the question. To me
it reads clearly that they are eligible for four units per acre on the
commercial tract, but the density of four is based on the entire sub-
district acreage.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What it says, within the
commercial component and it says residential density within the
commercial component is allotted four dwelling units per acre and
shall be calculated based upon the gross acreage of the sub-district.
So that's the 91 units. So to me that means you're not going to
have more than 91 units in that sub-district. It doesn't mean that don't
calculate the base any different.
Let's pretend I understand, you know, I'm right. So what you're
saying is in this case the four units base density that Corby started his
presentation with is that four units.
MR. WEEKS: That base density of four units per acre is not
applicable to the commercial component. The base density of four
units per acre is only applicable to the residential component. It states
so in the sub-district and it also provides reference back to the future
land use -- excuse me, to the density rating system which also
specifically provides that residential uses are just allowed on
noncommercial and nonindustrial portions of a project.
So it's saying when you look at a mixed use project such as this,
don't look at the commercial tract, just look at the balance of the
property for the acreage to use to determine density.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean -- okay, but let
me -- let's go back then. You can do that -- okay, so let's go to the
residential tract and then maybe I can walk it over.
So the residential tract, it's a base of four units based upon the
LDC; is that what you're saying?
MR. WEEKS: Based upon the density rating system.
Page 122
May 7, 2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The base density starts at
four.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They get the one, correct?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They get the proximity three,
correct?
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Now, if they did the
affordable housing calculation -- and the one we're that provided with
that we're supposed to approve today has a density of five. I know you
stated they said three, but it's five in the paperwork. So would they be
allowed that? In other words, that gives them an additional five units
per acre.
MR. WEEKS: They would be allowed to request it be eligible
for affordable housing density bonus. You mentioned three or five,
they could go as high as eight, but only on the residential portion of
the project.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Well, that's what I'm
doing. I'm going down that. So in other words, the residential portion,
based upon their application, could have 13 units per acre. I mean,
doing --
MR. WEEKS: Based on their five requested.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Using their five.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, I agree.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. What you're saying then,
in addition to that they would be allowed 91 units on the commercial,
forget the conversation of base and everything else; is that right?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other questions of
David or Corby on this density issue or any of the GMP issues?
Page 123
May 7, 2009
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karen.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The two types of housing that are
required in this sub-district for the affordable workforce housing are
meant to be owner occupied; is that correct?
MR. SCHMIDT: Not necessarily.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: If they're awarded with a bonus?
It's not a right. This must -- Brad said this is an old chart, the numbers
are different here where he's getting the five units per acre. But they're
including the low income, 51 to 60, and that says --
MR. SCHMIDT: We'll talk about their categories --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- and that doesn't have to be
owner occupied.
MR. SCHMIDT: -- in a moment. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is that right? Because there's an
asterisk next to it, in this old one anyway. It says the gap in the
workforce need to be owner occupied. And anything below that I
guess can be rentals.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I'm going to suggest we defer -- it
best for us to defer specific questions about the affordable housing
density provision, specifically to your question of ownership, to Frank
Ramsey, to Buddy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before Mr. Ramsey comes up to try to
answer her question, if this project doesn't utilize the density bonus of
the affordable housing category but uses the 10 and 10 percent
requirement by the county commission, are they then restricted to
owner occupied, based on the affordable housing density bonuses?
MR. WEEKS: That's not clear. Because when the county
commission added that requirement -- if the real question is did they
intend for those units to follow the LDC pro -- otherwise follow the
LDC provision, I would tend to think so, but I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Page 124
May 7, 2009
And Mr. Ramsey's going to respond to Karen.
MR. RAMSEY: For the record, Frank Ramsey, Housing
Manager.
To answer the question about whether these would have to be
owner occupied units that received affordable housing density bonus,
I'm looking through the agreement for the petitioner right now and I
do not believe that it is a requirement that they're ownership units, so
long as they're maintained affordable rental units. But I'm going to
confirm that right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if you'd have -- would you
let us know before too long, your confirmation on that?
MR. RAMSEY: Five minutes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Before -- Buddy, don't run
away.
Go ahead, ladies first.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, who's got the question?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I do.
Buddy, what is the density based on the new chart, which we
don't have in our application? How many units per acre is the
maximum they could get? They say they want three, but the
application we have says they can have -- they're entitled to five.
MR. RAMSEY: Let me see if I have the most recent here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me ask you a question
this way: Since this application is so old and they started it, are they
entitled to the older application, or will they have to use the updated
one? I guess the EAR changed the wording to match the updated one,
so -- this really shows how we have to really pay attention during the
GMP cycles.
So they're entitled to five.
MR. RAMSEY: According to the application, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
Page 125
~_""'_'"">"'-'~""_O"~"''''-'-"''.'''''"'''''''''''__~______''. ~,.
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the application is in error. That's not
the grouping that they're supposed to be applying for. They're
supposed to be applying for gap, I believe, and then something below
gap. But isn't gap a requirement of the subdivision?
MR. RAMSEY: I don't believe that the gap is the requirement of
the affordable housing density bonus application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't my question.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It is of the sub-district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In No. C-11 of the general criteria it
talks about 10 percent must be affordable workforce housing units
provided for those earning greater than 80 percent, but no greater than
100 percent of the medium of Collier County.
And then the other section is 10 percent of those less than or
equal to 80 percent of the median household.
So those are the two numbers. So now how does that fit into the
affordable housing bonus agreement? The one that they supplied, it
doesn't seem to. They've got one of the categories missing.
MR. WEEKS: I'll ask the question on the record of the staff
that's here. I believe this goes back to the staffs position in reading
this language that the board adopted that there is a requirement to
provide the 10 percent and 10 percent of certain housing types. And
then beyond that is where the density rating system bonuses would
come into play, which means the affordable housing density bonus is
-- would apply as usual for everything above the two 10-percent
categories.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but at a minimum they've got to
have the 10 percent and 10 percent categories to begin with, and then
anything beyond that can fall under the affordable housing density
bonus program.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
Page 126
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me say that back to you. So
what you're saying is that the affordable housing requirement that they
have in here now does not entitle them to the bonuses, the bonus
density? In other words, if they did the minimum that's in 11, they get
no further entitlement of density based on the affordable housing
bonus program?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And that's one of the key areas I
think of disagreement between the two readings of the language, what
was the intent of the board, and obviously ultimately the board's going
to have to determine that.
But I believe that the board was saying you have to provide the
10 percent and this 10 percent, period. It's only -- it's strictly the
applicant's choice if he wishes to ask for other density bonuses,
whether they be affordable housing or any other type. But mandatory
must do the 10 percent and 10 -- must develop 91 units and must
develop 10 percent and 10 percent of those as the affordable and
workforce, respectively.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you say was resolved is
that you have to build a base density of four units, thus 91. You can't
put any more than that, by the way, in the mixed use, so essentially
you would build nothing on the other side if you did that. And you
have to build the 10 percent, 10 percent.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What good was -- I mean, they
didn't get anything in that deal.
MR. WEEKS: No, they didn't.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In fact, what they got is the
ability to not develop the residential and thus -- what do you read that
comes to that conclusion? What, 11, is that where you get that? You
don't have to read it now, I'll read it --
MR. WEEKS: C-l1 , that's correct. Paragraph C-l1.
Page 127
May 7, 2009
And that certainly is what is unusual about this sub-district, as
staff believes the board intended, is that they were imposing, they
were mandating an affordable housing component in the sub-district,
whereas usually it's strictly left up to a choice of an applicant to
request the affordable housing density bonus.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But didn't they mandate it because the
applicant wanted to get a density bonus of four units per acre? Wasn't
that the point of instilling upon them this 10 percent and 10 percent? If
you want more density, you do it by their terms. Their terms were you
can have it, but they want 10 and 10.
MR. SCHMIDT: That's more accurate than what Commissioner
Schiffer characterized it as. It's not that they don't gain anything from
doing so, it's that they've doubled their density from four to eight per
acre on 17 of the acres, plus they were awarded four units per acre on
the commercial component for doing so.
So they lose nothing. Nothing is lost whatsoever. They've more
than doubled their density with that mixed use allowance. And they've
got it on the commercial component, or calculated it there, where it
could not be before.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me say this back to you, and
I'll do it quicker now, because we've got a lot of practice. Four base
they're -- I'm on the residential only. Four base they're allowed. One
for the access, three for the proximity, and then you're saying they get
four additional because of 11 in here. So you can add those up in the
residential and that's their density.
Because you had -- earlier conversation you told me that they
don't get a base density because of the four. Now you're saying they
get the eight. So they do get the four. Why is this so confusing?
MR. WEEKS: I phrased it that way because we're not talking
about base in the sense of when we usually look at a residential project
or a portion thereof, we've walked through the density rating system as
we're discussing now.
Page 128
_...._;_'"_""..>,_~,_',._..,~~..~~.._,,,._,.~'..''"r~...~~.'"'..__._____".. -.... ".... ",", r
May 7, 2009
In this case, though, I'm focusing on the commercial tract when I
talk about the four units per acre apply to the entire 22 plus acres to
generate a density that will be built on the commercial tract. So I'm
segregating that from the residential. I see it as that's on the left, the
other calculation is on the right, and the right being the residential
portion of the project.
I think we're saying the same thing in two different ways. In my
mind I try to keep the residential and commercial segregated, because
that's what the sub-district text does.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: See, I don't think we're saying
that, because what I'm saying is, I think that four units was
establishing a maximum you could put on the commercial. It had
nothing to do deriving units. It had to do with don't put more than four
units per acre, as derived by the whole site on this particular
component.
MR. WEEKS: I agree with that statement.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Now, you're using that
also -- I mean, I guess whatever's the opposite of double dipping,
you're double not dipping or something, you're using that to say that
that's also their base density in the residential area, which I don't think
is fair.
But let's just use numbers in horse trade, because this isn't going
to get us --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are you--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done.
MR. RAMSEY: Mr. Chairman, just to confirm your past
question, the affordable units may be owner occupied or rented.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait a minute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I do want to go back to that. Wait a
minute. According to the chart that is here, the workforce level
Page 129
May 7, 2009
housing has to be owner occupied. I think that was Ms. Homiak's
point.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. The gap and the workforce
have to be owner occupied. And I think that was probably the intent of
the BCC too, because Commissioner Fiala mentioned McCabe's
project in Bayshore. And that's --
MR. RAMSEY: Absolutely, and --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- what the whole thing was
about.
MR. RAMSEY: I should have been more clear on the low units.
As you can see on the -- what I put on your projector, may be
eligible for rental so long as they conform to the affordable rental
limit. So the gap housing units may in fact need to be owner occupied
while the lower income units may be rental units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this an absolute or a maybe?
MR. RAMSEY: That's an absolute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions at this
point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Corby, did you have anything
else you want to throw in to mix it up even more?
MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. If you'd like, I'm prepared to present
to you some of the discrepancies between the proposed affordable
workforce housing density bonus agreement and their other materials.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SCHMIDT: So please, pull what would be your ordinance
and its attachments, or its exhibits. And somewhere I think behind
Page 13 of that handful begins their agreement paperwork. And then
the numbers begin to be numbered as 1 of29, 2 of29 and so forth.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 13, Corby?
MR. SCHMIDT: I believe that's about where it would be. If it's
in another location in another handful, it just is their proposed housing
Page 130
May 7, 2009
agreement. All right?
Depending upon your recommendation today and the finding of
the full county board, many of the numbers in this agreement are
inconsistent with what should appear. Let's begin on the first page
under recitals. And their density provision is just an overall number of
12.5. Certainly depending upon the method they arrive at their full
desired density, or whether they're limited to 234, as staff has
calculated, that number would change.
In the very next line where it states the gross acreage of property
is 22.83, because all of the affordable workforce housing density
bonuses are calculated only on the residential portion of the sub-
district, all of your acreage figures in this document reflecting 22.8 are
in error and they should be 17.8. That is one of the points of
disagreement and differences between the applicant and staff, but it is
one of the glaring examples of it.
MR. PRITT: What page are you on?
MR. SCHMIDT: One.
In the very next line where they propose 57, which is their 20
percent of their total unit county, then they state 100 percent of the
approved bonus units. Actually, 57 is about 40 percent of all the bonus
units, but they are 100 percent of the affordable bonus units.
On the next page --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Corby, how can you say that the
gross acreage is not 22.83 units? They're going to be putting
affordable housing on the other components. So, I mean, I know
you're trying to make this work with the density conversation we had
but, you know, the gross acreage has to be that, the 22.83.
MR. SCHMIDT: It has to be that if you're the applicant. But
since the density rating system, you have a handout and you've heard a
presentation from staff before this. And the language in the sub-
SPage 131
May 7, 2009
district, these bonuses do not apply for the commercial component
acreage. And that commercial component acreage, when subtracted
from 22 point something, is 17.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I get the simple math there. But
the fact is, though, the affordable units are probably going to be on the
other acreage.
This gets more and more -- I mean, are they allowed to build
affordable units in the mixed use side of the property?
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The acreage youjust excluded?
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's me, I guess.
MR. SCHMIDT: The calculation includes those acreage, so it's
not being missed or excluded. I'm confused by the question even.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know, I'm just con -- I
mean, we have a clumsy density system; we're trying to fill this form
out with a clumsy density system, so we're going to have a clumsy
form before we're done, so --
MR. WEEKS: If I might interject, and hopefully this will be
helpful. It seems that the agreement form does not contemplate a
project for which only a portion of the acreage is used to calculate the
affordable housing bonus. I mean, certainly the gross acreage of this
property is the 22.83, but not that total of 22.83 is used to calculate
density -- the density bonus for affordable workforce housing.
And that's the context in which this acreage is located. Because
you identify the gross acreage and then you talk about the number of
units you're going to build that are affordable. And that's part of the
calculation of the density.
I think what needs to occur in this case is we need to modify the
form. And to say, well, the gross acreage is the 22.83 but for
calculating the affordable workforce housing density bonus, the
proportion of the site acreage is 17.83.
Page 132
May 7, 2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we are going to have units
built that are going to become part of the gross number of units. Part
of what we take our percentage against, right, that didn't get calculated
from the residential side? Am I wrong there, or --
MR. SCHMIDT: You may be wrong there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I hope I'm wrong.
MR. SCHMIDT: The proposal as is, is to put all of the
affordable units in the commercial components. And they're awarded
bonuses for that from the mixed use allowance. It's not been
overlooked.
MR. WEEKS: Maybe if I could answer it differently. Kay just
whispered in my ear.
From the staff perspective we need to segregate that 10 percent
and 10 percent that we believe is mandated, and therefore is not part
of the density bonus agreement. The density bonus agreement is only
going to pertain to the --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me make it easier, I'm
slowing -- I'm going to hop in the back seat. These guys can --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: David, maybe I can clear it up
for my own self.
Irregardless of the total gross area, total gross acreage, the
formulas are written on the residential only, and that's what we have to
deal with is the residential only. Whatever commercial is irregardless
on the gross end, correct?
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Does that simplify?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's roughly correct.
MR. WEEKS: I mean, all the density --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty units are--
MR. WEEKS: -- all the density bonus calculations only apply to
the residential acreage of the project. That base density of four units
Page 133
May 7, 2009
per acre only applies to the residential portion of the project.
The only calculation of density that involves the commercial
acreage is that specific provision that says for that commercial
component, they get four units per acre based on the entire site
acreage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: But other than that, all the discussion about how
many units that they get through bonuses and whatnot, that should
only be applicable to the residential --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's only in the residential
side.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, you said it better than I
could. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's see if we can move a little bit
further past --
MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't -- try to stick to something we can
understand, okay?
MR. SCHMIDT: Same document, Page 2.
MR. PRITT: Can I object? I really need to have a mic over here.
I'd like to object to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you get closer to the mic then?
And Bob, there's a mic over here, you could stand at that podium and
object every five minutes if you want.
MR. PRITT: Really?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we're still going to continue on.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is the mic, Tony.
MR. PRITT: Maybe it will actually be helpful. This discussion
that you're about to have is predicated upon the calculation that the
staff has of the density and the allocation. It seems to me that that
would not be relevant unless and until you get to a determination as to
Page 134
May 7, 2009
what the density calculation ought to be.
As I feared this morning when I first spoke, we're getting all into
this density calculation stuff. You've heard every permutation
combination you possibly can hear on that. This follows that, this
doesn't direct that. And it would seem to me that we could hold this
off until such time as you make your determinations. Just a thought.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we certainly could hold
off some of the dialogue, if some of us can survive that way. But for
the record, I'd like to know that if there are any discrepancies needed
in these documents, we get it on the record, so --
MR. SCHMIDT: I'll finish with just the second page example.
Under number two, developer agreements, the language they propose
is the developer hereby agrees that he shall construct up to 57 units. I
believe he'd want a commitment for no less than 57 units or, again,
depending upon the entire density of the development, whatever that
number would be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Corby.
Are there any other questions, dare I ask, about the density issue
or the affordable housing issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, are there any other staff
presentations?
MS. DESELEM: Hopefully I grabbed the right thing when I
came up here quickly.
I just wanted to clarify one thing, and offer another thing that
might help things.
In the PUD document, the part that you were just talking about
on Page 2 where it talks about the permitted uses, in Section
1.2(A)(3), it's important to make a clarification on the reference
parenthetically to Ordinance No. 2005-25 where it states it was
adopted on June 27th, 2005.
Further research indicates that that was indeed adopted on June
Page 135
May 7, 2009
7th, not the 27th. And that has a bearing on which C-l, 2 and 3 uses
are the appropriate uses.
And I would offer that it might be a good idea, because this date
is in here, that we include as an additional exhibit those uses as
identified within that document so there isn't a question later about
what the C-l uses were in June of2005.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, unfortunately your statement
opens up another can of worms.
David Weeks, if you could, the GMP is explicit in its reference
to this date. The fact that we've now been told the date may be in
error, what does that mean in regards to the statements in the GMP?
MR. WEEKS: I don't think it has any material impact, because
the specific ordinance is referenced, Ordinance 05-25.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the date of that adoption is what it is,
regardless of what the date may be in error in the GMP or otherwise?
MR. WEEKS: That's -- yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Kay, is there anything else you wanted to say before I moved to
John?
MS. DESELEM: I don't believe so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's sitting back there thinking he's
going to get out of it here today.
MS. DESELEM: At this time I have nothing, but I would like to
reserve the right to come back if we have anything that comes up as a
result of any other testimony that's provided.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Pritt, I'm holding off until all the staff gets done, then I'll let
you do any cross you need to do, to a reasonable extent.
John, if you could come up, we -- there's two questions I'm
going to have, and there may be others.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, John Podczerwinsky,
Transportation Planning.
Page 136
May 7, 2009
And you had some questions, sir?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. The easement to the church
next door, the traffic count as proposed had the -- if they utilized the
full commercial they're looking for is 3,500 plus trips a week I think it
is in their TIS.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Perhaps daily?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, daily, I'm sorry. 3,520 daily
two-way trips.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you seen the actual size and
graphic configuration of that easement?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, I have not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do know there's a document out
there, there's a Memorandum of Agreement to have an easement.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: This is correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's pursuant to a series of exhibits.
And I think in conversations with you earlier, you've got two of
the exhibits, A and B, but the two that show the graphics and the
actual easement you don't have either.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: This is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't know if that easement will
provide adequate access to this property.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point no, I'm not positive of
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The TIS that was provided, let's
assume they were going to use their 35,000 or 38,000 square feet
they're asking for in this application. In previous meetings we had
asked -- I know I have and I think other members of the board -- when
a TIS is done, do you do it on the least intense use or the worst case
scenario use?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Worst case scenario use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the worst case scenario use
Page 137
May 7, 2009
on this property I think would be grocery store or restaurant or other
uses that could be in the C-1, 2 or 3 districts. But that's not how this
TIS was written; it was written using the 820 use.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you guys accept that? Is that--
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, we typically do accept the 820
use, because the 820 use, as Mr. Treesh had noted earlier from TR
Transportation, he had noted that within that 820 use, it does also list
as out-parcels you can have shopping centers, gas stations, restaurants.
There are a lot of included uses within that square footage, allowable
uses within that square footage.
One of the core differences is that the land use codes applied by
ITE do not match the SIC codes that most planners typically use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the trip generation count for
a 20,000 or any square foot grocery store is going to be greater than
the trip generation of LUI what, 820 I think it is that you guys use for
shopping centers. So how is using the shopping center trip count worst
case scenario?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For a 35,000 square foot grocery
store if it's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, 20,000 is the maximum allowed by
the subdivision for a grocery store.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay, I would have to verify that by
looking at the ITE to make sure that it's higher trip generation rate for
the p.m. peak hour, which is what we typically base our analysis on.
But if there is a higher trip generator that is applicable
specifically to the site, then it should be used, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Anybody have any questions?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, we talked a little bit about
this earlier is that would they be able to have a right-in on County
Page 138
May 7, 2009
Barn? Just purely a right-in, somewhere above the church access?
Let's -- you know, there is a turn lane. The road has room for further
development in that area too, so even the turn lane could have a turn
lane.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct.
As I understand, the answer to that question right now is no. Per
the current access management policy that we have, the minimum
required distance for the 45 mile per hour road would be 440 feet. The
current driveway that they have is 630 feet.
There is one problem, though, that precludes us from looking at
a secondary -- or at a driveway directly to the site. At their frontage to
County Barn is that the County Barn plans that have been developed
by Collier County that were previously in the five-year plan, those
have a turn lane that extends almost the entire length of this site.
I do have a graphic with me, if anyone would like to see that, I
can put that on the visualizer, if it's necessary. Anybody?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wouldn't offer any more than we don't
ask for, to be honest with you, today.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my question, John, is that
your concern was; is that somebody slowing down to make that turn
would slow down that turn lane. But you could make a turn lane off of
that turn lane, there's enough room there for that.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: You could. It would probably be a
substandard length turn lane. And the perception is is that it would
create a safety issue.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. We'll go with no.
On the Davis road side, could they have a right-in/right-out up
there without having to go through the whole residential?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'd have to look at the plan again, but
as I recall, and I've confirmed this with FDOT this morning with their
access management staff, a right-in/right-out, the minimum distance
spacing from the County Barn intersection, County Barn and Davis, as
Page 139
May 7, 2009
you travel eastbound on Davis is 660 feet for a 50 mile per hour
posted speed roadway.
The 1,320 that has been required would be for a directional
median opening would mean a westbound left in would be allowed at
that point. If there have been further restrictions placed on that by
FDOT, I have not confirmed those yet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But based on what you're
saying is they do own the property, they are in control of the shape of
the property, what's developed. So there would be maybe the potential
of a right-in/right-out.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And John, one more thing. Were you
aware of the acquisition of I think it was a 20- foot easement in the
front of the property along County Barn Road for utility and drainage?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was 20 feet; do you
remember? Is it? Or is it 30? I think it might be 30.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe it's 20.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty?
You guys paid $225,000 for that little strip. Why?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good question, sir, I wasn't involved
in the acquisition of that parcel.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know that in 2004 when this
came through for transmittal and adoption, they had already noted in
their master plan that they had reserved 52 feet of that for that
right-of-way?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, I did not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's on the pages in the documents
that I received for adoption and transmittal. And I was just wondering
why we would pay that kind of money for a smaller easement when
we already had a reserved 52-foot right-of-way there.
Page 140
May 7, 2009
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, I believe that -- if I recall
correctly, I believe that there was a LASIP stormwater -- Lely Area
Stormwater Improvement Plan project that connected in at that -- the
easement that was purchased, which I think was called parcel 131.
And there were some concessions made when we purchased that
about sharing landscape of some kind.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does your department do any of the
LASIP projects?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's our stormwater division, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they communicate very much with
the --
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We try to communicate as often as
possible, and sometimes we miss a communication here and there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one might have been costly. Okay,
thank you, sir.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of
staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other staff presentations?
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem.
We have nothing else to offer you. If you have questions -- other
than that, we're happy to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're done, but I -- yeah, before
we go into Mr. Pritt's questions, ifhe has any, we'll come back after a
break. We'll take a IS-minute break and at 2:20 we'll resume. Or
actually 2:25, I'm sorry.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bob walked in, we can now start
the meeting.
Sir, I think you at some point reserved the right to
Page 141
May 7, 2009
cross-examination. Do you have any such questions you'd like to ask?
MR. PRITT: No cross-examination.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: A question for Mr. Pritt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt, there is one question of you,
though. It's not a cross, but it will be Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Earlier in conversation when we
were talking about the square footage of units, the 600 square feet.
MR. PRITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The minimum floor area.
It was stated that it is that size for a one bedroom unit?
MR. PRITT: It's my understanding that it is, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I'd like to call your attention
to Page 21 of 24 in the staff report. The neighborhood information
meeting stated that they would be three and two bedroom residential
townhomes, not one bedroom. We're pretty fussy here about what we
say in public at neighborhood information meetings.
MR. PRITT: I'm sorry, did I say that?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know who said this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I brought it up as a question.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Agent and applicant.
MR. PRITT: Yeah, I don't know which meeting that was. I
attended one of them, but there have been so many over so many
years, I don't know which is which.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, this apparently was the first
one. This is the first meeting. I don't know, who was the agent or app
-- you know, agent speaking. We can probably ask that of staff. But
that's what it says here, that was the commitment, three and two
bedroom residential, three stories.
MR. PRITT: There have been a lot of -- this has been a long
Page 142
May 7, 2009
road and is a long road. There have been a lot of changes since 2004 --
I almost said 1904, but it seems like it.
And that's one of the problems you have when certain things are
on people's minds and then economics change. And what was on
everybody's mind in 2005 was how are we going to get some
affordable housing density.
And so I'm not sure what was said when, but we do have some
changed circumstances. And I'll talk about that, if I remember at the
end with regard to the commercial component also. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
And Kay, can up shed some light on what staff member attended
the NIM and if they may be able to respond if it wasn't you?
MS. DESELEM: Yeah, I was trying to follow that conversation.
If you're talking about the March 2nd, 2005 NIM, it states at the
bottom -- or if you go down it says project planner Mike Bosi. So he
was the staff person at the time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's quite a while ago. Okay. Well,
that doesn't help us today.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I wasn't -- yeah, so we have no
idea.
MS. DESELEM: So I can't shed much light.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and we've had the staff
presentation, we have the applicant's presentation. The applicant will
be able to have a rebuttal at the end of the hearing. So let's entertain
the public right now. And who is -- do we have any public speakers,
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: One speaker. Evan Steingart.
MR. STEINGART: Good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Evan, I believe you were sworn in?
MR. STEINGART: Yes, I was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you'll have to state your name for
Page 143
May 7, 2009
the record to begin and then we're set to go.
MR. STEINGART: Good afternoon. My name is Evan
Steingart. S- T -E-I-N-G-A-R- T.
I am representing Napoli, Glen Eagle, and now I've been
informed Countryside has also joined us. That would give you about
2,500 residents that are opposed to this project in its present form.
Let me be very clear that we are not opposed to the development
of this project. However, what Mr. Goldmeier has proposed is not
compatible or complimentary to the surrounding area. And let me be
specific about that. I also have a letter of objection from Countryside.
She could not be here. I will give it to you at the end.
What I mean by the project not conforming with the surrounding
area, when we look at this it's like trying to stuff ten pounds into a five
pound bag. I think if he could have a petting zoo and a fireworks stand
he'd put it in there as well.
It's a very high density, east coast style end design, and it goes
against our communities. Our communities are resort sty Ie
communities, low density with resort style amenities.
The density of this project is more than double what the density
is in any of the surrounding communities.
I also think the developer may not have as much knowledge of
the demographics in Naples by building this type of community. I
think he is limiting its appeal. And I think he's also using a 2005
market plan. And the market as we know has changed 180 degrees
from what it was.
As you can see, I've put one of his fine developments up there.
He builds low-end tenement style developments. And that is his
corporate D.N .A., if you will, and that's what we're going to get on a
prime piece of property in Collier County. And that's what we're
against.
All of our quality of life in that area will suffer because of
increased congestion and density. The project will also have a
Page 144
May 7, 2009
negative impact on already poor property values in that area.
I think we also believe that this affordable housing is a ploy. It's
to increase his density so he can increase his profitability. Affordable
housing is abundant within a one-mile radius of this project.
We have an e-mail from the county showing that over 4,200
affordable housing slots have been approved, and only 500 have been
built. And that sort of leads us to believe that there's really not a
necessity for that designation.
Recent compo sales on Zillo.com, anybody can get on Zillo, and
it shows that condos are selling for less than $100,000, townhomes for
the mid ISO's, and single-family homes in the low 200's. I don't think
we need any more added density; the county is flooded with
affordable housing. It may have been necessary during the bubble of
'04 to '07, but the market has changed, and it's no longer relevant.
We're back to a normal market.
I think the market that we saw where affordable housing was in
such great demand was indeed an aberration. And now we're back to
probably below normal, to be honest. But the Wall Street Journal says
that 30 percent of homes are under water, and one in 77 are in some
state of foreclosure, which leads us to believe there will be more
foreclosures coming and more affordable housing coming.
And the other thing to note isHUD has designated our zip code,
34112, as one of the three zip codes in Collier County that has a major
foreclosure issue. They've invested to buy almost 60 homes, and they
are rehabbing those homes and putting them on the market for low
income individuals.
The other issue that we have of course is the commercial space.
And the last thing we saw was 35,000 square feet of space he was
looking to have approved. Although I hear now that that's changed.
But I will point out that within a one mile radius; occupancy
rates are abysmal in retail centers. The Wal-Mart shopping center,
which is one mile down the road, is not even leased. I think it's maybe
Page 145
May 7, 2009
three or four percent leased. And most shopping centers are at 50 to 60
percent and heading south. And there's more capacity coming on line.
Within the next two years we're going to have several million square
feet of retail space in that area not needed.
Any retailer will tell you, they have a difficult time surviving in
the Collier County market, which has a part-time population, and it
drops 40 percent during off season. With the fixed costs of being in
retail, you simply have to have business year round, and it is very
difficult to make it in this county.
The other thing is major retailers have stopped expanding and
are increasing their presence on the Internet, because more people are
choosing to shop on line. Therefore, commercial space is kind of
ridiculous at this point.
Another point I'd like to make is, you know, County Barn right
now -- I think this project is a nonstarter unless County Barn gets
widened. The traffic there is still very difficult. It's a dangerous
intersection. And I would say there's at least one accident there every
day that I see. And to add more capacity to that is -- again, is
detrimental to quality of life.
In conclusion, I would like to say for full disclosure, we have
hired an attorney, Anthony Pires. Anthony is concentrating on the
technical flaws of this proposal, of which there are many. I'm certainly
not qualified to speak on the technical flaws. I mean, we've heard
quite a few of them today.
I also wonder why this meeting occurred during this time of year
when most of our residents are not around. I don't know if that's by
coincidence or by design.
But in conclusion, over 2,500 homeowners in the surrounding
area are against this. We think this project needs major revisions. The
quality of life for all of us will suffer because of this proj ect.
Surrounding property values will suffer.
And, you know, Mr. Goldmeier has no ties to this community. I
Page 146
May 7, 2009
think his legacy will be that he leaves us with another Whistler's Cove
with an unleased strip center on one of East Naples' most strategic
corners. And I think we must force him to do better, we deserve better,
and Naples deserves better. This is not Dade County.
I urge Mr. Goldmeier, get back to the drawing board. We extend
an olive branch to work with him to get this project in conformity so
that we can all live with it. And I would urge him to take what I say
very seriously and work with us so we can make this a better project.
Because as it stands now, I and the residents of the surrounding area
would ask the County Commissioners to vote no against the rezoning
of this property. And that's all I have to say. Thank you very much for
your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Evan, before you leave the mic., I just
want to make a couple points.
A lot of the details of this property were laid out in 2004 and
2005 with the approval of the GMP. Those conditions in the GMP this
board cannot change. And they -- neither can the applicant, neither
can the staff. They have to abide by them.
What is at stake here today is the interpretation of those
conditions. But I just want you to know, the affordable housing aspect
of it has to be there. It cannot go away.
The commercial component, it's probably not what we expected,
what we saw today. Maybe through further discussion there's an
opportunity for more there. But some of the things that you've seen are
going to happen, whether the neighborhood wants to accept them or
not because of the 2004 and 2005 approvals.
So the project may not go forward exactly as it is today, it may,
I'm not sure until we get to our vote. But I want you to know that
something's going to go in there, but in some of it we cannot -- it's
beyond our ability to say no to at this point, so --
MR. STEINGART: Yes, and I understand that, Commissioner
Strain. I think we're trying to be as reasonable as we possibly can. And
Page 147
May 7, 2009
that's why I offer to work with the developer to, you know, try and
prevent something like that happening. That is not in any of our best
interests. And what I am seeing now is that with a strip center.
And so really, let's just try and get this thing cleaned up, get it
palatable and, you know, I think we'll be on board as long as it
enhances the community and is not detrimental to it, as we believe it is
now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much.
MR. STEINGART: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other public
speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Pritt, do you want to have a
short rebuttal?
MR. PRITT: Yes, Mr. Goldmeier did want to address the board
for rebuttal before my closing statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Thank you very much. And I appreciate
your patience.
A lot of this has been confusing to you, and I have to admit, it's
been confusing to me. This process has been going on for six years
now. Many elements have changed. We've had different
interpretations. And there's been an evolution of the project, and
unfortunately an evolution of the market as well.
So -- and, you know, we want to create a good product. We want
a product not only that's pleasing to the surrounding community but
one that will be an economic success, and we can't have that without
having a good product.
There's a couple of points that I just wanted to briefly touch
upon.
The one area that we -- the one opportunity we're sorry that we
missed in dealing with staff was when they proposed the change to the
Page 148
May 7, 2009
language to our compo plan amendment without informing us that they
were in the process of doing so.
We were in the process of having conversations with them about
our different interpretations, density and other elements of the project,
and I view that as a missed opportunity because we could have
discussed and worked out some of these other things which need
clarifying now, had we known that there was a compo plan amendment
in the works by them and taken the opportunity to use that compo plan
amendment to bring more clarity to the situation.
The idea of the affordable housing and workforce housing was
not our idea. It came directly from the Board of County
Commissioners and was requested that we consider including. I don't
want to say it was imposed upon us because we agreed to it, but it was
made clear to us at the Board of County Commissioners' hearing that
they wanted to see that as part of the project. And having built about
1,000 units of affordable housing myself, I -- and being an affordable
housing advocate -- and by the way, when it comes to having ties to
the community, this is my fourth project in Collier County, and I've
done affordable housing in Collier County.
But we found that we did not object to the request of the Board
of County Commissioners, and we tried to accommodate their wishes.
The disagreement that we had with staff was solely about the
fact whether we would be given an affordable housing density bonus
for the affordable housing we agreed to. That issue was discussed
specifically and clearly in front of the Board of County
Commissioners. It was discussed -- and we have transcripts to indicate
our point of view. And that disagreement as to whether we get a
density bonus for having provided that affordable housing basically
has distracted the entire attention of us and staff away from some of
the smaller details that you might have brought out, which we'd be
glad to work with, we'd be glad to modify. But those details were not
addressed in the process, because we're all busy arguing about the
Page 149
May 7, 2009
affordable density bonus, to term it that way.
The project was always one project on 22.83 acres, with two
components. And those components should not be distinguished as
being two separate projects or two separate properties, they're two
different components of the same project.
And viewing them as two separate properties or two separate
parcels brings I think more confusion to the situation than need be. It's
one project with two different uses on the same property.
If we were offered the opportunity by the right-of-way people to
have a road entrance closer than 1,000 feet from the intersection of
County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard, we would have taken it. We
were not offered that. If offered that today as an additional option, we
would gladly take it. But we were not offered that prior to -- I didn't
hear the possibility of that happening until this meeting today.
We made it clear from the beginning that this could be a rental
or home ownership project. And especially in a market -- under
market conditions today where it is difficult for a purchaser to get a
mortgage, the rental option has to be available, because otherwise the
property will have no chance of moving forward.
We did plan to build more commercial, we intended to build
more commercial, but that's not the way things worked out as our
access seemed to be less -- make it a less desirable commercial site.
And, you know, that's basically -- we built -- we put in the
amount of commercial that we had room for and we had parking for,
and that's how the amount of commercial was arrived at.
The type of commercial, we became increasingly concerned
about the other shopping centers going up in the area with superior
access and superior visibility, and basically migrated to a more
live/work situation where you can have a professional living above his
design studio, shop or something like that.
So the concept did change from the beginning, but it did change
in response to market forces and other trends.
Page 150
May 7, 2009
To address Evan's concern about the property that they had up
that he put up on that, I built 1,000 units of affordable housing; that's
only one of the projects. I'd be glad to show you my other projects,
including one new Collier County, that I get a lot of compliments on,
and I think Mr. Midney could tell you that my project in Collier
County is well received.
That property was -- you know, I put 10 pounds in a five pound
bag on that admittedly. That was built in the City of Key West at the
request of the City of Key West. And the Key West authorities love
the project, because I'm providing affordable housing in a close-in
location, convenient to everybody. And I only had two acres to build
on, because I had a wetland concern on the site. So that is a very
successful project that is being -- you know, I continue to receive
support from the City of Key West for that project.
And we do not intend to build that kind of product here.
Building costs are different. We didn't have to truck in concrete and
truck in water and deal with the construction costs that we had to deal
with in Key West. So we had constraints in Key West that we don't
have here. And we of course intend to build the type of projects more
similar to the pictures we showed you than the pictures that Evan
showed you.
I would be glad to work with the neighbors. I called Evan
several times, was not able to speak with him. We did have some
e-mails back and forth.
And I think Kay can tell you, we've reached out to all of our
neighbors at Falling Waters and at the other communities, and we've
found a lot of support in the other communities.
When we had our two neighborhood information meetings,
people came out objecting to the affordable housing -- affordable and
workforce housing. That was their primary objection.
Now, again, that was not my idea. That was not what we
requested. That's what the Board of County Commissioners asked us
Page 151
May 7, 2009
to include.
But just so you understand, the affordable housing requirement
that we have now is between -- is no lower than 80 percent of median
income and no higher than 120 percent of median income.
Eighty percent of median income is $40,000 for a family of one
and maybe $45,000 for a family of four. That's the lowest income
we're talking about. And 120 percent of median income for a family of
four, that would be 80, $90,000.
So these -- this is not what you'd consider quote, unquote
affordable housing, and it should not be characterized as producing the
kind of problems, property management problems that people are
fearing. Because you're talking about people with incomes between
40,000 and let's say $80,000. And that's our requirement. And these
people could easily be homeowners as well as renters.
We would appreciate your support and want to work with you as
far as any of your concerns. And we have a lot to -- you know, a lot of
ideas as to how to move forward and want the opportunity to do so.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Goldmeier.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me suggest something to you,
because I have great respect for your attorney, Mr. Pritt. You have a
talented group of people working for you, and you have all the tools to
have done what I think would have been a more thorough job in
telling us what's going to happen with that property than what I
personally have seen today.
The concepts you're introducing are somewhat new to the way
we've seen standards before. In order to support those concepts, in the
past every time something new comes forward there's a lot more
detail. The site plans are more detailed along -- I know you can move
into those as you go further, but just for the fact we had it used as a
talking point, the concept site plan that your -- one of your team
Page 152
May 7, 2009
members brought here today to try to understand your standards is an
example of what we could have used to sink our teeth into to better
move forward today.
MR. GOLDMEIER: I have floor plans with me, if you'd like to
see them. I just didn't want--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, if we sat here today and tried
to go through and rewrite this PUD document in a manner that was
more understandable to terms and acknowledgments of what you
wanted to build, we're going to be here all day, and that's not what our
job is.
I would suggest that after we finish further down the road and
you hear our concerns during discussion, if you want to ask for a
continuance, you don't have to peg a date to it, to provide you to come
back with more time to get with the neighborhood and try to work out
your differences and get back with staff and work out the situation,
you might find that another avenue, rather than if it looks like this is
going to be not positive for you to go to the BCC with that kind of
recommendation.
And I know -- like I said, I know you've got all the good people
working with you. But there's no mileage in all of us getting into court
to settle this when I think it could be done in much more friendlier
terms. And you have options out there that if you wanted to apply
them, they may get you a little bit closer to where you need to be and
at the same time produce a better product for the neighborhood.
MR. GOLDMEIER: If you may recall, we had this discussion
when I had presented a project across from the casino in Immokalee --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. GOLDMEIER: -- that we wound up going back, because
we had not created a site plan because we weren't required to do so.
And we wound up creating a site plan and it was supported
unanimously by your board and went on the consent agenda, the BCC,
and it worked very well. And of course we'd be willing to do that.
Page 153
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think part of this whole process
is the sales and the tools to make the sale, from my perspective,
having been here today. And I just wanted to express that to you,
because I still have some hope. Maybe we don't go forward with a
negative vote that this can be pulled, you guys could reconsider your
position, get together with the neighborhood, take your time, find out
where all the problems are.
And I certainly think you'll get a reading on the density issue
with us today. We do provide recommendations to the BCC. Our
recommendations are many times honored by them. So if we tend to
concur with staff, that may be an indication you may need to work
harder towards a resolution of that density that's in line with staff as
well so--
,
MR. GOLDMEIER: Well, we'd be prepared to get together with
staff and neighbors and even members of the board, because we
actually do have full-blown drawings of the identical product that
we're planning. We can give you -- we can give you whatever you
want, basically.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think that's something that
ought to be considered the next time around. It's a little bit late today.
We've got to have time to review it, it's got to be on record. But I think
that's an opportunity that is open to you as we finish up with this --
MR. GOLDMEIER: Please, if we can keep this moving and not
delayed, because I've been through six years of delays so far.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as we get done with discussion
today and you hear our input, if it looks like it may be something you
might want to continue, I'll make that offer before the vote.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up to you and Mr. Pritt then.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Thank you very much. Let me turn it over
to Bob.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Page 154
_ . t - ~"lf
May 7, 2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Goldmeier, let me ask you
one question, and I'll try to be quick.
Essentially what you really want is the density number, a unit
number. Why don't you reduce the area of the mixed use site? The
five acres is a maximum. So based on the testimony, you've heard
everybody describe the density, can't you corral 91 units and shops in
a smaller area, giving you the other area to use the other density to
bring your count up? I mean, it's -- eighth grade algebra equation
would give you what you need.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Well, thank you for bringing that up, Mr.
Schiffer. There is one issue that is basically a killer which, you know,
that staff was creating an interpretation which would create problems
for everyone, including us.
Because their interpretation that we have to place 91 units on
that small little area would force us into a much more dense, you
know, tall urban project than we want to build. We wanted to be able
to take whatever the density was and spread it around the site so that it
doesn't impact one particular area, especially the area that's the most
visible at that major intersection.
So by putting -- you know, by handcuffing us and saying if you
get a bonus you have to use this bonus in this one tight little place,
that's not beneficial. And that's just one of the issues we need to have
your guidance on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's resolve that issue right now.
Because that's not how I read this. And I'd sure like Corby or someone
to come up and opine on that particular point. Because if that's a
stumbling block, maybe one we can resolve quickly.
Corby, the question is does he have to put 91 units on the
five-acre commercial area, or could he reduce the five-acre
commercial area to less and put less units there if he wanted to?
Page 155
May 7, 2009
MR. SCHMIDT: The answer to the first half is no, he does not
have to put all 91 in the commercial component.
And the answer to the second half is yes. The flexibility is built
into the sub-district language so it can be no larger than five acres. If it
reduces that area, the calculations also change along with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifhe wanted to put two acres of
commercial with 10 units, would that be acceptable?
MR. SCHMIDT: It may.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then Mr. Goldmeier, I think
we're a good portion of the way for you to take a closer look at what
you're designing here.
Thank you, Corby, appreciate it.
Mr. Pritt, did you want to make any final comments?
MR. PRITT: I just told my client I can't say it any better than he
had, and that probably anything I would say would be not helpful, so
I'm going to waive any closing statement.
I think Ms. Deselem was waiving anyhow. And I asked her a
little while ago, so I'll waive anything further. Obviously we'd be
interested in hearing what your discussion is today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
And Ray, we're done with public speakers, so we'll close the
public hearing and go into discussion.
Mr. Klatzkow, you're looking kind of puzzled.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I am. This is a mixed use
development and I'm kind of concerned we're going to be shrinking
down the commercial to the point that this is now a residential
development.
I mean, when the Board of County Commissioners approved this
on your recommendation, there was a certain concept in mind. And I
understand that the economy has changed and things have changed,
but this was approved as a mixed unit development, and we're starting
to talk about this is now almost purely residential development. He's
Page 156
May 7, 2009
getting, what is it, four units per acre because this is a mixed unit, but
it's not a mixed unit. So I'm just raising a concern here that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think it's a valid concern, but as I
had asked -- and Corby or David, maybe one of you need to come up
here and address this specific issue. When I asked you if this meets the
mixed use conditions in which the bonus would be provided, you had
said earlier it does. And the fact they've reduced the commercial to
what it was --
MR. KLATZKOW: You can't put in a peanut stand on 22 acres
and now call it mixed. There has to be some rationality here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we need some minimum
guidelines to know what that rationality is. And if -- and that's exactly
what the question earlier was asked for.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mr. Chair, it was really
Ray that gave the answer that yes, there's no limit as to the mini -- I
mean, you can put the joke was a phone booth and you got it. So that's
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand all that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- why we asked the question.
Once Ray gave an absolute answer, that's the condition we have to
deal with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand all that, but Mr.
Klatzkow's raising the question again. I want to get as firm of an
answer and a consensus on this, because if this goes back into
re-discussion again and comes back to another time, I want to make
sure it comes back in a manner that everybody has gotten a fair shake
at how they've analyzed it and designed it.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And I was just going to say, sooner or later
this is going to be Board of County Commissioners. And if they don't
have an issue with it, I don't have an issue with it. But they may raise
this as an issue.
And I'm supportive of that. I mean, when you go through a
Page 157
May 7, 2009
compo plan analysis, when you go to the communities, when you're
making promises this is what it's going to look like and we're giving
you special densities because of that, when you come back and you
put up a peanut stand and now you say aha, it's mixed use, no, that's
bait and switch.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree.
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, it's--
MR. PRITT: I object to that.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- as simple as that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show Mr. Pritt objected
to that statement.
MR. PRITT: Come on, Jeff, now I object to that--
MR. KLA TZKOW: No, no, no, no, no.
MR. PRITT: -- there's no bait and switch --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, one at a time, one at a time.
MR. KLATZKOW: You cannot come to the board and ask for
four units of extra density and then a couple years say well, you know
what, we don't really want the commercial but we're going to still keep
it anyway. It strikes me as inherently wrong.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, based on the language in the
GMP and the way you guys would have to interpret it, where are we
limited in the amount of commercial and/or residential that goes in the
commercial tract, both size and quantity?
MR. WEEKS: I have to agree with what Ray had stated earlier
and that is there simply is no minimum. All we have is a maximum.
I agree with Jeffs comment. And staff in the back of the room,
we had some discussion about this as well, we have some concern
about how small the actual commercial development is getting in rela
-- I mean, I won't use the same words as Jeff, but it just seems
inappropriate at some point that the amount of commercial being
provided is so small. Is this what was envisioned when we considered
a mixed use project?
Page 158
May 7, 2009
But the black-and-white answer is there is no minimum here,
there's none stated in the sub-district, it's only a maximum. So if they
narrowed this down to 1,000 feet of commercial, it's still mixed use as
the definition would apply, a mixture of commercial and residential.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, which is the problem that I think
I'm -- go ahead, Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But you said before that this sub-
district was patterned after the residential mixed use.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And in there it says that the
mixed use is -- I think it said to be residential above commercial, not
to create strip malls. This is creating strip malls.
MR. WEEKS: I think it uses the term strip commercial, perhaps.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, whatever.
MR. WEEKS: Well, I'm not splitting hairs, there is a difference.
A strip mall is a particular type of building. A strip commercial refers
to a pattern of development, typically shallow -- commercial
development, shallow in depth, long, you know, linear, and frequently
with many access points.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer -- are you done,
Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, you know, and since
we're the board that actually reviewed it, if the they describe
something, they're using words like new urbanism, new town, smart
growth and all that other stuff. Can't we interpret it, based on the
words they're using? I mean, can't we say we think those words have
meaning and maybe it was sold to us as being something else?
I mean, you know, new urbanism is not just, you know, putting
all the units on the front of the street. There's a lot of things -- we've
Page 159
May 7, 2009
had a community character plan. That plan has been, you know,
referred to in this. That plan had certain expectations of walk-ability
and all that other kind of stuff. The neighbors are actually saying they
wish they could walk across the street to a coffee shop or something.
So can't we make that judgment, even though you don't have a
technical way to do it?
MR. WEEKS: Sure, I think you can. I mean, in your capacity as
a recommending body to the Board of County Commissioners, as the
local planning agency under state law, I believe you do have that
authority to make the recommendation, just as staff makes the
recommendation. And ultimately the board will decide, should they be
interested in approving this project, they would decide is this the
appropriate mix of uses, the appropriate amount of the types of uses as
well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the words that Mark read
out of the past minutes, can't we hear those words and determine
whether this is fact meets that description and decide whether in fact it
met that -- you know, it's what we intended it to be?
MR. WEEKS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at the same time, though, I think
what led to this discussion is Mr. Goldmeier was under the impression
that he had to put some number of units on that commercial piece. It
was 91 was the word. He doesn't have to put 91 units there, though, is
that correct, David?
MR. WEEKS: I'm reading over the language again just one more
time. I know Corby's already answered it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it says 91 units in the sub-
district, which to me means the entirety 22 acres. 91 residents shall be
developed in the sub-district.
And I saw that as a minimum for the overall development. And
if they put some above the commercial to get the mixed use, that
Page 160
May 7, 2009
works, but they could still have some in the other parts of it, but that
was a minimum they had to create.
MR. WEEKS: I would agree with that, that they do not have to
place the 91 units all on the commercial component.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now it would up to them to
produce a plan that meets a balance between what is truly mixed, or
acceptable as mixed use to this board's impression, as well as the
BCC, but they don't have to pack in 91 units on that commercial
property to get there. They could put a nice commercial plaza in there
with some professional offices and residential above, and they would
still meet a mixed use complement of some type.
I don't have quantities in mind, I'm just talking about concepts.
MR. WEEKS: I missed that that was actually a question. I'm
sorry .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay, it wasn't a question, it was a
statement that I guess is just an idea.
So anyway, I think with that we've heard enough of this. Does
anybody have any more questions of David or anybody of this issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I would like to open it up for
just discussion amongst the Planning Commission members now
about where we see this going and standing, and based on that
discussion, when we finish with discussion I'll ask the applicant if he
wants to continue. And ifhe doesn't or ifhe does, this board can then
make a decision on whether they want to vote on it and we'll go from
there.
Okay, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think it would be a real
disservice to both petitioner and to the neighborhood if this was not
continued. I think it needs to be continued. There's lots out there that
needs to be settled. I think a lot has been aired here today that now can
be settled, and we need to move it forward, and I would suggest that
Page 161
May 7, 2009
we do continue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to ask each member, if they're
not uncomfortable with it, to comment on this. But as you're including
your comment, I'd like your thoughts on the density. And it can be real
brief, it can be do you believe the higher density is the right
calculation or do you believe staffs interpretation of density is the
right calculation.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I believe that staffs interpretation
of the density is the correct one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'll-- why don't I move right
to left. I'll go Mr. Midney and then on that row, and then I'll come
back over to you, Mr. Vigliotti.
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Now I wish I had asked the
developer if the staff density would be something that he could live
with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you can still ask the
developer that. Any planning commissioner member can ask
questions, so we'll -- but it will be strictly limited to that response, if
you could, Mr. Goldmeier.
MR. GOLDMEIER: If I have to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do believe that the
applicants' density is the one that's good. One of the benefits of it is
you get more affordable units from it, based on the percentage.
But my biggest concern is really with the site plan. I would
never support a site plan that puts all those units up on the intersection
of a road and then puts the stores in a better spot. This to me is -- I
would never support this site plan. So I have bigger problems than
density.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
Page 162
May 7, 2009
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I support the staffs
determination of density.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I also support the staff
regarding density, but my big problem is lack of detail, and I said it
before. Based upon the detail giving to me here, there's no way I could
approve it or vote for it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Again, after a lot of confusion
and thinking about this, I finally get staffs interpretation of density.
But I agree with Commissioner Schiffer that I don't necessarily agree
with that corner packed in with units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But as far as the density goes, do
you think the calculation produced by staff, which is 234, or the
calculation produced by the applicant of 286?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The 234, without a doubt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I agree with the staffs
interpretation of the density.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I too agree with staffs
interpretation of the density.
I also have problems with the buffering on the south side; the
adequacy of the unknown easement to the south that wasn't provided
in any of the backup documentation; the development standards table
that I went through in detail. I think that the compatibility of the
development standards can be -- to the neighborhoods and across the
way could be looked at a little bit more and refined to better standards
than what were presented today.
I think that the inconsistencies with the affordable workforce
housing density bonus agreement and the other documents need to be
corrected. Staffs findings were based on 10.5 units per acre, not 12.5,
so the findings, if there was any changes in that, would have been off.
Page 163
May 7, 2009
And for all those reasons, and all the ones we went through
today, I could not support this application.
Now, Mr. Pritt, if we go to vote on this, it looks like it would be
a no vote. And I want to ask you, would you like to continue this to
another time? And can be time indefinite. And you'll need to use the
microphone to respond. And if so, fine. If not, we're going to vote on
it so--
,
MR. PRITT: May I check with my client?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly.
MR. PRITT: We would like to ask for a continuance.
I do have a couple of questions, though, as to how long that
would be. I know that the staff is going to have a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they wanted to do a continuance, any
particular length of time, is there a minimum and a maximum that they
can go?
MR. BELLOWS: I was discussing with the assigned planner
Kay Deselem, and given the workload and vacations mixed in through
the intermitting time, we were thinking that August 6th, Planning
Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the earliest that they could come
back?
MR. BELLOWS: I would believe so.
MS. DESELEM: If I can jump in, too. A lot of it depends on
when they get something back in to us to review. And then we're
going to need time to review it and prepare it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's why my second part of the
question was what's the maximum. Is there any limitation to how long
they can continue for?
MS. DESELEM: Six months.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six months. So any time from August to
six months?
MS. DESELEM: But the deal is in the Land Development Code
Page 164
May 7, 2009
a project has to be ongoing, actively seeking something, or it's deemed
withdrawn due to inactivity.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I'd like to make a clarification
on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do.
MR. BELLOWS: And evidence can be submitted to go longer
than the six months.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if they're interacting with
staff and submitting paperwork --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and meeting with the neighborhood to
try to resolve their issues --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I think that's what--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I think that's surely significant that --
okay.
So Mr. Pritt, so what it boils down to, I think you have -- the
earliest, if you could get everything accomplished, would be August,
but it's indefinite past that. So we could at your request grant you an
indefinite continuance.
The idea would be that you would be meeting with the
neighborhood on the premise of trying to work out your differences,
as well as with staff, transportation and others.
And I would tell you that all the discussion here ought to be
weighed into your new considerations.
MR. PRITT: August 6th is fine.
MR. BELLOWS: And if we could get some typicals of what the
setbacks would be for the structures.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think to come back without the
detail that this board needs would be just a waste of their time.
MR. BELLOWS: I just wanted to make sure that the typicals are
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
Page 165
May 7, 2009
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I believe they know what we
want or what we're looking for at this point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we've expressed all our
concerns here today, yeah.
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: David correctly reminded me to inform you all
that after five weeks it would have to be re-advertised, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would expect that, yeah.
Okay, so -- go ahead, Kay?
MS. DESELEM: If I may, that kind of assumes that they're
going to be submitting within 30 days --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MS. DESELEM: -- so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I think what we're going to suggest
is that there be -- a continuance would be granted with no -- we're not
going to put a time frame on it. When it happens, it happens.
If Mr. Pritt wants to make it happen by August 6th, he's got to do
it faster. It if he takes more time to work with the neighborhood and
everybody else involved, then it just takes more time. But I wouldn't
want to hinge it on too short of a period and not have accomplished
the communications that are needed to get this done right. Because
this is a good location, and this could come back as a really good
project. I just think you need more time to work it out, to be honest
with you.
So with that in mind, Mr. Pritt, are those statements generally in
agreement with you?
MR. PRITT: That would be fine, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to accept a
request of indefinite continuance on this particular project?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second.
Page 166
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr.
Schiffer.
Is there any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, are we good?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think you're very good, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that in mind, all those in
favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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 8-0.
And I want to thank you all very much for your time and
patience, the public as well. Please get together and work things out
before you come back to us again. That would be very helpful. Thank
you agaIn.
Okay, we still have another case here today. Mr. Wolfley is
going to be departing. We'll move into the other issues.
(At which time, Commissioner Wolfley exited the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item up -- and by the
way, Cherie', we'll take a break around 4:00 for a little while, if we're
not -- and we shouldn't be too much long after that, I would imagine.
Item #9E
Page 167
May 7, 2009
PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-12804, AVOW HOSPICE, INC.
The next item up is Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-12804. It's the
Avow Hospice, Inc. on 1095 Whippoorwill Lane. It's a rezone from
community CF and agricultural to CFPUD.
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: Are there disclosures on the part of the
Planning Commission?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I spoke to Mr. Hancock.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I spoke to staff as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had a conversation with Mr.
Hancock as recently as I think this morning, wasn't it? No, yesterday
.
mornIng.
And everything I discussed with him will certainly be discussed
today.
Thank you. Tim, it's all yours.
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the
Planning Commission, Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering on
behalf of Avow Hospice.
The petition before you today is a rezone that seeks to in essence
incorporate a recently acquired parcel into two other parcels that were
already owned by A vow Hospice and currently are zoned CF,
community facility.
To orient you with the property, for those of you that are not
familiar or haven't been back there, the subject property or PUD
consists of three parcels: A parcel here that's just a little over five
acres, a piece that is close to five acres, and a piece that's slightly less
than five acres.
Page 168
May 7, 2009
The top two parcels, the two toward the north side here, are
currently zoned CF for community facility. They were rezoned in
2001 and were previously before that rezoned as a provisional use for
the Avow Hospice in 1991.
The surrounding land uses are rather varied. To the north is
commercial. The Kraft office buildings are well known here, as well
as newer office construction further to the north. To the north and east
lies the Naples Nissan building, which now is complete and
operational.
I think everyone's familiar from earlier discussions today with
the Dudley Drive area, the gas station, the -- and everything up here.
We have Seagate Baptist Church to the south. To the east we have
Whippoorwill Lakes which is a residential project with a density of
just under seven units per acre.
To the south is a parcel that has a unique zoning characteristic;
it's RSF -5 with a density cap of .4 units per acre, allowing for two
residential units on approximately five acres of land.
And then we have immediately to the south, just beyond that
piece, the Arlington Lakes PUD, which is at six units to the acre. And
then directly abutting the west side of the property is the Brynwood
project, which is at 5.47 units to the acre.
So the project really is in one of those typical transitional areas
where you've got moderate densities to the south and to the west, and
you have higher densities and intensities lying to the north and to the
north and east.
The purpose of this exhibit simply is just to highlight the
existing zoning and how it applies to the property. Again, the yellow
part, the two parcels to the north, are currently zoned CF for
community facility, which is where Avow Hospice sits currently. And
the parcel recently acquired, formerly owned by Steven Dellacav
(phonetic) is the orange parcel, currently zoned A, agricultural.
This is the site plan that was included in your packet. And I
Page 169
May 7, 2009
certainly refer you to that, since the resolution is going to be better
than what you're going to see on the visualizer here.
But the purpose of this exhibit really is to confirm and show the
existing level of development on the parcel.
Currently the Avow Hospice facilities, the primary
administrative functions, are located here, with the primary parking up
on Whippoorwill. The unit extends all the way down the northern part
of the property and then wraps the rear part of the property to this
location right here. And again all of that existing development is
within the current CF, community facility, zoning.
This portion of the project right here -- and you'll notice in your
packet it talks about a planned expansion of over 5,000 square feet. At
the time we filed this, that's precisely what it was. In the recent months
a site development plan has been approved for an additional facility
here, which is really a multipurpose facility of approximately that size.
And so on this parcel in the existing CF zoning you will see in
the coming months moving forward a multipurpose facility that's
intended to provide things such as bereavement counseling, services
for family members, quiet meditation areas for those that are utilizing
the facilities at Hospice, as well as parking for the same.
What that really leaves is the parcel that is being in essence
added, the third parcel here, is approximately 1.3 acres of net usable
land here adjacent to Whippoorwill. Not a lot of property.
The lake which exists here and this piece over here are not going
to be altered. In fact, the piece back here becomes the required
preserve and will actually have additional plantings made to it.
When we had our neighborhood information meeting, the folks
that showed up were all from Brynwood to the rear. I don't think we
had anybody from Arlington Lakes.
And their primary concern was, they asked if buildings would be
located back here. And once they found out that this was going to be
the preserve and that we in fact were going to be enhancing plantings,
Page 1 70
May 7, 2009
their concerns went away and it was a fairly short neighborhood
information meeting from that perspective.
The exact plans for this 1.3 acres really are not known.
Originally the existing home was thought maybe to be used for
additional administrative function, but it appears to be the goal now to
raze that facility and just allow the property to sit until the expansion
plans and future plans for Hospice are better known.
The primary reason we're before you today with a PUD rezone,
instead of coming in with either a conditional use or straight
community facility rezone, is that we felt it would be at least helpful
to have uniform development standards over all three parcels. And
really the focus is just to allow for the future expansion on a very
small 1.3-acre piece right up here.
We're not asking for any deviations in the PUD with respect to
buffers or fencing, and we will be complying with the LDC standards
on those areas.
There are two areas of the PUD I'd like to point out that you may
want to incorporate in any action you may take today.
Number one is that in a further review of the listed uses, and
going to the PUD itself, Exhibit A under permitted uses, we made an
error. Under number nine with parks, public or private, including play
areas and playgrounds, we then included Group 7999. The purpose for
including that group was that parks and playgrounds are a part of
7999. What we failed to do was limit the balance of that group. There
are things in that group that we do not deem to be appropriate, things
such as indoor shooting ranges, we certainly don't expect to have that.
So what we would like to request is the removal of just the
parenthesis with group 7999 and leaving parks, public or private,
including play areas and playgrounds as the sole element of item
number nine.
Secondly, on Exhibit B under development standards -- and Mr.
Strain raised this issue yesterday morning -- is that the definition of
Page 171
May 7,2009
zoned height is no longer necessary and can be removed from the
bottom of the table under the development standard.
Beyond that, the only issue that we have discussed, and it may
arise today so let me at least put on the record the basis for this.
The only planned purpose we have for this property is for the
expansion and accessory use of Avow Hospice. I have asked that the
client retain some flexibility of those uses that are commonly allowed
in CF zoning to give the opportunity down the road, should Avow
Hospice find relocation necessary, that there may be something other
than a hospice use that may be an appropriate and reasonable use for
the property.
When you have such a specific use and if you limit everything to
that one specific use, you then reduce the usability of that property for
anything else.
What we've included in the PUD are uses that I feel are both
complimentary to and compatible in this area, when looking at its
transitional nature from C-4 to the north to moderate density of
residential to the south and to the west. And that's the primary purpose
for leaving those in there.
What I would not like to see happen today is I would like to see
the fact that CF zoning currently exists on two of three of the parcels, I
would hope that we don't adversely affect that zoning. If it is the
desire of this body that the expansion of the facility in the future
should be limited to A vow Hospice and we want to limit that to the
southern parcel, my client has agreed that that would be appropriate,
since they have no other intended use for that.
But I wanted to at least state the reason for the listing, the CF
uses broader than just Avow Hospice. It is a way on my part to try and
make sure that should my client have to sell the property in the future
for relocation that there be some viable use to the property beyond that
which they serve.
That is the Reader's Digest version of my prepared remarks. And
Page 1 72
May 7, 2009
I know you've had a long day, and with your permission, I'll turn it
over to you for any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been a long day, but it's been
interesting.
Do you have any density issues you'd like to talk about?
MR. HANCOCK: I'm proud to say we don't have even the
slightest density issue. And staff is in total agreement with our
proposed density for this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody have any questions
of this project?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. And Mr. Hancock's last
remarks were because of an issue that I had brought up to him and to
people on staff. So I will just bring it to everybody's attention here.
And first I'm going to ask a question. Do you know, Mr.
Hancock, how the CF zoning was granted in 2001 ?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. I went back and reviewed the
record of the Planning Commission hearing on that hearing, and then
it was on a summary agenda item for the board, so the board had no
additional input.
Hospice, like a lot of organizations that are funded by donations,
grow as, one, as they're needed and two, as they're funded. And as a
conditional use, what they found is that they were having to redo the
conditional use every time they had the next phase of a project.
And they came in in 2001 and requested CF zoning for the
purpose of basically not having to come back and redo the conditional
use over and over again. And that was the extent of the testimony
provided in 2001.
In a sense we are asking for something similar on this third
parcel. I can't -- I could draw a fictitious building on that piece and a
fictitious parking area, but I think any use that is associated with
Avow would deem to be compatible in this location, and I think the
Page 173
May 7, 2009
uses listed under Exhibit A are equally compatible or else I wouldn't
be here making the request.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The issue, as I'm sure everybody
else found when they reviewed this, was that CF zoning only allows
nonresidential uses. And so I had asked how they could have gotten
this when the Avow property is -- probably can be most clearly like a
nursing home.
So then you discover, as you look at our code, that while the text
of our code says no -- nonresidential uses for CF zoning, when you go
to the chart, the chart lists things like nursing homes as acceptable as
permitted uses.
So it became an issue of, you know, how does that happen and
what do we do? Should we in point of fact be going back to
conditional use for this? This is what it had been, it's probably what it
should remain today.
I understand and exactly what I thought happened in 2001
happened was that, you know, we're doing the work of the Lord and,
you know, we don't want to have to come in and pay the fees every
time we need to make a change.
So -- but the simple fact of the matter is that once you go down
this road the code gets interpreted -- if we find a discrepancy, which is
what we have here between what the code says in one place and the
other, we're supposed to, according to the zoning director, for the most
part go to the most restrictive of uses, the least impactful, most
restrictive uses.
And that's why my question was, why are we still at CF and why
are we further lessening those standards by going to CFPUD?
So at any rate, I think that if you are willing to limit it to Avow,
then the problem is solved. And I have no problem obviously with
what you're trying to do there and certainly not with A vow Hospice.
They're fabulous people. I spend time with their volunteers almost on
a daily basis. So that's not -- you know, that's not my question. My
Page 174
May 7, 2009
questions were of getting you into the proper zoning for this.
MR. HANCOCK: We appreciate that. And I only offer it as a
way of maybe expediting what may have been your concerns.
I would like to limit that limitation to the parcel being added.
And the reason I like to do that is when the middle parcel was rezoned
to CF, it was RMF-6 at the time. The trips generated for the potential
units under RFM -6 zoning for that property far exceed that of the
Avow Hospice.
So in essence they gave up, from a transportation standpoint a
more intensive land use for the CF zoning district. So I think there was
something more than just -- in other words, it's a win/win in that
situation.
I would hate to see them actually go backwards from that. So I'd
like to leave the CF uses for the two parcels that currently enjoy that
zoning. The simplest way may be to restrict the southern 165 feet to
uses that are related to nursing home, ALF and support uses for the
Avow Hospice. And if we do that, then we're really not getting
anything more than what we have to have. And again, I only offer that
as a --
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I would say that you would
certainly have to take out of that equation the continuing care
retirement community portion of it. Because if you don't, then we
need to add something to this PUD. And that's all the restrictions that
we've placed on everybody else who's come forward with a continuing
care retirement community. Because in our code, once again, Mr.
Hancock, we don't have any stan -- we didn't have any standards until
we finally established them, because we've had, oh, I don't know,
three or four of these things come through on rezone. So we developed
a list to --
MR. HANCOCK: As I stated, it is our in -- it would be our hope
that the list of uses is permitted for all three parcels. I'm offering this is
a fallback, if it's required to gain support of this board, because I
Page 175
May 7, 2009
would like to have unanimous support of the board. But quite
honestly, I find those uses to be consistent in this location with the
surrounding uses.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I'm not saying that they're not.
I'm just saying something -- if you want on this -- if you want assisted
living and nursing homes to be added, that's fine. If you also want
continuing care retirement communities, that's a different animal. And
we've found that it was a different animal in three or four other PUD's
that have come before us.
So we created a list. And you can add that list and you'll be fine;
leave continuing care communities there. But we'll have to find the list
from staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a list. I mean, before you
concede to everything, this is Ms. Caron's position, and I understand
it, but I went and pulled all the data on all the uses you asked for. You
were asking for III uses on that piece of property. Now that you've
excluded 79-99, with the exception of the playgrounds.
Now, of the 111 uses, how many of those are really
objectionable to this site based on the site's location, what it's up
against and the road system that is there? I don't know if you have to
limit that south parcel to just Avow. Because some of these are as
equally nonintrusive as A vow is, so why would we care if you put
them there?
And maybe that is -- that might be a solution to approaching it.
So under 8059, for example, you can provide -- the following are in
the SIC Code: Convalescence homes for psychiatric patients with
health care; convalescence homes with health care; domicile care with
health care; homes for the mentally retarded with health care, except
skilled; and nursing homes, except skilled and their immediate care
facilities; personal care facilities with health care; personal care homes
with health care; psychiatric patients convalescent homes; and rest
homes with health care.
Page 176
May 7, 2009
So as far as your continuing care goes, how does that go into one
of those? Because it's 80-59 is always asking for --
COMMISSIONER CARON: If you remember the definition--
we've been through this with I believe it was at least two of Mr.
Y ovanovich's clients who came forward with affordable -- I'm sorry,
assisted living facilities and continuing care. And what we discovered,
and all of us agreed to and we put the -- a list of requirements on it, is
that we have no definition under continuing care. So continuing care
could be converted just to a multi-family operation.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not according to Group 8059.
MR. BELLOWS: I just want to make a clarification. I'm familiar
with the two projects Commissioner Caron is talking about.
I think the issue at hand for those was more of the fact that they
were asking for almost entirely independent care living units, which is
more like a residential dwelling unit, instead of the skilled or more
assisted living.
If they were trying to do an entirely independent living, which is
more of like restricted to 65 and above housing, then we wanted to
make sure that because the LDC wasn't clear on how those
independent living units are to be handled and not just a way of
getting additional density, that we wanted to provide additional
criteria. Unified group eating areas and common areas, facilities to
take care of them. I'm not sure he's proposing independent living
facilities with these.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm -- let's go back to the -- he's
asking for SIC Code 8059. That gives you nine uses, period. So what
of those nine uses are we objecting to? And let's just ask if those can
be removed or left off.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, do you have any objection
to those nine uses?
Page 1 77
May 7, 2009
COMMISSIONER CARON: If it's going to be limited to those
then, you know continuing care doesn't make any sense either, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, ifit says here, principal
uses: Community facility, assisted living facility, including group care
facilities, family care facilities and continuing care retirement
communities, parenthetical group 8059. I read that as however that's
textually defined, he's stuck with whatever is in group 8059 and not
beyond that. Does the grammar in the sentence give him anything
beyond Group 8059 from a legal perspective; do you know?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't think it does, but we can make it very
clear, though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: We aren't requesting anything beyond 8059
under number one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's just work our way
through these, because I won't read them all off, I'll save Cherie' 111
typing. But 8661 is religious organizations. Now, a church in that
location isn't going to probably have any more of an impact,
especially since it operates mostly on the weekends, than the uses that
he's asking for. And it's church, covenants, shrines and temples.
8641 is civic and social and fraternal organizations. They're like
booster clubs, membership organizations, civic associations,
homeowners association, singing societies, taxpayers associations,
things like that.
I'm not sure those are objectionable to anybody on this board. If
they are, just speak up, because we can talk to him about them.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's some rascals in there,
but I don't think the --
MR. HANCOCK: You have to keep an eye on those masons.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna, do you have -- are you okay so
far?
Page 178
May 7, 2009
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, part of the problem here
comes in what is a community facility? If suddenly we're at a
profit-making assisted living facility, not with Avow now, because
they've sold it off, they've decided to go somewhere else, then we've
given community facility zoning to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we've given the PUD zoning to.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the PUD zoning--
COMMISSIONER CARON: We've given CFPUD zoning to a
profit-making corporation. How does that qualify as a community
facility?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fact that they came in with a PUD
and they labeled it CF for what they're doing isn't really any different
than if they just left it PUD and came in and put the CF forward.
They're simply --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Precisely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what does it matter?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just let it do a straight PUD then. I
mean, that's what it should be.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, maybe this will help. Section
2.0304 of the Land Development Code says -- they grouped the
zoning districts into categories. And under civic and institutional
zoning the P zoning district and the CF zoning district are listed. And
under the CF it says, the purpose and intent of the CF district is to
implement the Growth Management Plan by permitting nonresidential
land uses as generally identified in the urban designation of the FLUE.
These can be characterized as public facilities, institutional, which
these are, so those are kind of quasi commercial oriented,
nonresidential uses.
So it's really not a residential zoning district, so you can have
these commercial oriented assisted living facilities, group housing; all
of those are consistent with community facility zoning.
Page 1 79
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ifwe just call this a CPUD rather than
CFPUD, does that resolve the issue?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it matter to staff?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the LDC says we have to classify them.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. HANCOCK: Therein lies the problem. We had to come in
under either an RPUD, which we couldn't be, a CPUD commercial,
which -- CF was the one we most closely resembled and that's --
MR. KLA TZKOW: You know, sometimes we just tie our hands
up so needlessly. This -- why don't we just call this a PUD?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think we have that choice
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think we have that choice.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's not in the LDC we can't go that
way, from what I'm hearing. I mean, if it's not in the LDC as a choice,
how do we add it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, Lord, how many PUD's do we have in
this county that it's not labeled CF for?
MR. HANCOCK: None in the last few years. In the last few
years we've have to put the R, the C or the CF in front of the PUD,
which it's taken me a long time to --
MR. BELLOWS: There was an LDC amendment about four or
five years ago that put in the language that says you have to classify it
these ways.
MR. KLA TZKOW: It's your opinion that we can't simply make
a recommendation that we just call this a PUD and be done with it?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't even think it matters one way or the
other, really.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I don't either.
MR. HANCOCK: Personally, I like the Avow PUD, but that's--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go on with the uses and then we
Page 180
May 7, 2009
can figure out what you want to call them afterwards.
Okay, the 8299 is schools and educational services not
elsewhere classified. And it's like art schools, baton instruction, Bible
schools, modeling schools, survival schools, tutoring, stuff like that
I'm not sure that is any more harm than A vow in that location.
8211 is elementary and secondary schools. That's high schools,
kindergartens, military academies, prep schools, schools for the
elementary and secondary. This is general schools.
Then colleges and universities are 8221, and that is seminars,
universities and colleges.
Libraries, that's pretty simple.
Museums and art galleries, 8412, are pretty simple. It's just what
they are.
We have the one after that, which is 8051, skilled nursing care
facilities has four.
Convalescent homes with continuous nursing care, extended
care facilities, mental retardation hospitals and nursing homes, skilled.
The only one that might be more intense is mental retardation
hospitals. Tim, do you need that there?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, as long as we're clear that that does
not restrict Avow from serving someone in their capacity that may
have those similar afflictions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you already have that covered in
your other groups. So I think this is just for the hospital itself.
MR. HANSEN: We're comfortable with removal of that with
that understanding, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then down in vocational--
intermediate care facilities, there's only two, nursing home and
intermediate care facilities under 8052.
8249 is vocational schools. Now, that lists a whole bunch of
things, some of which aren't even practical. They're like aviation
schools, banking schools. I don't think it really matters. But one I
Page 181
May 7, 2009
wouldn't want to see there is construction equipment operation
schools. That could get a little noisy.
MR. HANCOCK: We are happy to remove that, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And truck driving schools, do you want
that there?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rest of them are trade schools,
vocational schools, real estate schools, restaurant operation schools,
nursing schoo Is, stuff like that.
Then the amusement one had another -- practically 100 -- I have
almost three pages for that amusement one and you took all those out
and just left it parks. I think that simplifies that.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 8211, elementary and secondary
are just that, high schools, kindergartens and academies, parochial
schools and seminars. That sums it up.
So if the board is comfortable with those uses, with the
exception of the few we've just struck, I don't know if the uses are any
more intense than Avow would be. Is that okay with everybody?
How do you feel about it, Donna? Since you had the most
concern about this. Does that gi ve you a level of comfort, or not?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I have a problem. I have a
problem with us taking a community, what's supposed to be a
community facility designation and then just entitling this piece of
property with all these other uses. I mean, it's very nice of us to do that
for Mr. Hancock's client, because we've just increased the value of his
property enormously. Otherwise it was just Avow Hospice. That's
what they had under their conditional use and that's -- you know, that's
what they -- when they made the plea in 2001 was just so that they
didn't have to spend money changing Avow. And now we've just gone
and entitled this piece of property for lots of other things. And if you
all are fine with that, then you're fine.
Page 182
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if they came in for a CFPUD
and they weren't Avow, it was a blank piece of property and they
wanted to include in the PUD all the CF uses listed with the exception
of the ones we object to, they still would have gotten probably a PUD
approval with the development standards and the restrictions similar to
what are in this document.
I'm not sure we're hurting it by letting them have it. I don't
understand what the flexibility problem is going to hurt the public in
that regard. So that's probably where I'm coming from and that's my
issue on it.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: At this point I think we have to
agree to disagree and I'm going to move on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just -- we're not done yet.
We've got quite a few -- do you have any questions of Mr. Hancock?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Where do you stand with
staffs recommendation number one? Are you in disagreement with it,
are you okay with it?
MR. HANCOCK: That's with regard to the fair share
contribution?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. The -- no, this is the
operational impact with the a.m. peak hour, and staff recommendation.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, we're fine with that. Avow Hospice
participated financially in the improvements to the Whippoorwill
intersection already. Any future improvements to that we think a fair
share --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So you don't have a problem
with it?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, we're okay with that.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay.
Page 183
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Mr. Hancock?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll have the staffreport.
Thank you, Tim.
MS. ZONE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Melissa Zone,
Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land
Development.
I'd like to read into the record that the petitioner as we know is
requesting a community facility planned unit development.
I'd like to have on the record that this is in the urban mixed use
district and the urban residential sub-district of the Future Land Use
Map. And those -- in that sub-district it allows for a variety of
nonresidential uses, essential services, parks, recreational uses,
community facilities and child care centers.
And one of the things I've noticed, that under -- on Page 1 of my
staff report, and I'm ashamed to have to admit it, but under geographic
location I have the word south of, and that is a typo. And I would like
to remove that for the BCC record. If this board is okay, I'd like to
remove it. So it was a south of, and again, it's a typo.
Staff is recommending approval for this petition with staffs
recommendation for the proportionate share be based on the highest
peak operational impacts produced by this site.
And one comment on the community facility zoning. If the
applicant today, if they did not include this additional parcel and
Avow was to leave, the community facility standard zoning allows for
the uses that are found under Exhibit A, permitted uses of the PUD
ordinance. So they could abandon that current structure and sell it and
one of these uses would be able to come in by right under community
facility, which is the standard zoning for that.
Again, I've been taking the notes of where this board would like
to take uses removed. And if you have any questions for me, I'd be
happy to address them.
Page 184
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff?
Anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Ray, any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were there any objections to this project
either sent in bye-mail, telephone, anything at all?
MS. ZONE: Thank you, Commissioner Strain. I did not receive
-- I received one phone call and it was from a woman whose father
lives in the area. And when he found what A vow was doing, the
expansion, they wanted to send that they were behind the planned unit
development, as opposed to keeping it as is. I asked if I could put -- if
they wanted to send an e-mail to me I would have it in the record and
they just said they were just curious from the letter we had sent them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
No public speakers, we'll close the public hearing.
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I just want to say, they probably
were pleased that there was no travel car business going in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had discussion on this, and I'll just
reiterate some of the discussion, in case there's a motion that might
want to incorporate those. That the use of7999 would all be removed
except for the -- reference of that would be removed and it would be
simply read the text, which is parks and playgrounds.
The zoned height definition will be removed.
And under category 8249, they remove construction equipment,
operation schools and truck driving schools.
And under 8051 they remove the mental retard hospital use.
I don't have any other notes on that. I don't know if anybody
wants to have any discussion any further.
(No response.)
Page 185
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there isn't, is there a motion?
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion to approve
based on staffs recommendations and the recommendations you had
just mentioned and written down.
Melissa, I believe you have them all?
MS. ZONE: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat seconded.
Is there discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, and there's six of us left.
6-0.
With that, we will go into our last business. Thank you, Mr.
Hancock --
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's a pleasure seeing you again.
You're a stranger too much around here, Tim. You do a good job.
MR. HANCOCK: Blame the market.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I agree with that.
Page 186
May 7, 2009
Item #11
NEW BUSINESS
Okay, I don't think we have any old business, but we do have
new business.
Mr. Schiffer had an issue he wanted added to new business
section.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a letter being passed down.
And Ray, you can put one up on the -- what it is, Stacy Revay from
the Collier County Health Department asked if we could support a
grant she's going for. The grant is for Smart Growth. And essentially
it's to develop healthy living in Collier County. It's from the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation. It's a $360,000 grant. We've made the first
cut list so we do look good on it.
If anybody doesn't have an objection, she claims this would help
her application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this something that can be provided at
our next meeting so we have time -- I don't know what this is. It says
regulatory commitment to Smart Growth Principles. And honestly, if
you ask anybody what Smart Growth is, you get a different answer
from every person you ask. So I'd like to know what principles they're
specifically referring to. Because if it means higher density and more
congestion, I'm not in favor of that kind of smart growth.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually, what this is, the
grant will do -- it would give her the money to start studying what
regulatory principles would help smart -- I mean, it's not going to
cause regulatory, it's just going to cause them to study it.
Actually, I think she needs to send it out Monday, so if we could
take a second to read it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I haven't read it, that's why--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not going to commit
Page 187
May 7, 2009
anything to us other than the fact that we believe in Smart Growth as a
Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's I guess maybe where I
differ. I don't necessarily think it's the right thing for Collier County,
from what I've seen of it by some people's interpretation, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hence, but we don't -- again,
she's studying Smart Growth. So maybe her interpretation would be
the one you favor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we say encourage the county to
study its regulatory commitment to Smart Growth prin --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. You can--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if I want to strengthen
something that I don't know enough about. But I think it should be
studied, if it's got possibility.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Agreed.
And Mark, if we do agree to this, I'll send you the word file.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I also have how to contact
Stacy to -- and again, the grant is actually to reduce obesity. The
obesity epidemic in Collier County's children and low-income
families, that's where the money will be focused.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the second sentence, if we
stop the period after the word changes, and then instead of saying
related to Smart Growth, would that cause any problem, do you think?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Where are you?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what's the thing -- how
can you be -- Smart Growth, first of all, is becoming a trite word these
days anyway, so it doesn't really --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm worried about,
Brad. I mean, everybody -- I listen to some people say that we should
have smart growth every time we want to turn something down.
Page 188
May 7, 2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm worried about that. So I don't
want to have them come back to me and say, well, you signed a
document that said you support my principles, how can you turn it
down?
And that's exactly what I'm concerned about in our position here
on the Planning Commission. I'm not trying to say no to your request,
I'm just trying to make sure that we don't put ourselves in a box.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, obviously I think
Smart Growth's an important part of the community. But again, the
words don't have that precise a meaning that we'd get in trouble. Smart
growth to you, Mark, might be to tear down half the houses in Collier
County.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But smart growth to you is, and
I've heard you say it many times, higher density and more height, and
I disagree with you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Appropriate density at the
appropriate places.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I disagree with your -- I don't
want to be put -- and Brad, I mean --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what I'm trying to save, I'm
trying to save your rural community by that.
Anyway, you can change it. I mean, she needs something to -- it
would help her that the Planning Commission will listen to her, I
guess is the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We also understand Smart Growth may
have.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we can skip it if you
want.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Skip what?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The whole thing. I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, Brad, if you're trying to do
Page 189
May 7,2009
something, we're not trying -- personally I'm not trying to not do it,
I'm just trying --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If I'm at the foundation and I get
a thing where Smart Growth may have a positive effect, then why am
I funding this girl for a Smart Growth study?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you're studying it to see if it
does happen. If it does happen, that's a good thing, and then those
parts of it that address that issue may have value.
But those parts of it that say more of us ought to be in a tuna can
in a 50-story high-rise building, that to me isn't a good thing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think the effect on
obesity among children is not going to be based upon high-rise
density. I think you'll find walk-able parks, I think you'll find anti-sit
in your apartment and play video games.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you're okay if you just do
the study in the first paragraph. I think the second paragraph is okay.
It's talking about active living; healthier eating and active living --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Walk to the corner store.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- as opposed to--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it says by the adoption of--
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm with you on Brad's --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Smart Growth doesn't mean
high-rises in Golden Gate Estates, I guarantee you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says by the adoption of
environmental systems policy changes, if they're related to Smart
Growth. And if we just drop those words, I think anybody on this
board ought to be happy to promote any of those things. I just don't
know if the Smart Growth connection is the right way to do it in this
county .
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It shows the need for people to
study Smart Growth.
Page 190
May 7, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we said that in the first one.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Commissioner, as a brief add-on to
this discussion, transportation, particularly pathways transportation
reviewer, he's heavily involved with Smart Growth and in fact is
partially funded by Smart Growth. It promotes walk-able
communities. Also the Complete Streets Program which includes
sidewalks, full medians and pedestrian facilities on the streets, ADA
facilities being pre-planned into those roadways.
But I do believe there is also a tie to I want to say a slightly
higher density when it regards -- I think there's a tie to it, when it
regards transit uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is he the same guy that's putting in that
multi-million dollar, filling the canal and move the road along 951
that's got to be costing us millions to put in a 1 O-foot wide asphalt path
up and down 951 ? I mean, that's a huge cost right now when we have
such little money. I cannot believe the way we're doing that.
MR. PODCZER WINSKY: I would have to refer that over to my
director. Unfortunately I can't answer that one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, if your fear of Smart
Growth -- put the period, kill related to Smart Growth. It doesn't
change the sentence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's why--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know, but the evil Smart
Growth is not sneaking in here. I mean, it's -- and then the last thing is
Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities grant. I mean, that's all it's for.
It's a grant for them to make 260 bucks, hire a staff member that's just
going to study how we can make our community better.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we say in the last sentence, I also
understand Smart Growth can have a positive effect on obesity? Does
that work?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, if you think it
Page 191
May 7, 2009
may not have. I mean, the letter states it has a positive effect. I don't
know how Smart Growth would hurt the commun -- but you're fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I am so used to dealing with
attorneys about everything I write, so I'm just trying to be real careful.
Other than that, I think that if we can make those couple of changes,
personally I have no problem with it, but I'll do what this board tells
me to do.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's what you do, mark the
changes, I'll send you the word. You don't even have to show me what
you send.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I can't send it back to you
because we can't communicate off record.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I said you don't have to show
me. Just send it to Stacy --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can assure you, the most changes I
would have would be just what I suggested.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you have Stacy's address.
Between you and Stacy from --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so what I would -- if you can
send this to me, I'll send it out as soon as I get it from you, the same
day.
Is that okay with the Planning Commission. Anybody object?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Whatever the chairman wants
to do.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, without offending the
conservative right neighbor, I wonder, does our job specification allow
us to be an advocate for any of these causes?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Mr. Klatzkow's call.
MR. KLATZKOW: I wouldn't do it, but I'm not going to tell you
that you shouldn't do it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You wouldn't do this?
MR. KLA TZKOW: No, I don't think this is your role. But that's
Page 1 92
May 7, 2009
just personal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Just like the EAC, we don't want to
go outside a role that --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's personal. I mean, I don't think this is
setting a good precedent.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To support a grant application
for the county?
MR. KLATZKOW:Yeah, but then everybody and their mother
is going to come down here with a grant application and now you're
going to have to say what you like, what you don't like. But --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't the BCC do this? Just out of
curiosity .
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, I think the
mistake -- I'll tell you what, I mean, I can do it as an individual. I'll do
that. Let's just skip it then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. New business is concluded.
Public comment? Heidi, do you want to say anything at all?
Okay, is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. We're all in favor. Aye. We're
out of here.
******
Page 193
May 7, 2009
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:02 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 1 94
'lI.Ar..1I . 17"'V "I'., . .11' . ..111
CD~-Y County
-
--.......... --
- -
Community Development &
Environmental Services Division
Zoning & Land Development Review
~
July 8, 2009
Mr. Joshua Maxwell
Turrell Hall & Associates
3584 Exchange Avenue
Naples, FL 34104
Reference:
BD-2009AR-14138, Wafapoor Boat Dock Extension
Dear Mr. Maxwell:
On Thursday, May 7, 2009, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved
Petition No. BD-2009-AR-14138. A copy of Resolution No. 09-01 is enclosed approving
this use.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 252-2942.
Sincerely,
y\,A.-~ ~ f-..
Ashley Caserta,
Senior Planner
Enclosure
CC: Mr. Hussein Wafapoor, 140 Conners Avenue, Naples, FL 34108
Land Dept. Property Appraiser
Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)
Peggy Jarrell, Addressing
Mariam Ocheltree, Graphics
File
(i)
2800 North Horsehoe Drive' Naples, Florida 34104' 239-252-2400. Fax 239-643-6968' www.colliergov.net
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 09-01
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2009-AR-14138 FOR
AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and
such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Locj
(Ordinance 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat
docks; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed,
has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 10-foot
extension over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a 30-
foot boat dock facility in an RSF-3 zone for the property hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by IDC Section
5.03.06; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this
Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters
presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNlNG
COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Revised 3/25/09 - STW
Petition Number BD-2009-AR-14138, filed on behalf of Hussein Wafapoor by Joshua
Maxwell of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described
as:
Lot 22, Block R, Unit No.3, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates
according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 89, as
described in Plat Book 4299, Page 0234, of the Public Records of
Collier County, Florida
be and the same is hereby approved for a to-foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20-
foot limit to allow for a 30-foot boat dock facility in the RSF-3 zoning district wherein said
property is located, subject to the following conditions:
1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude the greater into the water, regardless of
length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the
outermost end on both sides, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion.
2. At least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as
possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Completion.
3. Pennits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented to Collier County prior to issuance of
a building permit.
4. All prolnoited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the
LOC, must be removed from the subject property prior to the issuance of the required Certificate
of Completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in
perpetuity.
5. Subject to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approving petition V A-
2009-AR-14139.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Revised 3/25/09 - STW
2
Done this
~ft--
day of
ATTEST:
h K. Schmitt
mmunity Development and Environmental
ervices Administrator
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
It-? ~
Steven T. Williams ~">",""
Assistant County Attorney 1-
09-CPS-00931\10
Revised 3/25/09 . STW
t~11
.2009.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
~Olult PAh~
Mark P Strain, Chairman
3