Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/06/2009 R August 6, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 6, 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 Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Heidi-Ashton-Cicko, Asst. County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 330 I l' AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WrLL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRlTTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF IO DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRlA TE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRlOR 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 PRESENT A TION 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 MA Y NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. l 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROV AL OF MINUTES - JULY 2, 2009 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JULY 28,2009 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: BD-2009-AR-14226, John Cowden represented by Eric Schneider of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., requesting a 26-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot protrusion limit as provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code to allow a 46-foot boat dock facility that will include one lift that accommodates two personal watercraft. Subject property is located at 413 San Juan Avenue, Isles of Capri No.3 Subdivision, Lot 695, in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ashley Caserta) 1 B. Petition: PUDA-2008-AR-14090. LCS-Westminster Naples LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich and Koester" is requesting an amendment to the Oak Grove PUD (Ordinance No. 98-71) to delete approximately 6.13 acres. The subject property is located in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (Companion item to PUDZ-2008-AR-14091 and PUDA-2008-AR-14092) (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) C. Petition: PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, LCS-Westminster Naples LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP of Hole Montes and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich and Koester, is requesting a Rezone from the Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD), the Oak Grove PUD, and the Agricultural (A) zoning districts to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for a 764,524 square-foot continuing care retirement community (CCRC) to be known as the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD. The approximately 29.25-acre subject property is located in Section 1, Township 49 S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to PUDA-2008-AR- 14090 and PUDA-2008-AR-14092) (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) D. Petition: PUDA-2008-AR-14092, LCS-Westminster Naples LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich and Koester, is requesting an amendment to the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (Ordinance No. 92-75) to delete approximately 5.85 acres. The subject property is located in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (Companion item to PUDA-2008-AR-14090 and PUDZ-2008-AR-14091) (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) E. Petition: PUDZ-2008-AR-12773, Collier Rattlesnake Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor Inc. and Rich Yovanovich, of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting a PUD Rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) to Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as the Good Turn Center MPUD. The MPUD proposes a maximum of 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses and/or a variety of skilled nursing care facilities uses with a maximum of 200 units on 9.5::1:: acres. The subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately 660 feet north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road Section 14, Township 50 South and Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) 10. OLD BUSINESS II. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 8/6/09 eepe AgendaIRay Bellows/cr 2 August 6, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Okay, I think we're -- whoa, that will take you out of your seats. Good morning. Welcome to the Thursday, August 6th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Eastman and Mr. Murray both notified me they won't be able to make it today. Item #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray is absent. Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Page 2 August 6, 2009 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, addenda to the agenda. We have two things under -- we may want to add under new business. Well, one of them for sure. Bruce Anderson has notified us bye-mail earlier this week about an issue he'd like to ask us in regards to consent agenda. He said it'd be a short discussion. And I already told him it'd be okay to come under new business, if there's no objections from the Planning Commission. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll keep -- make sure that's under new business at the end of the meeting. And then Ms. Ashton, at one point you had mentioned the discussion on the formatting or the processing of resolutions. Do you want to discuss that today or at a future meeting? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Time permitting, depending on how late the meeting goes, then we can add it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so will. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's one thing I'd like to just bring up and that's the transportation master modal plan that they have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The mobility plan? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under new business we'll add one for Bruce Anderson; two, the mobility plan. And then time permitting, we'll add three, Heidi's resolution issues. Page 3 August 6, 2009 Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Planning Commission absences. The next regular meeting is August 20th. I'm assuming everybody's available to make it. The next non-regular meeting is next Wednesday, 8:30 in this room for floodplain management. However, today was the day that we would probably need to get the materials for floodplain management. Tomorrow CDES is closed. I'm not too -- I don't believe we're probably going to get our material, at least to the extent we need today or -- by today. I would suggest that we look at alternative dates for that meeting. I think it would be much better to have a more comprehensive package for that meeting and be able to finish it than to have pieces that are not thoroughly vetted out, including the cost analysis that I certainly -- should not be left to a phone call to determine. It ought to be a little more in-depth than that. So with that in mind -- we haven't got anything yet, David, we haven't got maps, we haven't got any of it. Mr. Schmitt, do you see any problem with extending the date of that meeting? MR. SCHMITT: No. I'm looking at dates. I asked Robert last night to check with the manager's office on the availability of this room. So that meeting date will be changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: He has -- of the list you gave him, he has everything ready -- well, except for two items. One was the strike-through and underline, which I know he's working with the County Attorney's Office to develop that. And I'm not going to rush him on that. So there's no sense in trying to push for that date. Page 4 August 6, 2009 But the maps and everything else he has ready. It's just a matter of packaging it and distributing it. Some of which will be in electronic format. Unless you want it printed. But most of it will be probably in electronic format. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were some documents that we asked for, like the rules for hazardous materials. Because it's referenced in the document, it would affect and change the way a lot of even homeowners may -- because a lot of those products may be in someone's garage. And that's why we need the list. But it turns out it's 150 pages. So I think electronically is a very good way to do that, unless somebody has an objection. It would be on CD disc, I would assume. MR. SCHMITT: Now, since you brought up the issue with an economic analysis, and I listened to it after I went back to my office. The -- to what extent are you looking? Because what you've asked and what I understand you asked to do is send it to the Productivity Committee. That's not my option. I can ask them to do it, but that's something I would guess the Productivity Committee would most likely not do. I would most -- if you're looking for an extensive economic analysis, I would have to hire someone to do that, and I'm not ready to do that at this juncture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, I know that the economic committee couldn't do the take-offs needed for the estimate. What I wasn't too comfortable with, with Robert saying he called a few of the guys up, some of them gave him ballpark numbers and he just averaged them out. That may not be close enough for a typical home in Collier County. A 3,000 square foot home with a stem wall foundation isn't exactly done in the rectangle or box format, which is your cheapest format. It's usually done with a lot of cuts, in and outs and stuff like that, including hearths and other elements of structural walls or load-bearing walls inside the house that would actually have to be up high. Page 5 August 6, 2009 I would rather we ask somebody to take a look at it. And I'm thinking you could get a guy like Russell Budd, who used to be on this commission who runs probably one of the best general contracting firms in this county. Contact him and see if he would just spend a little bit of time to tell us what it would take, more than just saying over the phone it's going to be somewhere between five and $20,000. I mean something like that or someone -- a couple -- a little more detail might be more helpful for us to have a real number that we can think is more real than just an average on the phone. That's all I'm suggesting. If you had more time, which you need anyway, I think it wouldn't be bad to try to do that. MR. SCHMITT: The issue on stem wall, in many places it's already required. So again, this is nothing that is not being asked of a developer that's already required in areas of the county. So it's -- but I would ask if the Planning Commission would take the approach of looking at the broad view of each of the proposals and whether you support or not support those proposals, rather than trying to bore down into the merits of it. If you don't support it, why spend the time on it. And that's -- I guess conceptually look at the big picture and say either you agree with the proposal or you don't. And if you do, then we can -- you would spend time exploring how it's written in the ordinance. But if it's something that's not going to be supported at all, I don't see any value of spending a lot of time discussing something that's not going to get your approval to go forward. So I would recommend looking at it from a broad perspective and then decide whether you want to get into the merits -- the economic impact of it or the pros and cons of the various proposals. Does that sound like an approach you would like to take? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem is, to look at it in a more broad perspective, say each level, is stem wall a good idea ? Well, I'll tell you what: Everything that they're asking for to protect homes is a Page 6 August 6, 2009 good idea. But everything they're asking for to protect a home is already at an option a homeowner can pursue if they want to. Now, based on that, how much does government then -- should government step in and force you to pursue and not allow you to make your own mind up? How much of that is worth it? I don't know. And so until you come back with an economic analysis of what a stem wall costs on the average per home in Collier County, I don't-- myself as one voting member of this board, I don't know if I can buy into the program. So I think as a minimum we've got to have some of that information, just to make the broad decision you're asking for. If something costs ridiculously more but one homeowner wants to take that option to lower his insurance and spread his payback over 13 or 20 years, that's up to him. But on the other hand, is it worth the government to get involved and force every homeowner to do something? And I'm not sure that's the right route. And I think the cost will have a big impact on that. MR. SCHMITT: Well, the other -- one of the more contentious issues, the cumulative improvements. And there's merit to that, but there's many arguments that -- the benefit does not outweigh the cost. So rather than discuss that, the DSAC has already voted against it. The committee's already voted against it. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, who's putting it forward then if-- MR. SCHMITT: It is still something that staff is looking at. The building department believes that it's a worthwhile proposal to track cumulative improvements. So it's -- so that's something that we as staff looked at and said well, okay, we'll bring it to the Planning Commission and see what their idea is. It's not us pushing it, it's the vetting process. And whether we bring it to the board or not, it depends. I've already got two votes against it. Rather than you spending four hours discussing the merits of the cumulative improvements, from a broad brush perspective, no, we Page 7 August 6, 2009 don't support it, and then move on and move on to one of the other issues. So that's kind of where I'm going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with the direction you're heading in. I don't think the -- the rest of us may not have a problem either. But I still think we need some base data in which to get to that point. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. Then we'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the biggest one is the cost-- the stem wall one is a substantial cost, possibly. And we don't even have a good handle on that. So that may have an impact on the way the members of this panel vote. MR. SCHMITT: I mean, and these proposals, the floodplain committee is a citizens committee of both staff and appointed citizens, and it's also been various community meetings over the last year. And we've got a lot of input on this. It's a matter of you're the next step. And the intent was to bring the concepts. And if the concepts are not supported, we move on. I mean, that's -- this is not something that is mandatory, per se, it's a matter of creating a program to meet compliance with the -- not the flood -- the community rating system, CRS, and our insurance rating for the county. So as you well know, we're already a CRS 7, and if we can move to a 6, we can. If not, we'll stay where we are. I mean, that's -- that's all this is about. So in that perspective, what we want to do is bring the broad -- present the ideas, and then if the ideas have any merit, then explore those ideas. And we'll bring the backup material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that okay? Anybody have any problems? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll look forward to that -- let's approach it that way to begin with then. MR. SCHMITT: I hope by the end of the day I'll have an e-mail Page 8 August 6, 2009 from Robert. I told him to check this morning. And we'll have some dates and I'll be able to get those to you so we can discuss a meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you, sir. Okay, so we're not going to be meeting on next Wednesday, so everybody can take that one off your schedule. We'll get a new date and circulate it to whenever we happen to find it. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUL Y 2~ 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of the minutes for July 2nd, 2009. If there's -- everybody's read those. If there's a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Caron. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. Any 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? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Page 9 August 6, 2009 Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - JULY 28~ 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, the BCC reports and recap? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on July 28th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the conditional use for St. Monica's Episcopal Church. As you may recall, that petition received the unanimous Planning Commissioner recommendation of approval, but it had to go on the regular agenda because of letters of opposition. The board approved 5-0, subject to the CCPC conditions of approval. The board also heard on their summary agenda the variance companion rezone for this Margood Harbor Park in Goodland, and that was approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: You're welcome. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. I think I just had enough discussion. Item #8 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll move into consent agenda items, which there are none for today's hearing. We haven't met for quite a while on a regular meeting. Page 10 August 6, 2009 Advertised public -- oh, yeah, we had one issue I think a week -- a couple weeks ago, so it was a real short one. Item #9A PETITION: BD-2009-AR-14226, JOHN COWDEN CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Advertised public hearings. Now, the first petition is BD-2009-AR-14226, John Cowden, which is on 413 San Juan Avenue, Isles of Capri. It's a boat dock extension. All those wishing to participate in this action, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, Rocky, it's all yours. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Good morning. For the record, Rocky Scofield, representing the applicant, Mr. Cowden. That's just an aerial showing you the upper portion of Isles of Capri. The applicant lives on San Juan Avenue. Ray's pointing to it right there. That section on the east side of San Juan there where the mangroves are across the waterway, that is part of the aquatic preserve. All of Isles of Capri is in an aquatic preserve, just to -- I know you know this probably, but to refresh you -- except for the manmade canals. You can see in those other avenues adjacent there. The straight line canals inside are deemed manmade. When you come out on the ends of those streets, though, that is aquatic preserve. So the restrictions are very much an aquatic preserve, which Page 11 August 6, 2009 we've talked about before, is to you're limited to 500 square feet of dock space and certain water depths and those types of things. I'm going to just give you a real quick brief history on this property. I represented this owner in front of the Code Enforcement Board a few months back. When Mr. Cowden purchased this property, there was an action already on the property when he purchased it from the previous owner. And they were cited because of the boatlift. That's the existing dock that's there now. The boatlift on the front of that dock protruded out further than 20 feet, so there was a code enforcement action against the owner. He let Mr. Cowden know that at the time of purchase. So after Mr. Cowden purchased it, he contacted our firm and asked us to help him out. So we told him that you would have to remove the boatlift or get it permitted. And so what we did at that time, we went ahead and we told him he'd have to go to DEP and Corps of Engineers and then come back and get a boat dock extension. Well, he said, if I have to go through all of that, let's change the dock. Because the water depths right in front of the dock right now is 1.7 feet mean low water, and in the middle of that lift it's about two feet. It's very shallow right around the seawall in that area. So we decided to come up with a new dock plan. We went to the DEP. In the meantime, we'd gone back to the Code Enforcement Board several times. They gave us extensions because we were dealing with the DEP. DEP took a lot longer, as usual, than we thought in this case, aquatic preserve and all. So back in March I came back to the Code Enforcement Board and told them we -- we'd already received our DEP permits and we applied for a BDE in February of this year. So it was in the loop. BDE's, here we applied in February, here we are today. They take time, too. So at the March meeting we told Code Enforcement we're going to go ahead and rip out the lift so we get rid of the action. And because Page 12 August 6, 2009 it may be another six months before we get all this finalized. So that's what we did. He wanted to do it all at one time to save some costs, but he agreed, let's just rip it out and get done of the code enforcement. So that's where we are. Just remaining right now is the dock that you see right there. This is the proposed dock that we have now, four-foot walkway -- wide walkway, which is only allowed in aquatic preserve. The terminal platform, the N dock, the L dock there, you're allowed no more than 160 square feet. We placed a boatlift on the outside. The dock is out this far because the state only allows you to go out to minus four feet mean low water in aquatic preserve. So we extended the dock out. The front of the dock is at mean -- minus four feet mean low water. This is consistent with all the other docks on this street. And I'll show you an aerial of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a minus point four feet, right? MR. SCOFIELD: Minus four feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Minus four feet? Because I thought what you just showed showed 0.4 feet mean low water. Okay. MR. SCOFIELD: No, no, it's minus four feet mean low water. I can show you. It's hard to see. The water depths are super -- or they're on here. It's a layered on CAD, but it's very lightly. And that's the -- it's actually the lift extends out to minus four feet on the proposed dock. That's an area view of all the docks on the east side of San Juan, Mr. Cowden's neighbors. Shows you the lengths of the docks that go out. You know, the neighbor on one side is out 52 feet. The neighbor on the other side's out 43 feet. So this is consistent. You can see the shoaling in just to the south of Mr. Cowden's dock. There's a huge shoaling in area right there. And that's why those docks extend out past there. The waterway over there is extremely wide. The navigable waterway width in there is actually about 200 feet wide over to the Page 13 August 6, 2009 shoaling you see on the east side of that water system there. And then you go up into the flats and then you have mangroves. The 340 feet on the application was actually measured over to the mangrove line. You see the cut in the mangroves there? If you were -- that goes straight up from Mr. Cowden's dock. We didn't measure all the way back in that little inlet, we just extended a line north and south along that fringe of mangroves and measured the waterway at that point. That's the 340 feet that's on your application. The navigable waterway width is 200 feet. The applicant's protrusion, proposed protrusion, still is less than 25 percent. So this is consistent with everything around him. All the neighbors are in the same situation. There's no complaints. We meet all of the criteria except number one in section two. And that -- if you read that, it's just a technicality, because it strictly relates -- it says other things -- other than water depth. Excuse me. So other things related to than water depths. Well, we're strictly a water depth situation here. DEP won't allow us to dredge in aquatic preserve. So technically speaking, I guess if you read that number one in section two, we don't meet it because it strictly relates to -- it says you can't use water depths as your reason. So if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there any other code enforcement cases on any of these other docks? MR. SCOFIELD: On the neighbors? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. SCOFIELD: I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, what is the -- the existing Page 14 August 6, 2009 dock, what is the T part? How wide? I couldn't see that. I think it was in one of your diagrams. I forgot to look. Yeah, well that, it doesn't -- I was just curious about what the -- MR. SCOFIELD: The existing -- well, it appears to me it's about eight feet wide. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I mean the length. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, the length. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: There's a scale in the upper right-hand corner. MR. SCOFIELD: For the first morning I didn't bring my scale with me. But that does violate the side setbacks too, if that's what you're looking at. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's what I'm looking at. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah. And that's -- these docks are older docks. A lot of them are grandfathered in. So that wasn't an issue. It did become -- evidently the boatlift of the previous owner was put on at a later date, which did come into the code enforcement deal. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Because that was going to be my point was if that -- the length of that T did encroach on -- MR. SCOFIELD: Right, right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Gotcha. So you're trying to improve it. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, the personal watercraft that are going to be here, that's those little things, jet ski kind of stuff, right? MR. SCOFIELD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What draft do they have to have? MR. SCOFIELD: Ajet ski? Gosh, they can probably get by in eight inches of water or so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why do you need four feet of Page 15 August 6, 2009 depth? MR. SCOFIELD: I knew you'd ask that, or somebody would. When you fill out an application, you know, the application asks what vessels does the owner have. So we put those in there. Anybody who's done boating know that boaters change boats pretty regularly, for the most part. Right now Mr. Cowden has two jet skis, so that's what we put on the application. He's already told us he's probably getting rid of them and getting a center console boat. So going through a boat dock extension and all this time and money involved doesn't make sense to put a dock out only far enough to moor a jet ski, because he'll be changing to a boat soon on. So we just do it one time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I knew you'd say that as an answer. There is one other item I wanted to mention to you and that's you said that the canals shown on the aerial are not part of the aquatic preserve, those in between -- those straight line canals. You are aware that the property abutting -- or canal abutting this property is manmade as well. So I'm wondering how come it's considered aquatic preserve, just out of curiosity. MR. SCOFIELD: At the applicant's address? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, the channel in front of the applicant's home. MR. SCOFIELD: You can clearly see from that aerial that it's been dredged. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've seen -- I've got photographs of the dredging from 1960. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can see a dredge setting in one of those lots digging out that canal. So now why is that -- just out of curiosity, why is that aquatic preserve? MR. SCOFIELD: The reason is because that was wetlands. Even though it was dredged, that was prior wetlands. Where the other Page 16 August 6, 2009 straight line canals was uplands. So when they went in there, obviously they dredged out -- you can see it from those aerials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCOFIELD: The deep part they dredged up, they piled it up, they filled the area. But the mangroves and wetlands extended all the way over to that seawall. And that's why the state claims those as their waters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is it a state prohibition on that dredging, Rocky? MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is it a state prohibition on the dredging in that area? MR. SCOFIELD: In aquatic preserves, it's a slim -- usually a slim to none chance that you will get a permit to do dredging or maintenance dredging in an aquatic preserve if you can extend your dock out beyond the shallow areas. That's the whole reason for the aquatic preserves. They want, you know, the benthic community to thrive. They want grasses and crabs and all that kind of stuff. That's their protection method. So dredging is discouraged and rarely given in aquatic preserves. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But it's not an absolute prohibition? MR. SCOFIELD: It's not absolute. There are exceptions. But this wouldn't meet it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Has this petitioner attempted to get a dredging permit? MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody -- Ms. Page 17 August 6, 2009 Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just -- Rocky, I want to go back to the measurement here across that waterway. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: To the shoaling on the other side. Obviously you can't boat over that shoaling, so -- MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: To the outside of your lift there to the shoaling on the other side is 200 feet; is that what you were saying? MR. SCOFIELD: It's 200 feet from the seawall. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, from the seawall. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. SCOFIELD: It's 200 feet from the seawall to where you see that light colored area to where it starts coming up on the shoal. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Rocky, thank you, we'll-- staff presentation now. MS. CASERTA: Good morning, Ashley Caserta with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. This petition meets five of five primary and five of six secondary criteria as shown in the staff report. And no additional information. And just here to answer questions, if you have any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, thank you. Ray, are there any public speakers? Page 18 August 6, 2009 MR. BELLOWS: No speakers on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were there any letters received on this item? Any e- mails or anything -- MS. CASERTA: I got one call from someone that did not oppose, just had some questions. And back to the code enforcement, I'm not aware of any other issues on any neighboring properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, with that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Anybody? This isn't too hard, guys. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I will. I'd like to propose BD-2009-AR-14226, the John Cowden boat dock extension, to be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for a vote of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, we do the approval here, recommend for approval. Yeah, it ends with us on this one. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It ends with us, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you recommend-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I recommend approval. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those 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. Page 19 August 6, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, the boat dock is real simple compared to what we're going up to now. Item #9B PETITION: PUDA-2008-AR-14090, LCS-WESTMINSTER NAPLES~ LLC CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we even get into this, I think I need to explain the process that we're going to get into so we can approach it logically, I hope. There are three petitions involved in the next request. It's a 20-acre piece of property that exists on Orange Blossom Drive. To the west of it and to the east of it are existing PUDs. Out of those existing PUDs, the owner of the 20 acres wants to bring in five acres from each of those existing PUDs. So as a result, the two adjoining PUDs have to be amended to create the new PUD, which is in the middle. And it will be around a little less than 30 acres. I understand from the applicant's dis -- discussions that have occurred it's an all or nothing deal for the applicant. Either they get their PUD or they can't use any of the changes to any of the adjoining PUDs. So based on that, I think it would behoove us to move forward with a discussion of the main issue today, which is Siena Lakes, and then secondarily talk about the two removals from the other PUDs if we get to that point. Page 20 August 6, 2009 So with that in mind, if there's any -- as long as everybody agrees with that or doesn't disagree, I'm -- that's how we'll proceed. Richard, since you represent Siena Lakes, do you have any problem with that procedural process? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. I think that makes sense. I mean, we're going -- you're going to need a vote regardless on the other two, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that, but what we do with the first one's going to be the biggest issue. Okay. With that, first thing, anybody wishing to testify on this issue, which will be the Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, or 14090 or 14092, that's any of the petitions involving Siena Lakes or the adjoining properties, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. Anybody wishing to discuss it. If you're going to plan to speak on behalf -- either for or against any of these, then you need to be sworn In. (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. Yovanovich on the phone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I did the same, and this morning out in the hall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else -- oh, Mr. Schmitt, you spoke to him too? MR. SCHMITT: No, I just wanted to make sure before you proceed, those -- we only have one public speaker slip. If anybody wishes to speak, if they would fill out the form, they're out in the Page 21 August 6, 2009 hallway, and get them in here so we can make sure you get your opportunity to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, out in the hallway, the little slips, if you just put your name down and the fact that you want to talk on Siena Lakes and give them to one of the gentlemen over here. That will make sure you get time to speak. As far as disclosures, I met with Richard Y ovanovich and Terry Cole and went over a lot of issues and concerns that I had about the project. I also received some e-mails late last night. They have been distributed for the record to all the planning commissioners. We had a regular bunch of e-mails that came in our packet. The two that I received last night was from Mr. and Mrs. Choyce Johnson and Michael Santogatta, two different e-mails, two different letters. They're now distributed to everyone for the record. Both were against the project for various reasons. THE COURT REPORTER: I don't have them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have -- J.D., would you make sure the court reporter gets a copy of those? Thank you. Okay, with that, we'll move forward with the presentation by the applicant. And for the members of the public, the way we approach it, the applicant will make a detailed presentation. We'll ask a lot of questions. Staff will then make a presentation. We'll ask more questions. Then when that's all done, we'll ask the comments from the citizens who are concerned. We ask that you limit your discussions to five minutes. It's not a hard and fast rule, but just as a courtesy of our time we seek that, at least a limitation. Richard, go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner in this case. I've got several people here to speak and answer any questions Page 22 August 6,2009 you may have regarding the project. I have Steve Nornes with Life Care Services. He's the actual person heading up this particular proj ect. And Craig Davisson from Rink Design. He's the architect on this project. Steve will be taking you through who Life Care Services is and what they do and how they pick this site and what amenities they propose to offer. And Craig will take you through in detail the site plan itself, both from the internal perspective of the site plan and the external perspective of the site plan, basically to show you what our neighbors to the north, Lakeside, will see, what our neighbors to the east, Bridgewater Bay, will see, and our neighbors to the south, Walden Oaks, will see when viewing the proj ect. I think it will go quicker if you'll let the three of us do our presentations. Hopefully we'll answer a lot of the questions that we've discussed over the phone. And then ask questions. But however, if you have to ask a question, we'll answer it at any time you deem appropriate to ask the question. The request before you is to establish a very specific PUD. It's for a continuing care retirement community. It's on 30 acres on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive between Airport Pulling Road and Livingston Road. And on your visualizer is the location map for the project. We will be removing approximately six acres from I think it's called the Oak Grove PUD; that's where Bridgewater Bay is. And that project is already authorized to go forward with basically 24 units on that property today, if the zoning doesn't get approved. And then over to the west there's another PUD. I think that's the Orange Blossom PUD. There are two owners of that PUD: The Greek Orthodox Church and the current owner of the property. We're taking about five acres out of that. So there's the total site of 30 acres; 20 acres is currently zoned agricultural. Page 23 August 6, 2009 The continuing care retirement community is intended to be a community where people can age in place. We're required to provide independent living units, assisted living units and then skilled nursing units. So you move in at any stage of your health, but if you move in healthy, there's health care for you throughout your -- the remainder of your life, should you choose to stay there. There are a couple in town that you're probably familiar with, Moorings Park and Bentley Village are continuing care retirement communities. There are a lot of other communities that are senior housing communities that either provide just independent living or just assisted living or a combination of independent and assisted, but there are very few communities that do the full spectrum through skilled nursing. And that's what we're asking for is for the right to do the full spectrum. The request is for 340 independent units, 20 assisted living beds, and 45 skilled nursing beds, and 15 memory/dementia care beds. So there will be 340 independent units and then 80 beds to -- in that proposal. When we did our density calculation on the property -- and I'm going to focus on what I perceive to be the issues we've seen through the letters and our discussions, which are project intensity and project height, throughout the presentation. And so will Steve and so will Craig. But when we did our density calculation, we equated those 80 beds as units. So when we did our calculation of 420 units, that included the 80 beds. And that results in a 14-unit per acre project. But keep in mind, that includes units and beds. So we were conservative in our representation of number of units. We've asked for a floor area ratio of .6. The LDC provides that if you are straight zoned, it's the -- the only zoning that you can do this as a matter of right today is commercial zoning districts. If you are straight zoned -- and maybe business parks. But none of the residential Page 24 August 6, 2009 zoning districts or the agricultural zoning districts would allow a CCRC as a matter of right. You would have to go through a conditional use process or through a PUD rezone process to have a CCRC. If you owned some commercial property and you wanted to do it as a matter of right, you would be capped at a floor area ratio of .45. The Planning Commission has seen a few combination independent and combination independent/assisted living facility petitions recently at the floor area ratio of .6. The reason the floor area ratio of .5 doesn't work is that was established many, many, many years ago when the unit sizes were much smaller and the level of amenities was much less. In today's market unit owners want decent sized units for their independent living units. They want to be pretty close to what they're used to living in now in their condo unit or their single-family home. And so the units are bigger than what was originally around when the .45 came around, and they want a lot more services. You have wellness centers, you have dining rooms, you have auditoriums for entertainment and a lot more amenities that were around during the .45 floor area ratio. So that's why you've seen petitions at the .6 floor area ratio, and that's why we're asking for a .6 floor area ratio, to provide the unit sizes and amenities people who are moving into continuing care retirement communities want. The petition you have in front of you today is I think a bit unusual for the Planning Commission in that you have the actual provider applying for the PUD, and the PUD master plan is not your typical conceptual PUD master plan. You're seeing a very detailed master plan that will essentially be converted into our site development plan in the future. So the buildings are located where the buildings are going to be. The setbacks are set up. So what you see is what you get today. Unlike a lot ofPUDs where the community comes and says what are we really getting with Page 25 August 6, 2009 the PUD. When I was originally retained by LCS to help them through this process, I explained to them that Collier County is a little unique when going through the rezoning process from probably wherever they've ever been. I explained to them in Collier County we have a base density of four units per acre. Their initial comment was wow, that's pretty low for an urban area density. We're used to much higher densities in other areas. And I said we're particularly sensitive to building heights. Generally three stories is acceptable around here, but you get much above three stories you can expect a fight. So I said when designing your site keep those two parameters in mind when designing your site. And I also explained to them that historically the Board of County Commissioners has applied a four-to-one ratio when they convert standard single-family or multi-family residences to senior housing. So if you have a base density of four you can -- the board has historically allowed 16 units per acre for senior housing where they would allow four units per acre for regular housing. So they went about designing their project. And I said don't come in asking for more than what you really need with the intent of negotiating down. Let's ask for what we really need and meet with the communities to talk about what we really need. And the project you have before you is what is really needed for LCS to build the quality CCRC that they want to build that they believe people in Collier County will want to occupy. You could do something else on this site with lower buildings, but it will be much more lot coverage, there will be more surface parking, and the project frankly will be not of the caliber that LCS is interested in building, and in their opinion not of the caliber that people in Collier County would want to move into. So what you have before you is the real plan that is needed for this project to be a quality and successful project. Page 26 August 6, 2009 On kind of a general note regarding CCRCs, the Future Land Use Element basically provides that a CCRC would be allowed to be constructed anywhere within the urban area. From a compo plan perspective. You would still have to go through the rezone process if you're not in commercial or the conditional use process to have that happen. But from a where can they be located, the Future Land Use Element would allow them to be located anywhere within the urban area. And on a general note, I've been asked, and I think at the NIM I was asked, what is this? Is this a residential project, is this a commercial project, is this an institutional project? And I wasn't being flip when I said it's all three. Your independent units are similar to your standard residential units; your assisted living units and your skilled nursing units are similar to institutional type uses; and then you have your restaurants and your other amenities that could be, you know, classified as commercial uses. So it's basically a mixed use within itself. And that's what this project is. So I don't think there's an easy answer to say this is a residential project, this is an institutional project or this is a commercial project. And quite -- and honestly, I think the revisions we've made to the Land Development Code to pinpoint you into either you're a commercial PUD, you're a residential PUD, you're a mixed use PUD or you're an institutional PUD basically provides a disservice to the property owners and the people in the community. What we used to do is we were PUDs and our advertisement would say exactly what was in the PUD, so you didn't have to worry about was it an RPUD, a CPUD or an MPUD and then figure out what that really means. And we don't fit clearly into any of those. So we're a PUD that wants to be a CCRC. Now, if you look at all the different residential standards throughout the county, the residential zoning districts vary in height from 35 feet to 75 feet. Likewise on the commercial; the commercial Page 27 August 6, 2009 districts range in height from 35 feet to 75 feet. So we could have picked almost any of the residential districts and any of the commercial districts as the benchmark. We could have picked C-4, which would have allowed 75 feet in height as the benchmark. Staff picked C-3. We don't object to that, because what it really comes down to at the end of the day, that we have a good quality project that has taken into consideration our neighbors. And we think we do. So I don't think picking a benchmark of 50 feet is the magic determination of what is or is not the height that this proj ect should have. And Craig will get much more into detail on the master plan to discuss those compatibility issues. We have -- and I'm briefly going to touch on this. North is the other way, sorry. My standard disclaimer on directions. North is up. And that's the Lakeside community. I'm briefly going to touch on the master plan. That is -- and they have three-story and some two-story located adjacent to that property, that property line. We have limited our buildings in that area to three-story buildings. And then as you go further to the east, that's where we have our two-story assisted living and skilled nursing and common areas closer to them. And Craig will get into greater detail about that. And similarly, to the east we've put heights on those structures, similar to what can be built today on the property and similar to what can be allowed within Bridgewater Bay. So when we're talking about compatibility -- and I think a lot of the letters think that compatibility means that if I'm a three-story building, the only thing that's going to be compatible with me is another three-story building. And if I'm a density of four units per acre, the only thing that's going to be compatible with me is a density of four units per acre. I don't believe that's the correct analysis. And if you'll look at Page 28 August 6, 2009 master planned communities such as, you know, Pelican Bay, Pelican Marsh, Lely Resort and others, you will see that within these master planned communities you have varying types of projects. You'll have single-family projects, you'll have lower scale multi-family projects, and then you'll frequently see your mid-rise project that has a higher density level. And you will see that they are next to each other within that concept. So you will see lower density and lower scaled projects adjacent to higher density and taller building projects within master planned communities. And through that process there's been the determination that it's compatible to have different density projects and different height projects adjacent to them based upon the development standards that are within that PUD document to ensure compatibility. And we believe that that concept needs to be applied when you're outside of a master plan community as well. If you'll look at the area, and can you come -- you don't want the same product on every piece of property. If you did, theoretically the first proj ect you did in Collier County would have set the benchmark and nothing would have ever been above that, because that's what compatibility would have been determined on. But what we're saying is look at compatibility based upon our design standards and how we've layed out the site for compatibility with our neighbor. And we think that's the appropriate measure from a development density standpoint and intensity standpoint, based upon the development standards. Likewise, if you look at traffic impacts from a -- as a consideration of compatibility, we have done the TIS. And the TIS indicates that if we were to do the 11 7 units, single-family units we could do today on the 30 acres, which I think is a fair assumption since the compo plan would allow that, our traffic generation would be slightly higher than it -- for the single-family project than it would be for the CCRC. Page 29 August 6, 2009 And I know, there are sceptics in the audience and I know there are sceptics on the Planning Commission. But we use the ITE manual -- and Ted Treesh is here to answer those questions that you may have regarding transportation. I forgot to introduce a couple of other people. Bob Duane's here also to answer any professional planning questions you may have. And Terry Cole is here to answer any engineering type questions that you may have regarding the proj ect. They're not going to be making a formal presentation, so that's why those three slipped my mind when I did the introductions. But the ITE manual is a manual that's put together based upon CCRCs throughout the country. So there's data behind those numbers. And if you think about it logically, the -- and you can ask your own transportation staff this. From a transportation standpoint the people who come to work at this project don't come to work in the peak hour. They come prior to the breakfast time to get everything ready for people. Then their shift will end before the afternoon, getting ready for the dinnertime period ends. So they come and go offpeak, the employees that are working there. And likewise the residents. The residents, frankly, a lot of them will bring their car and they won't use them. And most of them won't use their car, because we provide group transportation to where they need to go, and they will use that group transportation. And we provide on-site amenities, so they don't need to go anywhere for a wellness center, for entertainment and for food. So the transportation numbers are dramatically less for a CCRC. And that is why you will see that a single-family project has the -- with much less units has a traffic generation about the same as our particular project. I wanted to point out, going back and staying on the compatibility theme, you'll see throughout Collier County standard zoning districts adjacent to each other that are -- that allow different types of development. If you go into the City of Naples, you'll see Page 30 August 6, 2009 single-family adjacent to multi-family. I don't think -- and it's a typical neighborhood design grid system, very few gated communities in the City of Naples. I don't think anybody questions that the City of Naples is a nice place to live. I talked about a few master plan communities. The ones I mentioned I don't think anybody questions, it's a nice place to live. And you can even look at some of the other areas that I consider to be a nice place to live that has various zoning districts within it. And I would bring up an example to be Vanderbilt Beach. On Vanderbilt Beach you have R T zoning district immediately adjacent to RSF-3. The RT zoning district allows 75 feet in height, 16 units per acre. RSF-3 allows a single-family home at three units per acre. So there are many examples of single-family being adjacent to much taller buildings, and they've been determined to be compatible. I think we've beaten the compatibility horse on just a general level pretty good. And the architect will get into how we really address it on our particular project in a second. I also wanted to talk briefly about how we address traffic impacts and how we believe we've gone above and beyond what most projects would do for our traffic impacts. We have agreed to provide an interconnection drive, an ingress and egress drive for the Lakeside residents, if they want it. If they want a drive to get in and out of their community, and years ago they did, we've agreed to provide them an in and out drive on our property, incorporating the water management for that road into our property at no cost to them, other than they're going to have to connect to it on their side and they're going to have to pay the ongoing maintenance of that road. But the construction of that road and the right-of-way needed for that road will be at our expense. Now, your staff report conflicts a little. We spent a lot of time talking to transportation staff about this interconnection road. And candidly we had heard that Lakeside didn't want it and they didn't Page 31 August 6, 2009 want it when it was going to be at their expense. I think that they -- some people in Lakeside have changed their opinion. I think they may want it now that it's not going to be at their expense. I frankly don't know the answer whether they want it or they don't want it. We have agreed to provide it. But we cannot build your standard county road 100 percent in our proj ect to provide them interconnection. When dealing with your transportation staff, they believe that vehicular interconnection was the critical need for Lakeside, because pedestrian and bicycle interconnection already occurs on Airport Road. So they agreed that we would provide a drive. Now, planning staff, comprehensive planning and zoning, want to have a bike path and a sidewalk on that drive road as well. And frankly, that would take another chunk of our property. We think it's unnecessary and it shouldn't be our burden to -- we shouldn't have to bear 100 percent in the cost of providing interconnection to other communities that are already built communities. Now, staff has cited in your staff report a reference to one of the comprehensive plan policies, and that policy says that it's to encourage. It says, all new and existing development shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighbors or other development, regardless of land use type. The word's encouraged. It doesn't say that they're required. So we believe that we have done what the county has encouraged us to do, which is to provide vehicular interconnection, and thus we believe we are consistent with the comprehensive plan regarding interconnection. And we're willing to provide that, but we would object to the interconnection including both a sidewalk and a bike path. So we would be in disagreement with staff condition number one in the PUD. We also ask for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? Page 32 August 6, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't mean to break in there. When we spoke I was thinking that your CCRC is not going to even use that road at all? I know where it is, yeah. But you're not going to connect your property to it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- at this time we don't have plans to interconnect to that road. We're not building that road for our proj ect, we're building that road for Lakeside. If in the future we do interconnect with that road, we'll pay our fair share of the maintenance of that road. But right now we're building that road -- it has never been on our plans to build an interconnection road to Lakeside. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Probably because of the security issue and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: One thought was, and this is in the -- staff is saying the reason that we don't want to do the road is because we have -- our site-related hardship. Because we don't want to bring Lakeside through our proj ect. And they're right. We don't want to bring Lakeside's traffic through the CCRC and have them use our local roads. We think general traffic is incompatible with a senior housing project. So you're right, we have said we don't want to do that. But that's not a self-created hardship, because there's no requirement that we do it in the first place. We're encouraged to do it. And we are proposing an alternative means to provide interconnection on our property but not within the project, if you will. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I guess my point was, you're talking about the bike paths and so on. Because your community could make use of a path, a walkway or a bikeway and do some sort of a camera in and out at the parking lot there about a third the way up from Orange Blossom. I'm not suggesting any architectural this or that or design, but I'm just saying, I just found that a little unusual for you not even to be using any of that road that you're going to build. Page 33 August 6, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Frankly, we don't need it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, we don't need it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's not a cheap road -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- to have to build. It's several hundred thousand dollars that we're going to have to pave to build that road. We had two deviations related to that road that we disagree with staff on their conclusions. The first one I just talked about, the sidewalk and bike path. The second one relates to a required buffer on our property. We're -- the LDC says that we're supposed to have a 20-foot buffer adjacent to this road. We're asking to reduce that to 15 feet and put enhanced plantings in there, because we're trying to save some feet in the proj ect. And again, staff is recommending denial of that deviation, because they think that this is all a self-created hardship. So we take exception to those two staff findings in the report. We had a -- we had a neighborhood information meet. It was at the Italian American Club. I think there were about 83 people there. In my opinion, and it's my opinion, the majority of the people thought the project was a good project. There were some people who said they didn't like it. Thought it was too dense and too tall. But we came away from that thinking that a majority of the people felt that what we were doing was a good quality project. You have received a few letters and you got a couple today, so I haven't had a chance to actually plot where they are. But -- I don't have my map. Later on if necessary I'll put up a map to show you the location of where those people who wrote you the letters actually live. In generalities, they're from Lakeside and they live here. And on Lakeside there's a Citrus Boulevard that goes across here. They live on the other side of the Boulevard, or Road, whatever it's called. And Page 34 August 6, 2009 their front door basically fronts our front door. As you know, in Lakeside their views are out back to their lake. So their front door is to our front door. And it's three-story product adj acent to three-story product. And over in Bridgewater Bay there is -- one of the letters was from someone in about this area, which is basically adjacent to the -- or looking out at -- I believe it's angled this way as that residence. And then there's another building that goes this way. They're also adjacent to three and two-story product. Although this corner of the building right here, that's a five-story building. But this corner right here, this unit steps down to four. That's the location of the ones that we've seen in your packet. The couple that we were handed this morning, I don't know where they reside. And again, Craig will take you through how we got to where we are. And I want to end on a discussion about what do you typically see as a density or intensity for a CCRC or senior housing project in the first place. Because I don't think one should assume you can do senior housing at the same base density of four units per acre that you would find in typical residential. And I'll take you through just a couple of projects. And I can put them on the visualizer for you as we discuss them. And some are in the process and some are being approved right now. You have the project that's making its way through right now, through the City of Naples. They're doing an annexation and a comprehensive plan amendment and a PUD for the Bridges at Gordon Drive. It has 396 independent units and 92 assisted living units on 22 acres. So their requested density is 22.2 units per acre. I think if you took out the assisted living units and just looked at the IL units, that's a density of 18 units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, so we can orientate ourselves, if you know the locations of these -- Page 35 August 6, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will, I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- give us where they're generally located. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This particular project, the Bridges at Gordon, is on the Zoo property that was acquired, you know, when the county acquired part of the Zoo property and a portion of the Zoo property was sold to the private sector. It's on that piece of property within that Zoo property. The Terraces of Bonita Springs is another combination project of independent and ALF -- I mean assisted living. 462 units on 20 acres. That's up on U.S. 41, north of Bonita Beach Road. Brighton Gardens I believe is on Airport. Is that -- right. And that's an assisted living. It's an independent living and skilled nursing at almost 23 units per acre. The Vanderbilt Beach Trust property came through the commission -- the Planning Commission and BCC about a year ago, maybe a little more, a little less. It is on Vanderbilt Beach Road. It is adjacent to Wilshire Lakes. And frankly and candidly, it's adjacent to the multi-family product in Wilshire Lakes. That was approved for independent living units and assisted. The independents are going to be built. And that was approved at 25 units per acre. And that was approved with four-story product, three stories over parking, adjacent to two-story product in the Wilshire Lakes multi-family project. Then you have Napoli Village, which was approved a year and a half or so ago, up on U.S. 41. It's the old Szabo Nursery. And that was approved at -- as a combination of assisted and independent living units. And it was approved at 25 units per acre. And then you have the Carlisle that's adjacent to the Italian American Club, that when we called them and asked them what they are, they told us they're 350 total units, independent and assisted living units on they told us, 18 -- 17 to 18 acres. So their density is approximately 19 units per acre. Page 36 August 6, 2009 I go through that just to show you that -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley again. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Do you happen to have any of the information on the Moorings? Because I know they're building, they're adding on some high-rises, more high-rises. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know the exact numbers for the Moorings. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Because that's pretty large. And they do border single-family. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. They have a golf course between them and the single-family. But yes, the Moorings. And, you know, that's a fine example of a quality CCRC. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. I know they cover the whole -- that's why I was wondering what their -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. So I think they're probably a little unique. They're older and they had a golf course on there and all that. But they are, you're right, adding some higher -- taller buildings on their project. I go through that discussion to show you that what we have asked for is in fact lower than the other projects that have gone through recently and are going through now the process. So we're asking for what we need. These types of projects are historically -- if you compare unit number to unit number are going to have more, there's no question about that. So what I'd like to do now is turn this over to Steve. Steve will tell you who LCS is, their experience and why the site and what they're going to do on the site. And then Craig will take you through the master plan in detail, unless you have more questions about anything I've discussed at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I've got a lot of questions about what you've discussed, Richard. I'm sure that most of us have. But you Page 37 August 6, 2009 had originally started out to request that we wait until after you finish. It might be more productive. Because maybe some other answers will come out of your other two presenters. Unless someone has an urgent need to ask a question now, so -- MR. NORNES: Good morning. As Rich said, I'm Steve Nornes. I'm the Senior Project Development Manager with Life Care Services, and I'm here this morning to give an overview of Life Care Services. Also touch base on what is life care, what is the continuum of care and what really are we proposing. And then why Naples, why has LCS targeted this area. And then have some pictures of things that we've done. And hopefully at the end you'll get a flavor of who the company is, our experience, why we want to be here, and then the quality that we would bring to this area. So with that, first of all, I'm a 21-year employee with Life Care Services. Most of my time has been in the operations. I've been executive director for 15 of the years managing a continuing care retirement community. So I come with (sic) you for a good background of the keys of management, the importance of understanding the hospitality business we're in, the importance of serving residents who are living there. And so we come with the mission that we're here to focus on the resident in delivering the best possible housing experience for them and their family members. What also grounds me is that I had a unique opportunity to have my grandmother, Ida Nornes, live in the community I managed. She moved in and lived to 102, but was there for 11 years during my tenure. And Grandma and I became friends, different from my other siblings. And we asked some questions and we talked a lot. And one of the things I asked her, I said Grandma, I'm really curious, why did you move to a continuing care retirement community? You know, what was the reason. She was a farmer and I'm from Minnesota. And Page 38 August 6, 2009 she lived in northern Minnesota and she moved down to the big city. And she said, well, I moved for security. And I said, well, I understand that, doors and locks and feeling safe. She goes, no, that's not the answer. Your father is now retiring, your uncles have retired, and I've been a person who's grown up and taken care of myself. I've made my own decisions. I wanted to move to a community in which if I need health care, it's there on-site, your dad doesn't have to worry about where Grandma's going to go or how she can afford it, and I want to plant in place. And to her that was the most comforting part of what she did. My message today is when I design, I think of my Grandma, I think of we're building for people who are living in it. And we ask a lot of questions. Why would you want to move to a continuing care retirement community? LCS is focused on that. So through my message, I will weave in that we're resident focused, resident driven, and we're here to develop a project that will be here very long term. And so I come with you with that experience. Life Care Services has been around for over 45 years. What we do and all we do is we develop and we manage continuing care retirement communities. We are based in Des Moines, Iowa. But in fact, we've been down in this area in the Seventies. And we were -- our CEO who just retired was the proj ect development manager for Moorings Park. We were the original developer, we designed it, we came up with it. And so we have an experience in Naples and we have an experience in the Florida market. But we've been around for quite a long time and considered one of the experts in the field of how to manage continuing care retirement communities. We're employee owned as a company. Through our time we developed 45 different continuing care sites. And then also from a management side we currently manage over 86 communities. And so we have a wealth of knowledge. We have regional expertise and support which we can provide to each of Page 39 August 6, 2009 the places that we manage and we own. Currently we're in 28 states. We serve over 23,000 residents daily, so we have the experience of understanding the hospitality business. One of our strengths of our company is that 73 employees have been with LCS for over 10 years. I'm a 21-year employee. I think speaking for myself, the company is fair, they care about the person who's working there, and we have a good mission. We're developing senior life care campuses and developing communities. And so all people that are part of that company are focused on that. And we have over 16,000 employees within our campuses. Here's a map of where we have managed. And you can see the East Coast is predominant. The West Coast is coming along, but mostly CCRC's, as you know, have been in the east. And Florida has an exceptional amount, number of continuing care projects. And so in this area, when we've done focus groups, people are knowledgeable about what is a CCRC. It's independent living with support services in a commons clubhouse. And so we have experience throughout the country . The development side is we develop properties we manage. We're not a developer that will go out and develop things that we are not part of. We look at things for a very long-term perspective. We are highly selective in the places where we want to be when we pick our sites. What's also, and it's true, is that we take a very long-term perspective. The project, and you'll hear from the timeline, has a long gestation period from the time we start with our focus groups, identify market demographics to actually building. And then we will be here long term, and so we take that perspective. And clearly, my messages were focused on the resident. Clearly they are who we're designing for. And everything we do makes sure that we listen, we understand, and we develop our project to support Page 40 August 6, 2009 what they're looking for. And clearly the resident today in our long-term perspective, we're looking today what is market driven, but we're also looking at what is five, 10 years out from today and what is appropriate and what people want. A clear theme that's coming out is people want choice, they want control in their life. And so as we designed -- we have designed our product based on those driven principles. This is an illustration of again a continuing care retirement community. And for perspective, it's residential living. It's independent living. And you'll see some pictures what people are actually moving into. We'll also have the clubhouse. And that's our name for the commons. And that's where all the central activities will be, where people will join together. When we're talking about a CCRC is that people, when they first look, they may be looking at square footage of what unit they want to be living in. But as we talk about it, you're buying more than just the place you're living in, you're buying the amenities. And this is where you can entertain, this is where you can meet friends. So all of this community is part of your home. In fact, what people really are looking for then is to have a plan in place, whether it's skilled nursing on-site, assisted living, memory care. That's what comprises of a continuing care retirement community, all those components. And so we need to become expertise in how to -- residential living, hospitality business of dining services, housekeeping and maintenance and health care, we need to be very good at that. What is a typical retirement community? As I said, it's a continuum. You move in and you live in there until if some time you need future health care, it's on-site. It involves a one-time entrance fee and then a monthly service fee. And that monthly service fee will cover all the amenities. That's independent living; home care is part of that. We like people to age in place, and so we'll provide home care, Page 41 August 6,2009 assisted living and skilled. The residency agreement will say you have full maintenance -- will cover full maintenance inside and out, it will cover all your utilities and tax, and housekeeping, security, access to the community, long-term care. Really, one check covers all your living expenses. When you think about all the checks you write, there's quite a few each month. So you write one check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing I might want to note. We're a zoning board. And if you could focus your presentation on things relative to zoning more than operations and cost, it might be more productive for us to review. MR. NORNES: Appreciate that. I just -- we heard some comments that what is life care and CCRC, but I'll speed up and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care if you speed up, I'm just suggesting that we -- we do zoning here. MR. NORNES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how you spend your money, how you charge and things like that aren't too relevant to our decision-making process. MR. NORNES: Fair enough. I think it was appropriate to understand the quality and what we are, and I will move through. This -- the key of our site is the amenities. We'll have multiple dining venues. That's driven because of choice. People don't want to eat in the same place. Fitness center and healthy lifestyles is the key, moving forward, and so we'll have fitness centers on-site, pools. And you can see by this illustration here, in a given day a person can go to the bank, can go to the -- out for lunch, can go to the spa. And these are the things that we've heard from consumers as we are building, they want things on-site. And that has been a real change from the time in the Seventies till now. And so this project has moved Page 42 August 6, 2009 along with adding more amenities. People are concerned about long-term care, maintenance, socialization, security. That's why they choose our product. Average age for people who move in are 78. Typically 50 percent are couples when you first start out, and then the average length of a residency is eight to 12 years when you develop for a CCRC. Why Naples? We came here and did market studies and really looked at are there people here who fit our age and income requirements to have senior housing options. We feel this area is a very good market, and the studies have said that, that when you look at the populations age 75 and above, 38 percent of your population fits that mode. Nationally the number is 16 percent who are 75 plus in a community. And so we came in here and did market studies. We studied the local areas, the stars where the site is. And really, this project lit up. Because there's a number of people who are age and income qualified. And in the five-year plan that number will grow. There are more people coming in. We also did focus groups. And we said hey, you moved from the Midwest and you've come down to this market or you moved from the East Coast. And we asked, would you stay here, would you live here if there was a choice for you. And they said yes, we would want to live here. But the focus group said we need more than just what's here today. We want to have opportunity to stay in control of our lives. We want to have refundable entrance fee. The entrance fees today are mostly traditional where you pay an entrance fee and it's amortized out and there's no return. Ours would be an 80 percent return. And then they said they want lifetime coverage if assisted living and memory care. So our focus groups have said that it's the right product. They Page 43 August 6, 2009 want to stay in control, and they want a refundable entrance fee. From a development process, we are juggling many things. We have the government approvals which we are today. In this state there's a statute Department of Insurance, the 651. They're also an agency before we can start marketing, we have to present to them our marketing plans, our financial plans, our disclosure. It's really a protection board for the consumers of this area. They also set out how many beds we need to have within our community. And it's at 25 percent or one to four. When we look at operational communities, typically you're about 24 percent of your -- you need 24 percent of your beds available for the health care component. So when you're sizing them, you will see that's about the right mix. Historically what we do is through our 40 years we've done actuarials where we've taken a look at what is the utilization for health care for permanent people who go to health care, people who stay temporary, people who move out of the community or people who die. And these numbers come up to be about 24 percent is what we need. In a life care community, clearly, if you don't have the beds available for what your contract says and you need to have them go to another community, that really defeats your purpose of a life care community. It's bad marketing, it's costly. In fact, if we don't have the beds available, we have to pay the cost for someone who goes to another health care. So it's critical that you size them right to meet your population. And that's where you can see in presentation we're at 25 percent of that mark. And that's set by our historical projections and also the state has taken a look at that. And that number can go up and down based on your justification of utilization. So that's how you size the community. In our business we are looking for milestones for no go. Weare in the process here of hopefully getting your approval, we're in the Page 44 August 6, 2009 process of sales. You have to think about sales. And through our timeline we have to meet -- the market has to respond to say yes, what you're offering is there. And then to start construction you need to get into pre-sales. In today's financing world you need to get 65 or 70 units sold before you can actually finance the proj ect and build it. And then obviously we're in the design and getting the construction pricing. Here again, it's a timeline. We started the project in 2008, and then now we're in the process of the state and county approvals. Hopefully then we'll start our pre-marketing phase where we'll get people interested in our product. We'll develop a priority gateway waitlist. And then we'll actually start the selections of the units for sales. Construction under this plan wouldn't be out till 2012. And operations wouldn't be out till 2014. It's a very methodical process that you go through, and it takes time and it takes long-term commitment to building. The economic impact is about $190 million is the total capital cost. We have selected Kraft Construction Company to be our general contractor. Right now it's estimated about $120 million. And so as you know, today that's a great economic opportunity for this area. And people are very interested and motivated for us to become part of this community . Long term we provide jobs, all year round jobs. And really, we provide jobs, professionals. But I had one brief story where a kid worked in our -- high school kid worked in the dining room and a parent came in who said, hey, thanks for having your (sic) child work in our dining room. And I said why are you thanking me? He said, well, when my kid went to college to get an exam, he said he got accepted to the college because he worked in a senior life care campus. My point is that we go beyond our walls. We create Page 45 August 6, 2009 opportunities for people who live here, we create volunteerism, we create employment. We also are considered a low-impact project. When you're considering projects, we're not affecting the school systems, very little of the fire department, and so we are a good fit for the area, and also a property tax member. This is quickly some slides of proj ects that I've been working on, LCS. This is in Mystic, Connecticut, about a mile from the Mystic seaport. It's called Stoneridge. The point here in this slide is that landscaping is important. People who move in are really making sure we have good views. We keep our grounds up. We maintain our buildings. We believe people -- and here you can see, they have porches here. Here's the front entrance of Stoneridge. There's a driving entrance as you come up. Swimming pool. Again, as I mentioned, healthy lifestyles is critical. We have fitness clubs on-site. People want aerobics, they want to do lap swimming, they want physical fitness rooms. Timber Ridge was our first silver lead certified proj ect. We will be pursuing lead certification on this program here. We think that's the right place. It's in Issaquah, a suburb of Seattle. And it's in a planned development area. So this is a very small site which needed to go high-rise. Here you can see the main entrance. Architecturally what we try to do is fit the area. It's the Pacific Northwest. Woods and rock. Here's the finish of the back side. You can see there's outdoor sitting areas, there's a residential component. Here's a sitting area where you can have outdoor fireplace. These views are looking out at the Cougar Mountain, a mountain range. Dining. There's multiple venues here. There's a main dining room, a casual dining room and a cafe. Again, people want choice. Our project is they eat when they went and how much they'd like to Page 46 August 6, 2009 eat. Here is illustrations of some of the commons. In the lower right-hand corner is a picture of our health care center area. It's actually a tub. In the nursing home lingo we call it a tub room. In the hospitality business we call it a spa. We believe wherever you are you should have equal treatment as if your front doors are appropriate. This would be an example of someone who's getting in our skilled health care the experience they would receive going into our health care. And this would be the spa versus you're having your tub bath, your bath this week. We take pride in our philosophy of resident-centered care. We develop smaller pods. And it gives you illustration. Here's the quality of some of our kitchens. It's granite with maple, hard floorings. This is a view out of the mountain range. But it's a very nice, high-end project. The Heritages in Brentwood, Nashville. Very nice upscale community. Again, the architecture is going to support the Nashville environment. There's here parking underneath the building. We try not to have a lot of asphalt. You can see the villa or residence that people can walk. Here's their dining room, formal, different than this previous one. Again, some more common space. Sagewood is in Phoenix. We're partnering with Mayo for some of their health systems. But this is a larger site that was bought. And you can see here, it fits the Phoenix market. Outdoor amenities. People are looking for that. Here's an example, the main entrance. You have line of sight, you can see through the building. Place where people can meet. There's a library, there's a front desk, there's a cafe. And here's the construction. In fact, that was under -- it should be opening up this year. And Page 47 August 6, 2009 it was one of the only projects that got financed last year. It was a $160 million financing, and many proj ects did not get financed during that time. We attribute that to our strength of the company. And then Trailing Woods is a development proj ect in Minnesota. Architecturally we design to fit the area. We don't want to develop a project that you go up and say straight senior project. It's a residential feel, active lifestyle. You can see people living there. Again, there are some commons and amenities that we put in. People want to be outside. Here's the swimming pool, feeling of a pool for wellness. And dining is critical. Our dining rooms are designed where you can feel comfortable living, but you can feel great bringing a friend. And that's a quick overview of LCS, Life Care Services, and again what -- the life care concept. We'll turn the project over to Craig Davisson, who's the head planner, and he will go through the site and go through actually the building plans. And I'll be around to answer questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before he does, we take a break at 10:00, so we'll be taking a break till 10:15. We're going to take a break after I ask Richard Y ovanovich one question. How much more time do you need, Richard, for your presentation? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fifteen minutes, 20? Well, we're not going to get done in five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not going to be done in five, so about 20 minutes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm going to wait -- you're not even going to start until we get back from break. But I want to know how much more time you need -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we need -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- before we get into our questions and Page 48 August 6, 2009 we get into -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- about 20 minutes to take you through the site plan and the landscape buffers and all that good stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll take a break to 10:15. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Ray. Richard, your team's got 19 minutes, 30 seconds left. MR. DAVISSON: My friends here took up all my time, so I'm going to just cut it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, he did. MR. DAVISSON: -- in half and get right to the crux of the situation, which I -- my name's Craig Davisson, by the way. I'm an architect with Rink Design Partnership out of Jacksonville, Florida. I have family here in Naples, Florida. We're a firm of 30 people: Architects, landscape architects, planners and interior designers. And I'm going to basically breeze through the first half of it. You can see some images. If it's something you want to go back to at a later time, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You need to get closer to the mic, unfortunately. MR. DAVISSON: It's something that we can come-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. DAVISSON: -- back to at a later time. I myself sit on the board of design review committees in a couple of counties in northeast Florida. I'm sensitive to the letters that have been written by the residents, and I'm also sensitive to your views, so I will get right to what I believe is the issue today, is the density and -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Tilt your mic down. MR. DAVISSON: The density and setbacks. Okay. These are some projects that we're responsible for. Our Page 49 August 6, 2009 site, lead, what Steve touched on, the Florida vernacular. Okay, let me just start with the site plan. And what you're seeing -- maybe if I can point. Can you see the pointer? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MR. DAVISSON: Okay. What we have in the orange is what we're calling independent living, which Steve described. That independent living is basically what we're talking about, kind of the active zone of the community. And the basic front door of the community is on Orange Blossom. What is in the orange is actually four-story above garage. In the center of the site, which is basically the heart and soul of the community, is the clubhouse or common space which handles all the functions. One might think of a community clubhouse, like a golf clubhouse that serves, you know, three different dining venues. But what we've done along Orange Blossom Trail, in lieu of basically backing the site up like we see where basic -- you know, most of the communities have their back turned to the street. And we're turning it around. We're pulling the entry back, creating a front door to the neighborhood. And we've put the four-story over parking. And the automobile is a primary driver to what we're doing here today. That this is a walkable community, a sustainable community and a viable community. We're putting two and three quarter acres of asphalt underneath the buildings that are not going to be seen that creates a greater open space and a more walkable community. What we see in the brown, kind of the -- that's the orange, is the independent living. And we'll show you some images of that as we move along. What we see in the brown is when they step down to three-story over parking. The commons is a two-story element, one story porte-cochere, and that's two-story. As we move around the site, these are the three-story villas, and what we have are basically car ports, carriage houses for parking that Page 50 August 6, 2009 create courtyards that are an abutment to the entire Lakeside community. The health center, which is the home for skilled nursing, memory care and assisted living is all two-story. And again, we've nestled in the service. And the service and the wellness component of this project is one that is shared, you know, obviously by the entire community. And the maintenance and service areas, all one-story. It's nestled between the independent living north and south to the health center. We had looked -- obviously we, as designers, we've explored countless numbers of schemes and solutions to this site in how to make it work and how to create the -- you know, and reach our goals. We had actually even looked at flipping the proj ect where we had, you know, utilizing that drive along this side and bringing service in on this side. The issue and the challenge that we have is that by doing so then we'd be taking the taller buildings, the four-story over parking, and putting them up against Bridgewater Bay and on that northeast corner on Lakeside. But by being able to bring in the service between the two that we're able to keep our lower scale buildings more compatible with those building heights that are in those areas. So, you know, we've got the two-story -- the two-story, one-story, three-story over parking, four-story over parking which is not -- there will be views. And we've got images that show those VIews. Now that we've seen the site, this is an aerial rendition of the site looking west to east. As you can see, this would be Lakeside, Bay Water (sic) and Walden to the -- in this area, with Orange Blossom Trail. It's about a walkable community. It's about walkable views. It's the water's edge. It's about Mediterranean architecture. Not as building facade, but truly authentic Mediterranean Spanish colonial architecture that's about planning. And there's a variety of building heights. We made a conscious Page 51 August 6, 2009 decision at the beginning of the proj ect that we were not going to do a three or four-story linear site that would get our density on the site completely across, backed up to our setbacks. That doesn't create the kind of community that I think that our neighbors want, nor is it the kind of community that we're looking to as far as a sustainable and walkable community that is not dependent on the automobile. And basically our concern and one of the issues that we're dealing with is that you are a handicapped person in Naples if you do not have an automobile. You can't get anywhere. There are a lot of communities, my father included, and he lives in Imperial up the street, you can't even get into your own community without having an automobile. You can't get your mail, you can't go golfing, you can't go to the clubhouse, you can't go to the pool; you've got to get in your car. And that's what we're trying to prohibit with this type of planning. It's anti-suburban planning. As we move through the site, and I'll -- just again, these are the independent living wings that step down to the commons with dining, a bistro, cafe, with wellness, spa, natatorium, fitness. And then we see the health center in the background with the three-story walkup. These are a different type of housing, different type of scale. And the one-story carriage house. Then it's an abutment to Lakeside. This would be an image as you're looking at the entry walking -- let's see, you would be walking from east to west on Orange Blossom. Again, this is a gated community, but we're not trying to make it look like a gated community. That's why we're keeping things low, transparent. That when you see the site plan, that the commons building is pulled back off the street with the embraced arms of the independent living, the actual common space. And the entry to the building is actually two-story glass where you can visually see through the proj ect onto the lake, even if you're standing on Orange Blossom Trail. Again, it's being a front door to the community and not turning our backs on the community. Page 52 August 6, 2009 Whoops. I can't drive this thing. This is more or less an aerial view showing along Orange Blossom. You can see the independent living wing. You can see the commons, kind of the entry stage to our site. Beautifully landscaped. Using and trying to create -- which was a real challenge, the site's basically a burrow pit with not much vegetation to it. But creating instead of -- that burrow pit being a challenge, we decided to reshape it and use it as an amenity to the site and pull the community center back. And again kind of using these independent living buildings in an active side of the project, which is on Orange Blossom Trail, you know, to kind of embrace the resident as far -- and as well embrace the people in the community. This is the interior of the site. Again, you know, what we're -- we talk about walkable communities and common areas and outdoor spaces and health. This is one thing that our clients are really looking for these days. It's not about a therapy to get your knee fixed, this is about wellness, it's about spa, it's about physical activity, it's about engaging yourself in the outdoors. What we have done and I have personally have worked on projects, the most efficient senior living project is a high-rise tower. The most functional type of proj ect is you have a common space in the middle and you have pinwheels of wings, you know, spurring off of it. That's the most functional. But it has nothing to do with wellness and it's institutional. And our goal is to not only maintain but transcend the quality and dignity of life to our aging population. It's not about being an institution. This shows just a snapshot of the villas along the Lakeside. It -- you know, creating -- and again using the car as a challenge, but creating the courtyards where it's not asphalt, that the car could actually drive onto a courtyard space so it becomes a quasi-pedestrian traffic for a few cars. This is a little closer up. The tower in the background is -- you Page 53 August 6, 2009 know, we've got lots of activities that are outside. We've got an indoor natatorium. I think you saw an image that Steve had done, that's the type of scale we're talking about indoors. We have outdoors, we have outdoor dining, places of shade, exterior terraces for dining on the second level as well. And again, it's engaging the community in the population. Because I don't know if you've ever been in some of these communities, that it's like who's here. You don't see anybody walking around. Well, you have to have a reason for people to be in places. And you'd be surprised, one of the most active places in these communities are the hair salon, the card room and the postal. And we even on purpose do things like we don't deliver mail to people. We want people to get out and be active and be active without their car. Again, just kind of an overall site. Okay, now, let me address -- I don't know if I -- I can barely see it myself. This is to address the concerns that we've seen as far as the public; you know, as far as height and density goes on the site. And we've created some images and some building sections that are fatherly accurate that will show if you're standing -- well, I think what we can do is we can start with Lakeside and work our way clockwise. We've got a few shots just looking interior to the site. And where you see these cones of -- these red cones, we're showing some images of a photograph that was -- somebody standing at that spot, and then later applying with the computer what you would see with or without, and also putting in a landscape buffer. And it's fairly accurate, because it was -- like again, it was done on computer. I don't always trust computers, so there's always intuitively is this right or is this wrong. And the other thing that I would apologize is you're seeing buildings on a computer that are not developed. And people see computer images and they think well, that's the final project, when in fact it's not. What the project really is are these hand-drawn sketches Page 54 August 6, 2009 and images that we're showing you. But we had to develop computer models to show you, which are very sterile and they're not indicative of to where this project is going to end up. And it will be much better. Okay. Now, first, I'm going to start at Lakeside. And right where this line is, is what we call a section. For those of you who don't know what a section is, it's like cutting an apple in half and peeling it open and seeing what's inside. And it gives you perspective of the length. Here we are at a Lakeside with parking, showing their asphalt, their landscape buffer, their -- there's a screen wall here. What we're showing is an additional landscape buffer and basically what we have, which is the one-story parking. It steps up to the three-story villas. And we are about 84 feet back. We're well within the setback. Now -- and if you want me to come back to these, I will. Because this sometimes gets a little confusing as we're walking around the site. I'll go back to the -- these are views. In the blue cones these are just views as we're walking down the street looking at some of the ambience and aesthetics and landscaping of the Lakeside project. Next view is we were standing -- and I have to go back to it again. If -- we're going to show you two views. If you're standing here looking at our project, and if you're standing here looking at our project, the before and after. And basically you can see the three-story, you'd pick up the top floor and you'd see some roof, if you're standing in that precise spot on the other side of the parking. Next image, we are looking down the end of that traffic corridor where there was -- and you're actually starting to pick up some of the health center. And that's what you see today, and that's what you would see as the project is complete. If it's okay, I'll move around and show you the other sides of the project. Let's talk about Bridgewater Bay a minute. We've got an image -- if you're -- we've got some images showing you that they've got a Page 55 August 6, 2009 pretty good buffer themselves without us enhancing it. They've got a high wall that they've got fig ivy on it, that's pretty neat. And I think we're showing a shot. Again, that cone vision, picking up the two-story health center, and over to the -- we've got a three-story to four-story over parking independent living unit. And then we're going to just take some shots looking where the blue cones are. Again, this is a section if you were in Bridgewater Bay. And, you know -- and this is scaled and this is graphically correct, showing the landscape buffer, what's on their property, and kind of gives you a feel for the distance between the two. We've got actual footage and numbers, if you need them. Again, that's their screen wall. That's standing on their property. And then we can go to -- that's another shot. Site photo. This is with -- you know, when we do our landscape buffer. I mean, that's the -- what their -- what exists right now. We'd come in and be doing our landscape buffer, which is required, which we're going to be going beyond what the code minimum is. But starting to get an idea for the landscape buffer. All you can see on the two-story health center. I mean, if you can pick up the orange there, all you're seeing is basically rooftop of the two-story. And the way it was picked, you don't even see the independent living over to the south side. Go down to Walden Oaks. And this was a hard one to capture, but just bear with me. Again, we've got some photos just standing between the units. We didn't actually ask anybody if we could get in their unit and take pictures from their window, but we did sneak in back here and take some shots. And we'll give you two shots of the section and again the site. This is Orange Blossom in this area, showing the one-story. And then as you can see, you know, there's been this discussion about five-story, and, you know, I guess with semantics we're using. We call Page 56 August 6, 2009 it four-story over parking. It's five story. It can be defined as five-story . But this section I think is a good indication of what we are doing. We do -- you know, we can't submerge the parking only so far. We all know that the water table in Florida is pretty high, and we want to stay above it. So that floor plan -- I said the two and three-quarters acre of asphalt that we're putting underground, it is relatively similar to the existing grade. So to say it is submerged would not be fact. What it is, what we are doing is we have pulled the roads off of it where we can get a four-to-one slope from the sidewalks, or from anywhere on the site we can get a four-to-one slope and basically berm up as a minimum halfway up that garage. That garage that we're calling underground parking, even though -- and then on top of that then we're going to have substantial landscape. So visually we're trying to hide the cars. We don't want the cars, and we don't want -- we want the buildings to appeal to everyone. But again, we want the automobile to be subordinate to this community. That's one of our primary drivers. And if we were to take that asphalt out, yes, we could drop the buildings down, but we'd be adding asphalt. And so that's the site section. And out standing between one of the units -- and these buildings are a little further back than the others because we're looking across Orange Blossom Trail. And also, we've pulled the commons way back. So kind of the four-story over parking is kind of -- the way we've got it on our site is it's kind of equidistant from all three sides with regard to the community. And that's one thing that we've been sensitive to. The second picture is onto the right, again with the -- they've got a -- it's a -- they have -- Walden Oaks has a five-foot wall with landscaping. And then obviously we're going to have ample landscaping at our entry way . Because this one's taken pretty much right at the entryway. And that would be in the background seeing the Page 57 August 6, 2009 four-story over parking. Again, there was another image that we were showing. And basically you won't see anything. You know, we'd say well, why don't you pick this angle or pick this angle. I think we could have picked what we thought were accurate views and a good balance and, you know, I mean, we could have gone infinitely showing views from every direction. The final slide is -- this is Orange Blossom Trail. Again, this is a computer rendering. That's basically the cluster -- there's a cluster of pines there. There's a few -- you know, there's a few palms that we'll probably move. But in essence it's a scraped site of all vegetation. It's a burrow bit. And if you were to stand directly -- kind of like in the middle of Orange Blossom, that kind of gives you a mass modeling of -- you know, again, I talk about embracing the community to the entry to this building, again, from our resident as well. I think I've got a larger shot. This was standing -- okay, we've seen that shot. That's just walking up Orange Blossom Trail, you know, with our community on the site. And that's a little bigger shot showing if you're just standing right across Orange Blossom -- or I think if you're standing in the middle of the street from that shot. This shows three-story. And the building steps up as we go in. This is three-story over parking. This entire area that we're looking in this vicinity is all common space. There's dining on the second floor, we have a lounge upstairs, billiards room. And again, you come through. There is a guardhouse, there won't be gates, but there is a guardhouse. And there's a porte-cochere. And again, this will actually end up being a lot of glass that you can see through the community into the lakeside as you're approaching the site. That's something that LCS does frequently on their projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave that frame -- and I Page 58 August 6, 2009 don't mean to interrupt your presentation, but it's a -- on the right you show a four-story over parking, and on the left you showing a three-story over parking? MR. DAVISSON: Yes. And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The plan we have in front of us shows a four-story over parking on both sides. I'm just wondering why there's a difference. MR. DAVISSON: Let me -- bear with me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I can answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, our plan actually for that little area just shows four-story not over parking. So in other words he doesn't have parking on that lower level in that last shot. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's true. That LU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You see where he's got a line? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, the one-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's a four-story building at that point, no parking under. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Okay. We're fine. Sorry to interrupt you. I just wanted to make sure we understood it. MR. DAVISSON: Those were the graphics that we did bring along with regard to, you know, knowing that the concern was setbacks, and also intensity and density of the site. And I don't know if my time is up. Like I said-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, your issues are actually more relevant to this board. I'd just as soon -- if you've got more, I'd like to see your presentation finished out. MR. DAVISSON : Well, this is the presentation part that addresses the concerns of the resident with regard to building height. Not so much density. Page 59 August 6, 2009 You know, I think the issue of density is more conceptually -- it has to do -- and this is more of a global discussion that, you know, what we as architects and planners, many are striving to do, at least, as we're seeing our economy, we're seeing our natural resources, and we're seeing what works as neighborhoods today. And it's been since the post World War II. You know, United States has really lost touch with community and what a neighborhood is all about. You know, it's -- and most of Florida, unfortunately, and I'm not talking about Naples. Most of Florida has been developed after World War II. There's not a lot of history to Florida except in certain pocket areas that were developed, you know, prior to the automobile. And again, you know, it's become -- the state has become a model of low density segregated use and completely auto dependent communities. And, you know, we're trying to reverse the trend. And it's happening all over the country. And this concept is not a new invention. It's not something that we have figured out. It's simply rediscovering what has worked. What has worked in European planning, what has worked in United States planning prior to the automobile. You go into cities like Boston -- and I'm not talking about cities but villages, communities, neighborhoods. It's not about turning your back to the street. It's creating walkable communities. And those communities require higher density. They need it to be viable. And I'm not talking about high density. This is a moderate density. Urban Land Institute -- 14 units per acre is not high density in accordance with the Urban Land Institute. You need to have 10 units per acre just to make things start to work as far as creating a community. Are we going to make a major impact in Naples? I don't know. You know, hopefully we'll -- hopefully we can do some things. We're not the first to do it in Naples. Hopefully this is going to set a trend in people that want to live in a community, in a neighborhood, not a Page 60 August 6,2009 gated community. I mean, obviously there are things that we have to address. The market, automobile -- we have to address the automobiles. But that was -- you know, that's the concept to this community type. And I explained what, if we wanted to, just strictly apply, you know, zoning. And, that's -- you know, you ask why are we doing a PUD. Frankly, nowhere in this country have they addressed, nor does this type of a community fit neatly under any type of zoning overlay. Every time we go into a community and want to do a project type like this, we have to reinvent the wheel. And people are starting to catch on and cities are starting to catch on with zoning, because this is truly a mixed use project. It's not an institution, it's not a nursing home. I -- frankly, as people ask, well, you know, how do you go about designing communities like this? Well, it's simple. I would design this community with the understanding that there are nuances with the aging population, with color rendition, hearing, light sensitivity, mobility. I mean, there's all things as designers we have to consider. But when it all comes to an end, I want to design a community that would be something that I want to live in, or something my parents would want to live in or my family would want to live in. Not a nursing home. So that's the challenge that we're faced with. And that's what people are starting to expect today, because enough of these type of communities are cropping up. And people can see this is the way I can live and this is what I can have. And again, it's not about toning down, living in a senior community. It's about living your life on and transcending your life after you retire. Again, I went through other projects and things that we've been through. I'm passionate about this. And I believe it's the right thing for Naples. And I hope this can take on (sic). Page 61 August 6,2009 And I can get into work that we've done, discussion, what have you. But again, I just wanted to address the issues that I thought that were relevant to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're going to have a lot of questions, and we'll probably get into other aspects of what you would like to, you know, at least tell us about during our questioning process here. So I assume then you're done with your presentation? MR. DAVISSON: I'm finished. Thank you for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, does that take care of all the presentations you have for your group at this time? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And I appreciate your tolerance for a rather long presentation. But I think CCRCs are unique and you don't see them every day. So -- and we got, frankly, a lot of questions about how they function operationally: Do you really provide skilled nursing at the end of the day, why is it only 25 percent? And I thought -- and I asked Steve to address those questions because I thought the community needed to hear that and you needed to hear that. And if we went on too long, that was my call. And I apologize for that, but I think there was a lot of unknowns regarding this type of development. I thought we needed to get into a detailed explanation. And with that, as I said, those are the only three speakers that we had proposed. And we can answer any other questions regarding traffic through other people who are here, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know there's going to be quite a few questions. And undoubtedly Brad's got quite a few. So why don't we just -- without him even saying he has a question, I'm sure that he does. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'll jump in. And it's really for the architecture. Without getting into the height, and I think you've shown the Page 62 August 6, 2009 height rather well. It's the length of this building is kind of scaring me. It's a 1,200- foot long building. Orange Blossom is a pretty well public readily used road. I'm just concerned about how you're breaking it up. I know you're dropping some of your things down. But I think the site plan we have shows about a 60- foot wide swath of building. But it will be wider than that because you're going to have porches and stuff on the outside of that. MR. DAVISSON: Yeah, it's actually I think about 62 feet. And what we're doing -- and I'll go to this elevation study that we did. Whoops, I keep going in the -- I can't drive this thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go back a second to that section through it. And see, the concern I have is that 60 feet is our parking standard. So essentially what you've drawn on this plan is the width of the parking. There's a lot of building mass going to be projected outside that. So the scary thing to me is that it's a very long building and it's represented in the site plan as not accurate to scale. So it's going to be bigger than that. MR. DAVISSON: Let me just go to the architecture that we had done, that elevation study. What we're doing is we're treating -- and I -- let me flip to this slide. You know, Mediterranean architecture is very appealing I think to people that do not live in Florida that come. It's a trendy thing to do. Mediterranean architecture is pretentious the way it's done today. It's been used, over-used and abused. It's a facade on a gas station, a strip shopping center. It's -- I said pretentious. And it was brought over to the United States by Addison Mizner at the turn of the century . So, you know, what we're doing is we've got an American architect that studied Mediterranean architecture, lived in Italy, so Page 63 August 6, 2009 we're getting an interpretation and interpretation. So now what we're seeing in the United States is Mediterranean architecture that is basically the lowest common denominator. And if you looked at -- and these images that you're seeing are all-- these are new structures. And I think that when I -- I present these as, you know, showing what I believe, personally believe in what the owner and as a group that we've kind of settled on, that this is a true real Florida vernacular. You know, I live near St. Augustine so, you know, I get a glimpse of what's happened. I've studied in Europe and studied in Italy. But it's authentic. It's about planning, it's not about facade. So this is -- and these images, the ones on the right are a project that I had done in Ponte Vedra, the Club and Inn. The others are not my work, but I think they're great. They're just very simple. But then we take -- that's kind of what appealed to the groups in the focus groups. That does have a Florida vernacular, but it's not over the top Mediterranean, it's more of the authentic. It's about mass and stone, of solid void relationships, detail in the right place, cast -- you know, wrought iron. Simple buildings, but just done eloquently and sophisticatedly. So, you know, then we kind of took that as, okay. Let's just take a section. This is a nondescript elevation of our site. And basically, you know, what you'll see on a lot of, you know -- you know, a lot of multi-family houses in Naples is, you know, basically applying things to it that make it look like it's broken up when in fact this building, if you were to look, these are -- you know, these elements that are basically when you go down the line of the elevation of anywhere on these independent living units, they break up from zero to five to 10 feet back. So you're going to get a -- you're not going to get any expanse as far as roof expanse as far as what's broken up. These areas that you see where a lot of glass are what we call Page 64 August 6, 2009 lanais. You know, we all know what they are, they're the sunrooms. And we always go through this in Florida, creating a balcony that people end up wanting most of the time want to screen in or enclose. So then you get one person that wants to enclose it, the next person that doesn't. Well, we found out through focus groups and through other projects that let's make those the sunroom. And that's actually -- that little space on the elevation is probably the most used space in the entire community as far as what people use in their units. They love that space. Weare creating outriggers, these balconies, kind of creating a datum line, breaking up the scale and creating an order, kind of almost an upside down order that you would see using these outriggers more, you know, these things that hang out over the streets that you see in the European cities. And if you've all been to St. Augustine's it's all over the place. Where you might have the top units. It's even different -- it's not just stacking units on top of each other, it's even breaking the units up horizontally. Again, this is the direction and the thought process that we're going through. We're not there yet by any stretch of the imagination. This is just, you know, looking at how -- we've got, you know, a lot of windows that will have, you know, touches of wood, using a more warm white monolithic feel to the buildings but then using the woods in the appropriate place, and the stones. Now, you know, I don't mean to, you know, step around your question, but are you talking -- when you say across the entire site -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I could reword it, because it's actually simpler than your answer was. The concern I have is that on our drawing, our site plan, we're seeing 60 feet wide, 60- foot wide ribbon. That's not our site plan, the one that we have that's going to be the exhibit that goes forth as the official record. Yet I think these things are going to stick out quite a Page 65 August 6, 2009 bit past that. I think your section that you show, not the one that's in our documents, does show a lot. So in other words, the building's going to be fatter -- MR. DAVISSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- than what we're seeing here. MR. DAVISSON: Well, what -- the --let me -- okay, I know where to go with this. We had actually done -- when we had done our first submission we were showing a footprint without any development. Now as we have started developing the footprint and knowing the ins and outs and here's a unit and here's a balcony, that we've actually pulled the building back to keep all those elements out of the setback. So we've pushed the buildings back inside our property line further than your original submission because of the undulation of the architecture. Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. So in other words, let's just stay with Exhibit C-l. Because Exhibit C-l goes on through the future. All these conversations are somewhat left behind. That was it there. And again, my first concern is that the building is 1,200 feet long plus. And we have to really make sure that doesn't look like a 1,200- foot long building when we build this thing. I understand the interconnection, I understand the power of that, I understand in the environment we live that's actually good. But we have no setbacks shown. And like I said, the ribbon you're showing is 60 feet wide. That's our parking dimension, such that anything that's beyond that would make this look even bigger. And the sections that you've been showing through your presentation show the parking lot and then it shows balconies and things cantilevered off of that. So again, the concern is we really have to make sure this doesn't look like a 1,200 foot building. How are you going to do that? Page 66 August 6, 2009 MR. DAVISSON: In a couple ways. There's -- and it's not shown. Let me put my finger on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to -- there's a walk-around mic you'll have to use, if you leave the mic, because you have to be on record. MR. DAVISSON: Right -- now, this is just one baby step of breaking this building up. But right here we're showing this as a footprint when in fact it's not. The building will arch over the water. We're connecting the two waterways. So there will be a two-story element, an opening that you can actually walk through. And again, it's being able to see through the building. So we are going to break the building at grade in this area, have an archway with -- you know, creating a canal right here. The other is that -- and if I go to this, is that we've got -- again, we're not completely settled on every single unit type. But, you know, we've got four-story -- three-story over parking, four-story, two tall stories, a one-story, three-story over parking. So we're trying to break up, you know, the building. I mean, it's about a variety of building heights and building roofs, rather than straight shot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I still have some concern, because those are some rather long walls. Ray, let me ask a question: Is this going to go before the architectural review? Is this a commercial creature or is this a -- MR. BELLOWS: This is not a commercial building. It's -- as Rich was saying earlier, it's a CCRC type of institutional use, more like a community facility. But I believe they're committing to meet architectural requirements of our code. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, and you probably didn't know this, on another proj ect I was working on, I met with Bruce McNall when he was here, and he was requiring that. Although he was requiring that all elements of the CCRC go -- comply with the county's commercial architectural standards. Not just the skilled Page 67 August 6, 2009 nursing and assisted, the independent as well was going to be measured against whatever the code requires under the commercial standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So we can kind of trust that to help us. Do me one favor, though. Pull up the section you had in the presentation. And it was in your slide presentation. And Ray, while I guess he's doing that, can you put C-2 on the overhead so we can just compare one thing. And make sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't do them simultaneously, you know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I know that. But he can flash them back and forth. MR. DAVISSON: The section over Orange Blossom? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that probably is the one. There it is -- no, no, keep going. MR. DAVISSON: I think it was the last one, of course. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, there it is. Ray, and then show us C-2. The difference is there's a big difference between the two of those in terms of coming out over the parking. What would they be restrained to, the one that's shown here or would they be able to do what they showed there? In other words, if you look at this section, there's a 65-foot wide ribbon matching what's in the site plan, and not showing building projecting past that point. MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure I understand your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The upper -- or even the lower left building, it shows four-story over parking. The outer face of that wall is the outer face of the parking lot. Now, if you go back -- if you can flip the image back, the -- see the difference, the parking? This thing is going eight, 10 feet past the parking. Page 68 August 6, 2009 MR. DAVISSON: Yeah, it's wider. And again -- I guess maybe I'm not understanding. We have -- when we were talking about that setback off of Orange Blossom on our property, first of all, you've got a -- that's from a civil engineer, excuse them. But that was just a one-line diagram before we started developing the project. As we started developing and we did undulation where of this long linear building that we're talking about is not a straight that's indicated, it has articulation. And we've pulled that articulation back so the outmost articulation of the building falls within the same line as that drawing that you have in the exhibit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the reason I'm concerned about that not being true is that that scales to 60 feet. Sixty feet is our minimum double loaded parking like you're showing here. So, in other words, there's no way you could do that basement less than 60 feet to achieve -- MR. DAVISSON: Oh, oh, I'm sorry. The building -- the parking is actually -- it has more to do with the units than does the parking. The parking's like 62 and a half feet wide, 63 feet. And that has to do with the units above. And what's happening outside of that with balconies and lanais and things that we're cantilevering out have nothing to do with the parking below. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Again, I'm just trying to -- I think that the scale we're looking at on this site plans, these are smaller ribbons of buildings than reality. But let's move on. The -- Rich, do you know the difference between the grade and the mean elevation of Orange Blossom Road? And again, it's the actual height. Because it's actually measured off of that and not off -- as shown on this drawing. Unless we I guess restrict it to be shown as this drawing. MR. COLE: Terry Cole with Hole-Montes, for the record. The elevation of Orange Blossom Drive is approximately 13, Page 69 August 6, 2009 elevation 13. And the elevation under the buildings with the parking is also going to be approximately elevation 13, which is the -- based upon the 25-year storm. The elevation of the minimum finished floor of the buildings is going to be around elevation 14, which is based upon a 100- year storm. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So this drawing dimensioning the actual height will be probably correct. It's not like the site's going to go down and you're going to come out and measure it off of Orange Blossom, which would be higher. MR. COLE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. Then I guess the only other question is the flipping of the site plan. I'm not so sure that doesn't work. You're right about -- well, actually, I think it would put the massing of the buildings almost the same. So if the neighbors are so concerned about having the service end on that site, what is the problem with flipping it? Because it would bring it over towards commercial and everything else. MR. YOV ANOVICH: From a service delivery standpoint we will have about 10 trucks a week making deliveries. They come -- the bread truck comes once a week. You know, so from a delivery standpoint there are minimal deliveries through the week to bring stuff to the site. So it's not going to be a frequently used service entry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it would be at your staff entrance, it's the activity of that. And actually there's stuff being taken out of the site. You have waste pickup, stuff like that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that was included in the number of deliveries. The trash coming. So from that standpoint, it's not our -- it's not going to be our -- I'm sorry, Mr. Schiffer, I just want to confirm it because I thought it was correct. The employees will be using the main entrance to get there, not the service entrance. So that's the deliveries for -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where will they be parking Page 70 August 6, 2009 then? In front of the commons? Or don't they go around -- isn't that larger parking lot for the staff, over by the AL -- MR. DAVISSON: Most of the -- the parking that's underneath the building will be more of assigned parked. The parking outside will not. However, that will probably be more of an operations thing. We've always seen because of these type of communities and the number of car counts diminish over time, it's kind of a park as you can. But they will probably park employees on the -- my guess is once this thing's up and running, they probably want employees to park along Bridgewater Bay side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Okay, Mark, I'm done, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Other questions from other Planning Commission members of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody has any other questions. Okay, well, I do. Let's turn to C-l, the site plan. You have a deviation that you're requesting, or I should sayan objection from staff, that there's no pathway and sidewalk along the proposed road to the west side of the site. Why wouldn't you put a pathway or sidewalk along that road? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Make sure I'm talking -- are we talking about -- can we just call it the Lakeside road? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that the road you're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why wouldn't we? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because that's going to cost us another 10 to 15 feet of our site to put in a bike path and sidewalk to accommodate that access for Lakeside. And when dealing with trans -- talking to transportation, their primary concern was getting cars out of Page 71 August 6, 2009 Lakeside at a second entrance. Because they do already have the ability to get to the sidewalk that's on Airport to get to the church or any shopping that's there. It was a vehicular concern for transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'll probably get back to that. I wanted to hear your explanation. The maintenance facility that you have in the west, the -- actually the northeast corner. As you know, there's -- because I told you this already, and I know you're proposed to add it today. In your PUD language there was no provisions for the maintenance facility -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so that's going to be added as an accessory use, I take it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why did you pick that location for that use, being that it's probably more -- it's closer to more residential there than it would be in an exactly flip-flop position on the other side of the site. There you're up against two roads and no residential neighboring communities. Just out of curiosity. Because the maintenance facility operates at usually odd hours compared to other operations. MR. DAVISSON: Other than the adjacency to the service area, there's no other reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maintenance -- what's maintenance got to do with the service area? Basically maintenance is lawnmowers, street -- repairs and things like that, right? MR. DAVISSON : Well, it's basically just again proximity. The maintenance and service are two functions that go together. You know, if somebody's got -- somebody from the inside service area's got to cut the grass, you know, it's the shortest distance to get the equipment that he needs. But I see your point, why would you put it there. And I'm sure we can deal with that. That could be moved. Page 72 August 6, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your parking, you have 379 spaces required, but you're providing 608. That's like 62 percent greater than what's required, or some number like that. Why do you have so many more parking spaces? Especially if the parking after a while actually depreciates, doesn't increase. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The parking is broken up such that the exterior spaces are approximately 213. There's 80 in the garages and approximately 315 under the buildings. And based upon the demographic studies that LCS has done, they typically know that when a couple moves in initially they typically will bring two cars. And usually after a year they'll sell one of their cars because they find that they don't use them. But based upon demographics and historical projects that they've done, and they've done many, as Mr. Nornes has previously mentioned, this is the number of spaces that they feel that they need. And also, some of these spaces are going to be used for golf carts just for travel within the interior of the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you sell the -- are the spaces sold to those people that -- units in their -- typical condominium, for example, you can buy parking spaces. And they're required by code, but if you wanted extra space or more than the code's required or whatever, you can actually purchase them. Are these spaces being sold with the units? MR. DAVISSON: It depends -- and Steve might be able to talk to this. I believe when you have a pack -- it's a package where you get the space underneath the building. And the spaces outside I don't believe are going to be assigned. What we have seen, and again, this is more intuitive other than, you know, planning, is when these communities start out and they -- people are bringing two cars in, that's what they're used to. And after about the first generation, seven, eight years, people sometimes keep their cars, but they're never used. They just sit. And then, you know, Page 73 August 6, 2009 they might wise up. So what's happened, and like I use Vicar's Landing, which was one of the first projects we did that's 25 years old, we have added 30 assisted living, we've renovated and added skilled nursing and we've actually added some independent living without having to add parking. Because the parking that had diminished is now in return as we've added onto the site. So there are times that, you know, the parking is being removed, you know, later on when it's -- when the community matures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could this project survive with say 40 less spaces? Is that a deal breaker to the project? MR. DAVISSON: I'm going to have to let the owner answer that one. MR. NORNES: As Craig said, besides that, based on our historical usage and what we see, if we need to reduce 40 parking, it would put a crunch in initial phases, but that's something we would look at if that's so important to move this project forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Both of you guys got something to say. Ms. Caron first, then Mr. -- I've still got to finish my question where I was going with the parking, but go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I just heard a comment made that I wanted to follow up on. What are these future phases we're talking about? MR. YOV ANOVICH: There are none. MR. DAVISSON: What you're seeing on the plan, ma'am, is the project in completion. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There are no future plans other than what you have here. I think he was talking about other proj ects where when things changed they were able to do it because -- in other communities, not this community. This is it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? Page 74 August 6, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, Mark, you said something, and then it made me think, you're talking about flipping the property. And then this maintenance building. And then all of a sudden I started thinking of some other issues that came up about refuse pickup, garbage pickup and garbage trucks and so on and so forth. And then I thought well, you've got that Lakeside road, you have this service entrance. And I'm just -- where's all the garbage pickup going to happen? Because, you know, it seems to happen 7:00 in the morning and-- MR. DAVISSON: You know, that's -- you bring up, is it Brad -- brought up a good point. And that's something that we had looked at, you know, going through a series of, you know, many design schemes was we had looked at that whole component being, you know, to the west and basically flipping the site. Again, we were looking at I think, you know, maybe we weren't taking everything into consideration. We were looking at the health center being a two-story rather than -- you know, we were finding the lower scale buildings, you know, to put up against Lakeside. Now, obviously the service -- and it is something that operations is -- total control of is when refuse comes and goes. I think, you know, for us to explore or to basically take the site as we know it today -- as it's presented today, and if that's something that the residents -- our neighbors would rather see, that's something I'm sure we would consider. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who asked the question? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I did. That's fine. That's all, thank you. I just didn't -- you know, they're pretty noisy things, those garbage trucks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a very short question. This project first was approved in 1998. Why wasn't the Page 75 August 6, 2009 sunsetting part of it in, since it's been almost 11 years? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which project are you talking about? COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Well, the original. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're talking about one of the adjoining PUDs. Yeah, and both -- they're very close to sunsetting, or one has already -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is roughly -- approximately this portion in this direction is within I call it Bridgewater Bay. That's not the right name -- Oak Grove PUD. So that is already in a PUD that is probably well over 90 percent built out. So that would not be subject to sunsetting. And then roughly this piece to there is in a PUD that has sunsetted, okay? Does that answer your -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But that doesn't -- in other words, that doesn't affect what we're doing here today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, because what you do, one way to get out of sunsetting is either to amend that PUD or create a new PUD. So we are addressing the sunset issue. We can't do anything on that PUD right now, that's why we're going through this process. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I just wanted to make another clarification. The remaining PUD will still remain sunsetted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, back to the questions I was asking. The maintenance facility. You acknowledge that could be moved to the other side of the project. You acknowledge that you could live without 40 spaces. See the parking spaces south of the maintenance facility along the east side of the project? There's 40 spaces there. So if you took those 40 spaces out and you moved the maintenance facility to the east side of the project, you'd have room to take care of the deviation that staffs been asking for in regards to -- I shouldn't say clarified, but get Page 76 August 6, 2009 the deviation resolved in regards to the path that you would need along the north-south road, which I think you said now you want to call it the Lakeside road. Right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just shift your whole site over for the depth of the spaces that you've taken out on the east side of the project. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me understand where the 40 spaces you're talking about are. Because I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look where the maintenance facility is. South is towards the bottom of the page. I know you have a problems with directions. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you talking about these are the 40 spaces? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't count the spaces, so I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought you were talking about in this area and that's what -- so I didn't want to give the wrong answer. Terry? MR. COLE: The spaces that are on the eastern side of the site are primarily used by staff. That's where the staff primarily comes in, the workers. And it's important to have the spaces over by the commons and health care area, because that's the proximity of where they're going to be working primarily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, there's other empty spaces in front of the buildings over there, but that's just -- that's a planning issue that we can get into at our deliberations. During the neighborhood informational meeting there was a comment made on item six on Page 20 of the staff report, and I'll read part of it to you. It says, the petitioner stated that if the interconnect road was built, it would need to be built by the Lakeside community. Page 77 August 6, 2009 Then a parenthetical: As noted in this report, the petitioner has since agreed to build the road. The Lakeside participants were very receptive to that answer, as they did not want the interconnect road built. Does that mean that they don't -- they didn't mind being responsible for building it because they would never build it because they didn't want it built? Was that what that paragraph's saying? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me give you a little -- I've got to take a step back history-wise. When we first met with the manager for Lakeside, we went and said we were willing to provide for interconnectivity, but they were going to have to build their own road to make that happen. The response based upon that was we're not going to spend the money to build the road so we don't need it. That was the context of my comments of we're not going to build the road for Lakeside. Subsequent to that neighborhood information meeting -- I don't see him in the room -- Mr. Casalanguida-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, he called me this morning, he said he was too afraid to show up today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, he used his art of persuasion, and thus we agreed to build the road for the Lakeside community. I don't know with that change whether the Lakeside community wants it with the obligations to now have to maintain it. I don't see maintenance being a huge expense over a period of time. I can't answer the question about how Lakeside feels about the road when it's our expense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the way that this deal supposedly worked out is you all will build the road at some point that we've still got yet to establish. I know you have it before building permit, but I can assure you I'm going to be talking about approval of SDP. But the road's maintenance is up in the air. You don't -- there's Page 78 August 6, 2009 no agreement on any table that I know of that says that road's going to be maintained by anybody at this point. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. And if -- again, we are committed to building the road if Lakeside will agree to maintain it. And if anybody else decides they want to use that road, then the maintenance costs will need to be shared. But we didn't think it was fair to obligate us to both build and maintain a road that we're not utilizing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so if Lakeside decides they won't maintain the road, then the road doesn't get built. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if it doesn't get built, what happens to that property? I guess -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It becomes green space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Green space. Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just -- I can see, you know, every one of these things being issues from parking to maintenance facility and to that Lakeside road. If the property would be flipped, everything would be solved. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Mr. Wolfley -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Because you could use that road, they could use the road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, our thought was the concern from our neighbors was going to be -- mainly Bridgewater Bay at this point. Because I don't think it really will affect Lakeside because we've already put three-story next to three-story on Lakeside. We thought the way we had the site designed, we were putting, you know, two-story and three-story next to Bridgewater Bay. And the flip may result in a little bit more four-story and definitely some three-story over by Bridgewater Bay. Page 79 August 6, 2009 If Bridgewater Bay would rather flip that, then the service entrance road issue goes away. We'll then be using that road so we may as well be maintaining it for Lakeside as well. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's my point. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But, you know, if that's the consensus that will make the community more comfortable with the project, that's something we would-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, with a few more trees but a heck of a lot less traffic, I don't know that they would have -- I don't know, I'm not living in Bridgewater Bay, but again, with more trees, with the traffic, I would think was what they'd be more concerned with than potentially 10 more feet of view but with trees blocking. I don't know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Honestly, we tried -- as Craig showed you, we tried to be very sensitive by putting projects where we did. If there's a better way of doing it by flipping the site, we're amenable to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to Exhibit A, which is the beginning of the PUD. On the very first page of the PUD there's an opening paragraph that tries to redefine or define continuing care retirement communities. When I met with the applicant, I told him I don't think this should be there. I think the LDC is the document that defines things. This actually brings in a lot of uses. They have a use table or use section in there that defines their uses, so I don't think we need to open the door for misinterpretation by having a paragraph that really is not essential to the document. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're fine with deleting that. But I just want you to know, there is no definition of a CCRC in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's references, you're right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's references. But no, we're okay. That was intended to let people -- it was descriptive of what a CCRC Page 80 August 6, 2009 is. But the permitted uses we've asked for are consistent with that paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On -- go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just before you continue on. I'm not so sure that leaving that commitment in the PUD wouldn't be helpful, if this project gets built, to the people who end up living there. So I'm not so sure I want to take it out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And, you know, that's a good point. We want everybody to know that the use we're asking for is a CCRC, which would require all three of these types of uses: Independent, assisted and skilled nursing. If you delete that paragraph, then I could probably legally come in and just do anyone of these permitted uses and not do the others. So whatever -- you know, that was the intent to make it clear we weren't trying to just do an independent living facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, I'll be chewing on that before the day's over, so -- I mean, we all got to make that decision. So thank you. Good point, Ms. Caron. Under your Page 2 under B, indoor accessory uses, you have a large amount of what we would normally consider commercial uses in this facility: Cocktail lounge, private dining, bank, business center, art studios, beauty and barbershop, woodworking studio, convenience store, coffee shop, ice cream parlor, beauty salon, and the list goes on. I understand why you have these. I understand, based on the presentations we've heard how this system operates. Just pointing out that there are a lot of commercial enterprises within this property being proposed. And that will probably get to where I'm going in a few minutes. And I just wanted to make that point. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I would agree that a restaurant and cocktail lounge is a typical commercial use, but it's only our residents and guests who can use them. But I think like an art studio and Page 81 August 6, 2009 woodworking is more of a hobby area, and I wouldn't consider those commercial uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you -- yours is a gated facility, so is everyone's registered guest connected with some person living there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The maintenance facility, you're going to add to Item C, I would assume -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where it's missing? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually that -- we probably need to put that under B. Because I don't know if that's an outdoor use. Is that okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as it's accessory use, that's fine. Just as long as it's in here somewhere -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because we've got to have standards in which to apply, and the standards only come if it's listed. Under Exhibit F, which is your transportation commitments -- well, you know, I guess you're going -- we have -- John's here so we'll be able to get into that with him then. Everything refers to issuance of first building permit. We do things prior to the approval of the SDP, and I'm not very comfortable with the first building permit as the trigger. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What we're doing, just so you understand, Mr. Strain, the -- I'm assuming you're talking about the entrance road at this point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number one, yeah, you can -- that's the MR. YOV ANOVICH: The Lakeside road is number one. That is being permitted as part of our SDP. What we're saying is we will start construction of it when we get our first building permit. And at the two-year build. So it will be completed well before our Page 82 August 6, 2009 proj ect is up and running. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's a two-year build? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The Phase I is basically going to take two years to build. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought you said that little road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, no, no. That's what I'm saying, it will be completed obviously before we have any of our COs issued. That's why we tied it to CO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why aren't you tying it to the approval of the SDP? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it is being permitted as part of the SDP. We just don't want to start construction of it until we get a building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Within 30 days of the issuance of the first building permit, the developer shall provide a non-exclusive public access easement 24 feet in width along the west property line and shall construct a two-lane access road. So that means you get the building permit and then you're going to actually provide the public access easement and construct the road. Is that what that says? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm saying, why wouldn't you provide the public access easement and start the road construction at the time of approval of the first SDP? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, and this is a very specific PUD for this project. Until they have enough pre-sales -- and Steve, correct me if I'm wrong -- they will not get to the building permit stage. So if they never get the pre-sales they need, the project will not go forward and we'll be back in front of you again for a brand new PUD. And the current property owner did not want to be saddled with commitments if he's going to have to come back in the future potentially for their own PUD. Page 83 August 6, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you're going to end up getting your SDP and you're going to hold the SDP ready to get building permits based on sales, and the SDP is only good for a couple of years. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. It's critical to have the SDP as part of the pre-sale process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's going to own that road? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll be happy to give it to the county, but I have a feeling we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can't give it to the county because it won't meet our minimum standards. So I don't think the county could accept it. The maintenance is going to be supposedly by Lakeside, if they agree to it. The installation is going to be by you guys. Who installs the full turning radius movement on the Orange Blossom roadway? Who pays for that and who does that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The turn lane, is that what you're saying? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on Orange Blossom you're going to have a full turning movement intersection there. It's going to have a left and right turn out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to need a few minutes to talk to Terry. I didn't understand that explanation. Could we hold that question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The impact fees. 5.A, the road impact fees will be paid once the SDP for Phase I is approved, according to LDC provisions. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The COA for Phase I would be issued at this time. How is that different than the process we currently go through? Page 84 August 6, 2009 If you go in for -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why do you have it here? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because what's critical is it's really -- what happens is we come in, we get our Phase I SDP. The code currently reads you pay -- once you get it approved, you pay your impact fees in five equal installments or until you pull a building permit. And at the time you pull the building permit you pay the full amount related to that building permit. Which we're fine with doing. It's when we -- but when we pull that first building permit we now have to pay not only all of the impact fees for Phase I of the building, road impact fees for Phase I, we're going to front -- we're going to pipeline our road building impact fees for Phase II, which is another 400,000 above and beyond what we would be doing related to Phase I so the county could do the intersection improvements at Orange Blossom and Airport. And in addition we would be paying our fair share on top of the impact fees of our cost of the intersection improvements. So that's in there just to emphasize basically the pipelining provisions we would be required to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Item C, prior to the approval of the first building permit, developer agrees to pay fair share of the Airport/Orange Blossom Drive improvements, not to exceed 5.31 percent. Why again to the first building permit? Why not to approval of the SDP? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, the way we talked to -- again, the project is not a go until the building permit is issued. And at that time when the project is a go, it's going to take basically two years to complete the intersection -- well, to complete the building. The intersection improvements will take a much shorter period of time to occur. Page 85 August 6, 2009 So we said to staff, again since the proj ect is not a go until the building permit is issued, we'll give you all that money that you're going to get and you have plenty of time to do the intersection improvements before we're going to get COso CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to ask -- I've got some questions on your TIS and I need John to kind of confirm some of the things we talked about. But before you go there, I have another issue I want to ask you about. You provided a series of projects, a whole list of them, and I heard mention two others that were also CCRCs or similar that you believe were reasons why this proj ect should be built. You started out with The Bridges at Gordon River, which is a proposed project along Golden Gate Parkway. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think the list is still here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The first project, the Gordon River project, is on what's called a minor arterial highway in Collier County. There are six rankings of highways. The most intense is called a principal arterial, the second is a minor arterial. Then they go into four levels of what are called collectors: A rural major collector, a rural minor collector, an urban major collector and an urban minor collector. So on the seven or eight proj ects you've talked about today, the Gordon River Bridge is on the second most intense highway, which is a minor arterial. The Terraces in Bonita Springs is on U.S. 41, that's a principal arterial. The Brighton Gardens is on Airport Road, that's a principal arterial. Vanderbilt Beach Trust is on Vanderbilt Beach Road, that's a minor arterial. Napoli Village is on U.S. 41, that's a principal arterial. The Carlisle is on Airport Road, that's a principal arterial. Moorings Park is on Goodlette Road, which is a minor arterial. And Bentley Village is on U.S. 41, which is a principal arterial. Now, if you go down that list and you look at the ones below the Page 86 August 6, 2009 principal and major arterials -- or minor arterials, you get to major collector and minor collector on rurals, and then you get to urban minor and urban major. Urban minor collector being the least intense roadway in the county. Guess what Orange Blossom is? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, I know what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Orange Blossom is an urban minor collector. And I'm just wondering why you would use for comparisons projects that were all built on arterials and try to justify the building on a collector of an intensity of .6 FAR. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, and I'll tell you what I am -- first of all, if you want to talk about traffic impacts, which I think is the appropriate discussion when you're talking about roads, our traffic impacts are equal or less than we could do on single-family on that road. So if you're talking about whether the road itself can handle our project, it can handle it. There's nothing in the code that says this type of use has to be on a certain type of road. So from a transportation standpoint, the road can handle the project. And I think that's what you've got to be concerned about, not the road classification. These other proj ects -- I couldn't tell you what the classification was for Goodlette-Frank Road back when Moorings Park was built. I know it's not the same road that's there today. I couldn't tell you what the classification was for Airport Road when the Carlisle was built. It's not the road that's there today. But the point is can the road that we're proposing handle the traffic generated from this project? And the answer is absolutely yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the reason I went and looked at all this is because part of the argument in the report was that the policy changed by the BCC was to allow .6 FAR. I don't believe there's been a policy change. I think there's been a case-by-case review of the projects that they've considered for .6 FAR, and one of the considerations was the intensity of the road system that they're Page 87 August 6, 2009 adjoining to. That's the concern I have for this project. Now, I've been through your -- I've heard your presentation today, and there's no doubt that as time goes on we're going to need more CCRCs. The baby boomer generation is getting older and they're the majority of the population. That's going to happen. Your LCS looks like a good manager, the product in a lot of ways looks great. And I think that the FAR does need to be reviewed. But I think also we have to take the context and the location in which it's applied. You previously said that master planned communities can have a variety of intensities within them. And you're right. But they're PUD'd and designed that way. And when people buy in one of those, they know what different densities and heights they can expect within that community. When you go along a typical zoning project like this one is, and it's -- right now it's agricultural zoning alongside existing facilities, existing PUDs, I doubt there's a lot of anticipation in anybody's mind that the intensity that you're asking for in the FAR may have been applied in the manner you're asking for it to be applied on in this location. Just making that as a statement because it's concerning and there's been an intensity and density issue. I know you all are not willing to budge on those heights or the density, but I think that the public's concern about that is justified. And I think density, as the architect was saying earlier, he said well, all over the country the densities are higher, basically. Well, you know what? I think that's relative to the community standards in effect to whatever community you go in into this country. And if the community standards in Collier County are to be less, then that's what we have to live with. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, may I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- make some statements on that? Page 88 August 6, 2009 I know that this section of Orange Blossom from Airport to Livingston is proposed to go to a four-lane road, which I believe will change that classification to, is it -- what type of -- urban major collector? Okay. So that's been part of the long-range transportation plan for quite a while. So if people really did do their homework about what could go on around them and read the comprehensive plan about what could happen on agricultural land in the urban area, I would, one, be shocked if it's more than five people. And two, what I -- what you and I discussed was I think .6 has been justified because of the types of amenities. What it comes down to is, is this -- have we properly designed this project to be compatible with our neighbors. The road can handle it. And we have dealt with this through setbacks and landscaping. And you know what? If the answer is that Collier County doesn't want CCRC's in this part of Collier County, okay, that's a policy decision to be made by the Board of County Commissioners. There are -- I can't find one, but the minute I say there aren't any, someone's going to say well, what about this. I can't find too many 30-acre sites west of 951. Now, when you start talking about west -- you get in a more finite area of west of Livingston Road, I don't know any of those. But you've got to look at where's the market, is there a need, have we properly designed the project of being compatible with our neighbors. I think the answer is yes. Others may disagree. And, you know, that's the way it's going to have to be. There are other -- if you see what the policy decision has been for density for other projects that are not even CCRC's. The ones that I discussed with you or the first one, the Bridges, not approved yet, is a CCRC. The second one is a CCRC not in Collier County. Has been approved. Brighton Gardens is not a CCRC. Vanderbilt Trust, not a CCRC, that's an independent living facility. Doesn't even go to the assisted level. Napoli Village, independent and assisted. It's not a Page 89 August 6, 2009 CCRC. And the Carlisle is independent and assisted, not a CCRC. So there is a total lack, other than Moorings Park and I believe Bentley Village, that exist for CCRCs in Collier County. And I think the demographics are showing the need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all the comparables that you gave us to compare to now you just told us aren't comparables anymore. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, what I -- and I said that all along, Commissioner Strain. I said to you that these are senior housing projects, and that senior housing projects have a higher density than your standard residential proj ect. And that's how I started the presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To say the county doesn't want any facilities like this in the north end of the county I think is wrong. There's -- a variety of the examples you used are in the north end of the county. So -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which one's a CCRC at the north end of the county? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, you can call it whatever you want, Richard. It has elements of the same criteria that you've got in this. I mean, you've got your Vanderbilt Beach Trust that you came before us for that was approved, you've got the one up on -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Independent living facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 41 just north of Immokalee Road. I don't remember which one that was. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Napoli, independent and assisted living facility . No skilled nursing in either one of those facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much skilled nursing do you have in this one, 80? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have 80 beds. That's 80 more beds than -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Out of 420? COMMISSIONER CARON: Not of skilled nursing. Page 90 August 6, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have 80 beds and I think, is it 45 skilled nursing? I've got to go back to the first page. 45 skilled nursing, 15 memory and 20 assisted living beds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John Pad -- I've just got some questions of John now on the transportation. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, John. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning, for the record. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't swear in the beginning? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I thought I did. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say, he knows the rules pretty well. Or is it that you don't trust the way he looks or something, you want him sworn in twice? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Just in case I didn't, I figured I'd cover the bases. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know she never asks Nick to do that. You heard the discussion on the issuance of some of the standards or elements at SDP and building permit. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your department's position on that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: My director's position and my manager's position, our department's position at this point is to follow along with what's been shown in the current document. We do not have an objection to the language that's shown here for the timing on Page 91 August 6, 2009 that, so -- but it is always at the prerogative of the Planning Commission. We will follow whatever you'd like us to follow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as the TIS that was provided by the applicant, I have a concern on Page 5 of their TIS, it talks about trip generation. And their a.m. peak hour in a 48 is their calculation. Yet we know they're going to have 140 employees, based on the report. A lot of those employees are not nursing or necessarily employees who help with individuals. They may be employees of the numerous number of commercial institutions or facilities they have within this place. I would expect they'd be coming in early in the morning too. Did you guys, when you reviewed this, take into consideration the accuracy of that 48? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Specifically, no. We went specifically with the trip generation that was shown in the ITE handbooks. And it does not break that down by individual uses within the occupied units, the CCRC use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the CCRC use and the ITE trip generation take into consideration all the commercial uses such as this establishment's asking for? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe so, yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it also take into consideration then all the employees within those establishments? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe it does. I'd have to reread the description, but I believe so, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if there's 140 employees and I don't know how many of those would be split up between the commercial uses and the actual medical assistance, does 48 seem reasonable? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Overall the general total on this is 115, two-way total. Then that would be in and out at that p.m. peak hour, which does seem more reasonable when you look at 140 Page 92 August 6, 2009 employees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's no -- one of the things that I saw a note of is that there's a -- DCA was going to be created. And I know in discussions with you, can you tell us for the record what the status of that is? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. For the record, that DCA is no longer being pursued. There are other agreements in place based on the commitments made in the PUD. I'm sure Mr. Yovanovich can probably expand a little better on why the DCA idea was abandoned, but it has been abandoned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure from your department that's satisfactory. That's all the questions I have of the applicant at this time. Does anybody else have any others? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah, I don't want John to go, since we've got John up here. I want to talk about this comparison. The available residential units, if this were built out at -- this area were built out at three units an acre, it would have to be built out, correct, because it's in a TCMA? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'd have to double check. I don't believe Orange Blossom Drive is in the TCMA. COMMISSIONER CARON: So is it just the intersection? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, I believe it is just the intersection. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so -- and because this doesn't touch the intersection at Airport but everybody will travel there. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: And that's why we saw it a contribution to the intersection. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. So it would be at four units an acre would be the base. Some hundred units of residential housing. And they're going to have 340 units of independent housing. Page 93 August 6, 2009 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CARON: And you're trying to tell all of us that 100 units of housing -- 116 units of housing is the same or less than 340 units of housing? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Again, these are based on the ITE national average rates, the Institute of Traffic Engineers. And in general when they do their surveys, they do look at these all throughout the country. And the difference in trip generation rate per unit would typically reflect the internalized uses that they have on this sort of a facility where they have their own commercial uses, their own post office, that sort of thing. It reflects that those trips tend to stay internal through the community as opposed to going outside of the community. A direct comparison to single-family housing, single-family housing tends to have a higher trip generation rate. In fact, for all housing units it tends to be one of the highest, if not the highest trip generation rate per unit. COMMISSIONER CARON: According to what's been offered here today, are the people who live in this development guaranteed a bank and a post office and an ice cream parlor and the laundry list? I mean IS-- , MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm afraid I'm-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that a commitment that they're going to have to be there? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to answer that one, as I'd have to defer to the applicant. But it's not precluded, I don't believe. COMMISSIONER CARON: I want to know if it's a commitment. I mean, are these trips really going to be off the road or MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can guarantee you the food service, I can guarantee you the wellness center, I can guarantee you the beauty Page 94 August 6, 2009 parlor. The only one I don't think I can guarantee you is the bank. I don't know if I'm going to get a bank branch that wants to come in to do that. But we obviously are going to have our central post office and all of those things. So the answer to your question is yes, I can guarantee you all those uses, except for the bank. COMMISSIONER CARON: But we're talking about independent living units. So those independent living people are not necessarily going to be eating three squares a day at your restaurant, all right? First of all, you couldn't accommodate them all if they did, because -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure we can. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- I don't think you're going to have -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure we can. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- enough space here. But-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: They don't all eat at the same time. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, the answer to your question is LCS has been doing this for many, many, many years. I probably told you too much about LCS. But forget LCS, talk about all other independent senior care housing. And the bottom line is, whether the Planning Commission or the public wants to believe this or not, these people do not leave the site very often. Because they do eat in the dining facilities, they do take advantage of the wellness center, they do take advantage of the entertainment that's provided at night. The fact is they do. And I have personally seen it because I've had a grandmother go into an independent living facility. And she went in when she was about 78 years old when her husband passed away and she didn't want to be in her condo anymore. So the bottom line is independent living facilities, although they Page 95 August 6, 2009 look like a condominium unit, they do not function like a condominium unit. And we have provided all those safeguards by the required list of amenities. And the traffic numbers are the traffic numbers because the ITE manual has a professional survey of a bunch of different CCRCs, and those are the numbers and they've been proved out by LCS's operations and everybody else's operations. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, Richard, I can tell you that I've lived this myself with my own parents in facilities like this. So I do know a little bit about what I'm talking about. And I'm telling you that when people move into these places and are in the independent living areas, they're not going to be eating every meal at that community facility. They will be driving, they will have to go to the supermarket, they will have to go to the pharmacy. They don't get all their needs take -- the whole point is they're independent. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Commissioner Caron -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- they will not get all their needs taken care of. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Caron, I didn't say that. What I said is those trips will occur far less frequently than you will see in a standard condominium or single-family home. That's a fact. It is a fact. They do not make the same number of trips. I didn't say they never got in their car. And they don't go in the peak. They're not out there traveling between 7:00 and 9:00 in the morning. They're just not doing it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I totally will agree with you that, it's not at peak. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: But that's not the discussion. That wasn't the discussion. The discussion was total number of trips and how we calculate those. And I think that the trip generation studies have not really caught Page 96 August 6, 2009 up to reality is what I'm saying to you. I think that when these initial trip generation studies were done, it was probably true. But as every year goes by, you are talking about an aging population that is not aging nearly as fast as the generation before. And as a result, not only are they looking for more things, but they're doing more things and doing more things independently. So that's my point, and it doesn't need to be debated. I know what you all have used for your trip generation. MR. TREESH: I'd just like to add one thing. For the record, Ted Treesh with TR Transportation. We conducted the transportation study. A CCR use in the ITE manual is a relatively new use to that manual in the past few editions, so -- but one thing that we did do back in last year, my firm did an actual count at Bentley Village, just to see what that facility was generating, and compared it to the trip generation that's in the ITE manuals. And what we found from that survey, and we surveyed Bentley over several days during the week, we found that the morning peak hour trip generation that we used in our analysis was exactly the same as what is in ITE. That trip rate was .18 trips per unit. But what we found in the p.m. peak hour is that the rate that we surveyed at Bentley Village was about 60 percent lower than what is in ITE. So just from that one survey we did locally, you know, during the p.m. peak hour showed a much lower trip generation than what we used in ITE. So I just wanted to offer that as a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. John, we need to kind of break for lunch, unfortunately. So one thing I wanted to comment, you didn't know if this was in the TCME for the north? I've got the map from your department sitting in front of me. That TCME starts at Pine Ridge Road and goes all the way up to our county line, and its eastern boundary is I - 7 5. So it looks like it is. Page 97 August 6, 2009 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, it would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you'd have a reduction from four units to three. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I would think. So unless you guys tell me differently. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are we talking about a traffic congestion area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm talking -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And because we have access to Livingston Road we get that unit back under the provisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a northeast TCMA is what it is . In. MR. YOV ANOVICH: TC -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: MA. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- MA. Okay. And if you wouldn't mind during the break, if I could have Ted and I look at whatever the map is. Or is it in -- I brought the compo plan. So if it's -- if you'll tell me what map it is in the compo plan we can probably get it there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here, I'll tell you in a minute. Well, it's on the county website, how's that? It's TCMAS map one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: TCMAS? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: S, but it's a TCMA is the district. So there's no -- the map's not called anything on this that I can see. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe in the transportation element it's like TR-7. Map TR-7 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Might be. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- transportation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't pull it -- I pulled it from the website. Okay, we've got to have staff presentation, questions, and we got to have members of the public. And we certainly need the public Page 98 August 6, 2009 input. I didn't think we'd be here this late this morning on this one issue, but we have to take a break for lunch. We've tried not to in the past and it's turned out very detrimental to this board. So I ask -- and to everybody else. I'd ask that you bear with us and I am sorry to have to ask you to wait around till after lunch, because we do value your input. But we're going to have to come back here at -- well, it would be 1 :00 before we come back after lunch. Is that agreeable to everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll break here until 1 :00. Thank you. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, thank you for returning from lunch. It looks like we lost some members of the public. I hope they show up. Before we start on the presentation by county staff, I'd like to make a clarification on a previous issue. We talked about the TCMA in the area that this Orange Blossom location is in. And it turns out they are in a TCMA, but I believe there's not a unit deduction for that form of TCMA. Is anybody from staff able to clarify that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I think I can help shed a little light on this. One of the planners back there, Melissa Zone, I'd like to thank her for her help, she helped me look this up a little bit. Policy 2.4, and it was Article 21 in the Growth Management Plan. It does state -- roughly it states in the northwest TCMA if Policy 6.1 through 6.5 are met, and then transportation elements policies 5.7 and 5.8 are met, and if the development has affordable housing, then it doesn't require the density reduction, okay. Now, from the transportation side of things, I did go and verify that yes, they do comply with Policy 5.7 of the transportation element, as well as Policy 5.8. I don't have an opinion on the policies 6.1 Page 99 August 6, 2009 through 6.5 of the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the word "and" was used in relationship to the affordable housing? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Richard's going to have affordable housing in this facility, I'm sure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, in the single-family homes, sure, we'll come in with another project that's got affordable housing density bonus on-site, how about that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it looks like you would have a traffic deduction in this. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, that would be if we came in for a single-family project or multi-family project that apparently did not include an affordable housing density bonus. And I -- you know, I don't even want to go there, because that is an option anywhere in the urban area, to come in with an affordable housing proj ect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, J.D.'s got to talk to us about his staff report. Usually in staff reports we have an analysis of the density that would have been allowed in the site had the site not been requesting deviations or changes through a PUD. So maybe, J.D., you've looked at that, and if you have, maybe you can enlighten us. And I think it's appropriate timing, because we're ready for staff presentation. MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. As noted in the staff report, staff is recommending approval of this project, subject to the stipulations of approval that have been recommended by staff, and also the developer commitments contained in Exhibit F. As also noted in that portion of the report, staff has Page 100 August 6, 2009 recommended denial of several of the deviation requests that the applicant has requested. One of them, I'd like to retract, deviation number four. Initially staff was opposed to the provision of this access roadway connecting Lakeside to Orange Blossom Drive because it was inconsistent with the GMP. And transportation has since said that it will actually provide a public benefit. And as PUD districts are required to provide some sort of public amenity, this could count as that. The one objection staff still has, though, to this roadway is -- if I could explain the genesis of this roadway. As Mr. Y ovanovich told you earlier this morning, the reason they didn't want to provide the inter-parcel connection, pursuant to FLUE Policy 7.3, is because they didn't want -- they wanted to have their project to be gated. But 7.3 of the FLUE says that projects are encouraged to provide inter-parcel connections. And it doesn't say shall, that's true, it says it encourages them. But the only reason that it doesn't require them is because sometimes it's not feasible. And in this instance we certainly had a project that where it would have been feasible. We had a community to the north that wanted inter-parcel connection. All they needed to do was provide a stub-out on the northern boundary of their property and they could have satisfied this requirement. However, since they didn't want to do it, they instead proposed to build this access road adjacent to the western boundary of the property. However, they still don't want to connect to it to provide inter-parcel connection as required pursuant to the compo plan, and they still don't want to require side -- or provide sidewalks, as required by Policy 7.4 of the FLUE. So staff is still sanding by those recommendations of denial for those two deviations. I also wanted to point out that they have informed me that there Page 101 August 6, 2009 has been a condition added in the development standards portion of the PUD document that would provide 20 percent more plant material than the reduced buffer width adjacent to this access roadway. Staff is okay with that. If they want to reduce the buffer from 20 feet to 15 feet on this proj ect boundary and provide the same amount of plant material in this reduced buffer width, that we would be okay with that. A couple other things that I wanted to comment on from the developer commitments, and just basically from the PUD documents. I know there was some discussion earlier today about removal of the introductory paragraph under Exhibit A. And Commissioner Caron pointed out that it might be valuable to have that in there, and Mr. Y ovanovich said that if it wasn't in there, they could provide all independent living units or some other variety of housing types. And I just wanted to show you that in the permitted uses portion of that exhibit they have committed to providing the number of living units that we've been discussing today. So they are committed to providing those skilled nursing facility units -- or beds and assisted living beds and the memory care beds, and only the remainder of the 340 could be independent living units. So I think it would be okay to delete that introductory paragraph. I also wanted to point out that there's been talk about how there would only be 10 delivers a week on that service road. And I just wanted to let you know there is no stipulation in the commitments requiring them to provide 10 or less deliveries per week. They've also talked about the architecture. As Mr. Y ovanovich pointed out, he and Mr. MeN all had already discussed meeting the architectural code with this project. And that's something the applicant has agreed to put into the developer commitments. There was also talk of this building being a lead certified building. I think silver was the status of certification they were seeking. And I just wanted to let you know that there is no Page 102 August 6, 2009 commitment to that either. As well as the type of architecture, he said it would be Spanish colonial or Mediterranean. I don't know if that was important to you all, but just so you know, if you did have your heart set on some of the graphics that were shown, there is no commitment to that style of architecture within the PUD document. Finally, I'd just like to add that I've received 15 letters of objection from the community for this project, and I've also had a few phone calls, people asking me how they could sign up. So I'll answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. I think we might have a few. Okay, members of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, you know the concept of interconnection as the GMP has and everything, do you think this really meets it? I mean, isn't the intent to be able to link developments together to essentially create in a Collier method some sort of a grid? Where this is just a bypass from interconnection, isn't it? MR. MOSS: Well, the reason an interconnection was discussed in the first place with the Lakeside community, several years ago there was an accident outside of their project and they weren't able to leave. And so it would have been great if they had some sort of escape route, some alternate exit route. And this interconnection, it was discussed at one time as being just something that was used in the case of emergencies, but they didn't want to do that. And so since they provided this access road as an alternative to providing that interconnect with Lakeside, it just seems ridiculous that there's no connection to it from this development so that there could be interconnectivity between Lakeside one day, this project, Orange Blossom and the project that develops one day in the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, which as you know has sunsetted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So the point is, and you Page 103 August 6, 2009 said it, is that this really isn't an interconnection, this is just providing an additional dedicated access to the project to the north. MR. MOSS: Well, when the project across the access road comes in on Orange Blossom Gardens, they would be required to put an access point there as well, probably the principal entrance. Because as I understand it, they're not going to be given any access by transportation onto Orange Blossom Drive. So this would be their main entrance. So yes, the two entrances would be across from one another. And also, if you look at the project the way it's proposed now, they've talked all along about how this proj ect is going to provide a lot of sidewalks, it's going to be pedestrian friendly. And I think that that's important in a project like this, because obviously people of that age don't feel comfortable driving and they're going to walk a lot of places. And I know one of the reasons they chose this location was because of its proximity to the library. And if someone were living in one of the independent living units, in order to get to the library, in order to get to St. Katherine's Church next door, they would have to walk 170, 200 feet in the opposite direction just to get out of the project in order to walk west to get to the library. So it just doesn't seem to make sense that they don't provide an interconnection there for both vehicles and pedestrians. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, John-David, I'd like to talk a little bit about the floor area ratio. MR. MOSS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CARON: They're asking here for 6.0 (sic), but our code still says .45. MR. MOSS: That's right. And the reason they were asking for Page 104 August 6, 2009 the .60 is just because it's been granted in other areas of the county. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But let's talk about the intent of that change or that granting in other cases. Is it your opinion that it was for adding amenities and making sure that units could be of a size that's applicable today and not for just getting additional density? MR. MOSS: Well, I can speak specifically to Napoli Village PUD, because that was one that I'd worked on. And in that project we did require them to commit to I think 20 percent of amenities, because that was their justification for reaching this increased FAR, that today's market supposedly requires much larger units than those that were provided at the time the LDC was written. They felt that it was an outdated provision. So I said fine, if you're going to provide larger units and provide a certain percentage of amenities in this development, I would recommend approval of the FAR .6. And they also submitted a formal deviation request as part of that proj ect -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And there's no deviation for this. Why not? That was my next question. MR. MOSS: Maybe Ray could speak to that. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. The deviation process is intended to look at design standards and development standards to deviate from, from the code. This is more of an intensity issue, like increasing the number of dwelling units to a residential PUD. It really looks at the bulk of the structure and the intensity of use, meaning you can have more number of beds and more people involved. COMMISSIONER CARON: But as we just discussed, that was not the intent of increasing the FAR. The intent of increasing the FAR was not to make the projects more intense in terms of units, it was to allow expansion of unit size and to allow amenities to happen. Page 105 August 6, 2009 MR. BELLOWS: That's correct, on the other PUD. There's no regulations in the LDC that says they can't through a PUD process look at increasing that intensity of use. But what we're looking at is not as a deviation from a design standard but as an increase in intensity . COMMISSIONER CARON: So I guess that's up to us to stipulate. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Well, floor area ratio does have certain design elements to it, but it's not -- I don't look at it as a change in design as much as they're proposing to increase the intensity of this project. And I wanted to look at it like somebody trying to increase the number of residential dwelling units. There's increased traffic impacts, there's increased services to the building. So I think it's more serious to increase the floor air ratio. It's not just a design deviation. I didn't want to minimize it by saying it's a design deviation. COMMISSIONER CARON: Agreed, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else of staff? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could I follow through? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the FAR is really just controlling the mass of the project, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Well, as you know, it can mass -- in this case it allows for more intense use. But it is also the mass of the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And that's normally what F ARs are for -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is to control the mass of a project, compared to the site it's on. Does the exterior balconies, will they count in the FAR? MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't either. Page 106 August 6, 2009 The parking garage? MR. BELLOWS: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., couple things. In your PUD in the writing on the very last page, you have an item called a PUD close-out determination. It really doesn't apply to this PUD. Wasn't that intended for one of the others? MR. MOSS: It was. And I spoke with John Podczerwinsky and it was inadvertently included as a transportation commitment in this PUD. So that is something else that we can delete. I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that when I was going through the changes to the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we understand the deviations. There are six of them on Exhibit E. I'd like to walk through each one of them with you so there's no mistake as to where the understanding of these are. The first one talks about a wall or a height of six feet, maximum eight. Could you explain to us where that deviation is -- I mean, we can put the site plan back up there on the screen, it might help. And then -- I'd use that C-l handout you've got, Ray. That's probably the -- MR. MOSS: I'm sorry, Commissioner, which deviation are you referring to? What number? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with one. If you turn to Exhibit E in the PUD, why don't we just start from the top and work our way down number one. And then if you could walk us through those deviations and which ones staff is in disagreement with separately, that would help us to understand this better. MR. MOSS: Thanks. All right, the first one that's listed there is from Section 5.03.02(E). In this one, this is just at the border of the Page 107 August 6, 2009 property with Citrus Gardens, which is a Lakeside project. Apparently there's an existing wall along the northern boundary of the property. And because they're required to also provide a wall in this section because of commercial uses there, they would be providing a wall that just immediately abuts an existing wall on Citrus Gardens property. So they asked that that requirement be waived. However, they would provide it on the remaining 1,000 feet on the property boundary, as required by the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number two? MR. MOSS: The next one is deviation from Section 6.06.02 to require a sidewalk on only one side of the proposed internal access drives. That's throughout the entire project on the internal drives. They're normally required to provide sidewalks on both sides of these drives, but instead they're requesting to provide them on just one side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is staff against or in favor of this deviation? MR. MOSS: Staff is okay with that deviation, but staff has asked to compensate for the lack of the additional sidewalk that they expand the width of the one sidewalk they're going to build and that they expand it to six feet. The developer said they don't have a problem doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on number two we should add that if this proj ect were to go forward, they would expand the sidewalk to six feet. MR. MOSS: Yes. And that's been added already as a condition of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just looking at the PUD language, but I understand. MR. MOSS: The third one is a deviation from LDC Section 4.06.05(N)(I). And that requires water management areas to have a curvilinear edge. And they're not necessarily going to be able to provide this, but staff doesn't have a problem with it, because there is a Page 108 August 6, 2009 provision in the LDC that accepts developers from fulfilling this requirement, as long as the water body is an integral feature of the project. And in this case, as you can see, this is supposed to be a lakeside environment. And so staff felt that they had accomplished this. And also, these bodies of water wouldn't be visible from outside the proj ect anyway, so staff wasn't really concerned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number four? MR. MOSS: The fourth deviation is from LDC Section 6.06.01(0) which requires a width of 60 feet for private roadways to allow 24 feet in width for private roadway. And that refers to the proposed access from Lakeside to Orange Blossom Drive that's going to be on the western side of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staffs okay with that now? MR. MOSS: Staff is okay with that now. Transportation has determined that it would provide a public benefit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, number five? MR. MOSS: Is a deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02(A)(I)(a) that requires sidewalks on both sides of a local street that's adjacent to a property. And they want to allow the 24- foot wide two-lane access drive located on the western edge of the property to have no sidewalks. That's the one staff has a problem with. Staff feels there should be sidewalks provided there so that residents walking to the library or to St. Katherine's Church can actually get there by walking in that direction. The last one is deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02, which requires a Type D landscape buffer of20 feet adjacent to a roadway. And this again refers to this private -- or excuse me, this access road. They would like to reduce the width of that required buffer from 20 feet to 15 feet. And staff is okay with that, as long as they're going to require Page 109 August 6, 2009 the required plant materials for the Type D buffer in that reduced buffer yard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we seem to be getting a lot of this, I mean, in an effort to maximize every square inch of these proj ects. By allowing them to lessen, yet plant the additional plantings in a smaller area, what's the life of these things? Is this actually working? MR. MOSS: That's a good question, and that's one that would be suited for our landscape architect. Unfortunately I'm not one. Ray, do you have any experience with this? Do you know? MR. BELLOWS: The county has approved similar deviations in the past, and I have not heard of problems arising from providing that same amount of planting in a smaller buffer area. I'm not aware of any problems. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And again, I just -- I question this because of looking at older PUDs that I've seen. And we have certain requirements for not only buffering but other trees and landscaping that we have to do. And a lot of times when this landscape grows up and out, it can't handle the space that it was forced to be put in. And we've required it and then grown trees just can't handle it. Or, you know, you're trying to squeeze a hardwood tree and eight palms in a space that is meant for two palms and a hardwood. MR. MOSS: I can tell you, Commissioner, that this buffer that they're proposing would have to be reviewed and approved by our county landscape architect. There are no plant materials that have been committed to here, just the number of materials. So I'm sure he would only allow them to plant the types of trees and other shrubbery that's appropriate in a restricted yard like this. COMMISSIONER CARON: Did I hear that they were also not only going to put the amount in the smaller space, but also 20 percent additional? Page 110 August 6, 2009 MR. MOSS: No, I think it would just amount to 20 percent over what's normally required for this type buffer that they're proposing. So it's basically the same plant material, just in a reduced buffer yard. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also, doesn't staff -- ifplants die off or are removed, aren't they required to replace them? MR. MOSS: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's not the issue. It's just a matter of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, I'm just curious, just so in case it does happen that way. Does anybody else have any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If they put a sidewalk down that roadway, doesn't that put added pressure on that? They would have to then shift that over -- MR. MOSS: That's why they don't want to do it, because they say there's not sufficient space to provide it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there's a six-foot wall in there, too. MR. MOSS: There will be. They will be required to provide a wall against the roadway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., one of the other questions, and I think I asked this of the applicant ahead of time. I told him to make sure they provided it. We don't have the list of officers or stockholders -- stockholders we do, but not officers of the Old Barn, Inc. and the Eunhee Bates Living Trust and ofLCS Westminster Naples, LLC. MR. MOSS: Mr. Y ovanovich e-mailed that information to Heidi yesterday. I don't know if she reviewed and approved it, but I know he Page 111 August 6, 2009 sent something to her. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you hiding out on us, Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, I did receive an e-mail for both Old Barn and for LCS. And if you'd like me to read off the officers, it would just take me a moment to pull up the list -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so we know there's no conflicts of anybody on this panel. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the whole purpose of it in the first place. So when you pull it up, just let me know and we'll listen to it. Any other questions of J.D. at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, J.D., you're off the hook. MR. MOSS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, how many public speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: Eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight? Let's see, there's only five people here. Oh, six. Maybe we have eight. Pretty close to it. Okay, then we'll break when -- in between people we'll catch Heidi's information. So why don't we call the first public speaker. And when you're called -- first of all, everybody that speaks has to have been sworn in already by the court reporter. So if you haven't, please let us know. Come up to either one of the speakers and we'll be anxious to hear what you have to say. MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is Ellen Milotte. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, while the speaker is coming up to the podium, I'll just quickly let you know that the Old Barn, Inc., the president and treasurer is Mark Bates. The secretary is Eunhee Bates. It's owned by the Eunhee Bates Trust, and Eunhee Bates is the sole beneficiary. And you spell Eunhee E-U-N-H-E-E. Page 112 August 6, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And what about LC Westminster of Naples, Inc.? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I received about six pages of documentation on that one. If Mr. Y ovanovich has it, we can put it on the visualizer or I could ask my secretary to print it out and she can bring it down and we'll distribute it to each of the members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to know the names that are required by county code, as required by our documentation. If it's owned by a corporation, I want to know the list of officers and the stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. If it's a trustee, I want a list of the beneficiaries of the trust with a percentage of interest. If it's owned in general or limited partnership, I want a list of the names of the general or limited partners. I want with this application what every other application in the county is supposed to have. So whatever that takes, whatever Mr. Y ovanovich has to produce, that's what we expect. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'll have my assistant print out the materials and she'll bring it down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that will work. Ma'am, sorry to hold you up. MS. MILOTTE: My name is Ellen Milotte. I live at 3039 Horizon Lane, in Bridgewater Bay. I did e-mail John-David Moss on the 27th of July with my letter of question. I'm not sure whether you do have it, but you did refer to a number of the items that I do have some serious questions about. Number one is the 6.0 ratio versus the LDC of .45 for the county. I consider that very unreasonable. This request is not compatible at the state density ratio. It does not fit this land surrounded by the residential neighborhood with a much lower ratio. The density ratio should be no more than the .45. The request by the petitioner to .60 is too high. Page 113 August 6, 2009 Point number two: The height does not conform to any buildings in the area. The government buildings across Airport Pulling Road in the Carlisle residence do fall within the residential background of the community. The Greek church, which should not have been used as a comparable. From what my understanding is, my husband being a retired appraiser, it is only using -- you use such buildings only when you have nothing else to go by. The Baptist school height is actually a three-story building and a decorative parapet with a mounted cross. It is a half mile away. It's been measured in both directions twice, from where the property starts closer to Airport Pulling Road. And this was a curb measurement, this was not including the setback. So actually the Baptist school church height is not a good comparable either, because this is too far away to be used. The plan -- also the height, it's now setting a different standard for the future building of property along Airport Pulling Road. We have pretty much a consistency there. And now from Immokalee down to Pine Ridge you do not have anything over three stories at this time. The plan for a delivery road, which I'm hearing flip-flopping now, but at the point of listening to this report, when done at the Italian American Club, said that the access road -- delivery road would be on the east end of the project. Well, in my opinion this is a situation where two deliveries a day are totally unreasonable for the number of people it will be serving both as residential, those who need care, because you're going to be having more delivery trucks than what they're saying. I'm concerned about any hazardous medical situations, I'm concerned about any hazardous waste medical situations, pickup or delivery. Also, I'm considering now the -- in consideration of the height of the building. When I'm reading this report that was Page 114 August 6, 2009 presented, I'm seeing that the buildings are now not one building at four living units and a garage underneath, but another fourth story building with no parking. But still, even if it is flip-flopped, it's interfering -- it would be interfering with the height of the building on -- at Bridgewater Bay. It would not be -- even with the -- our height with the -- I'm trying to think of the word; I do know it. The very top of the building where they have put the decorative -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The roof? The peak of the roof? MS. MILOTTE: The peak of the roof. Beyond the peak of the roof. It would still be unreasonable height to look out and have to view this. Because no tree is going to grow that high to make an appearance that's going to be satisfactory, because the back of the building will be facing us. So I would please ask you your consideration, especially to the density of the .45, if that's the route you go. Because I think the project is too large for the site and this is a way for them -- this project to go through if they get the .60. And the 4.5 (sic) would be reasonable. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Linda Sullivan. (Speaker was duly sworn). MS . SULLIVAN: Hi, I'm Linda Sullivan and I live in Lakeside Villas. And I have been sitting here today listening to a lot of concerns about the Siena Lake projects. And as somebody who lives in the neighborhood, I just want to say that I think it's a fantastic project for a lot of reasons. One being that it will provide construction jobs for this economy. It will also provide employment for future economies in Collier. I think the landscaping and design of it, being an upscale living facility, will be a positive effect on the area. I love having another iPage 115 August 6, 2009 access road, based on stories I've heard about how people couldn't get out of Lakeside in a hurricane that was down here before I moved here. It was more than five years ago. So I just want to tell you that as president of the Lakeside Villas, I think it's fantastic, and I can tell you from talking to other people in our neighborhood that there are a lot of people who think it's a good thing, even though they're not here today to tell you for themselves. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Mary Ann Costello. MS. COSTELLO: I'm Mary Ann Costello and I live at 3244 Sundance Circle in Bridgewater Bay. My property is not affected by any views to the upcoming project, so that's not why I'm here. I'm here about an overall concern for the community that I live in. I will say and agree with the lady that just spoke that the project looks beautiful. It seems to be well appointed, so I'm not dealing with the quality of the people that are involved or the quality of the project. I've done a little research on the company and I'm comfortable with that. However, as I look at the project, and I think Brad, you're the one that brought this up, 1,200 feet of linear feet of a five-story building, the only thing I can think of is the Synclatron (sic) in Palo Alto, California. And for those of you who have been there and seen that, it is not a pretty site. It's just massive. It's massive. The height structure. I went out this morning really early, about 6:00 a.m. And I kept riding all around the part of northern Collier County trying to find another building that was five stories high that I could see. Down Airport Pulling I saw a four-story building behind the community school, and then the next large building I saw I'm standing Page 116 August 6, 2009 in right now. So it's just not in keeping with the surrounding area. We are a residential community all around there, and now we're putting in a semi-commercial establishment that is going to be in my opinion an eyesore. An eyesore. If perhaps we can get to the density of .45 that could bring that down, maybe there's some ways of blocking it, meaning a building and then maybe some air space and a building and some air space and a building and some air space so it doesn't look like the Synclatron of Naples. The maintenance facility to me is a problem up in that corner, because that in fact abuts next to people's properties in Bridgewater Bay. And then I have a question. It was said that the 140 employees would use the main gate to come into work. I don't believe so. They're going to use the service entrance, because that's where their parking facilities are. So that's going to be a little traffic noise, along with the garbage trucks and everybody else that goes in there. Also, it was stated that there is a guard gate but no gate at the main entrance to Siena Lakes, so that it is not a gated community. So that says this retail space perhaps will be used by other people and the traffic will get maybe even greater. So I don't know what there is in the provisions with the developer to prevent that sort of thing and to contain it for what it's supposed to be. But as a member of Bridgewater Bay, I would strongly recommend that you test hard the .45 versus .6 and the height of those buildings, and maybe breaking them up. Because I really don't want to live next to a Synclatron. And last but not least, there was a statement in the document about will it devalue the property value of the people surrounding. And the answer was at best weak, in fact sad, because there was no Page 11 7 August 6, 2009 answer. It seems to me that a professional real estate appraiser, a professional bank appraiser could give you some feeling as to what effect placing a semi-commercial property in the midst of total residential area would be to the community. I thank you for being members of this county planning board. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, before you leave, I've just got a quick question. Can you spell that thing in California you're talking about? I want to look that up. MS. COSTELLO: I think it's C-Y-C-L-O-T-R-O-N. The Cynclatron (sic). There's one larger one up in Canada. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it like a commercial thing, or-- MS. COSTELLO: It's an atom-splitting thing for Stanford University. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark, I think it's called a Cyclotron. MS. COSTELLO: Cyclotron, whatever. But it goes for like -- it looks like it's going for miles. It's huge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just curious. I never heard about it before, so I'd have to check it out. I wonder what kind of zoning laws they have. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I'm just thinking about the zoning for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, what would it be? Essential service in Collier County, of course. MR. BELLOWS: Ron Hinding? Not here. Gary Rossio. MR. ROSSIO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's Gary Rossio, I live at Lakeside Development. 2671 Citrus Lake Drive, building E. I have a -- I do not agree with building -- I think the buildings Page 118 August 6, 2009 here are too tall for this development. I like the project and I don't mind it being three stories. However, being four stories or five, whatever they want to call it, a garage plus four, but four and one is five to me. Now, if you want to set a precedent, that's fine. But I'm in disagreement of the buildings. The height of it, also with the density. I think it's way too many people in that particular area. Your studies indicate you want to change the roadway from the present two-lane highway that's between Airport and Livingston Road to a four-lane highway. Now, you're going to also want to have a left-hand turn lane or both lanes, which would make it that much less for the developer. Because on that roadway you can't go -- on the south side you'll have to build that extra two lanes on the north side of the road, which is going to be where this Siena Lakes is going to be. And that's going to be much less room, plus the turning lanes and such. There was also talk about access to Lakeside. My colleague over here, she's on the north side of Lakeside, it doesn't affect her at all but it affects us because I'm on the south side and that's what affects us right there. And she says yes, she'd like to have the access. Well, the manager that lives on the property, he lives on the north side too, so he's dealing with them. But by the same token, there was also, your staff mentioned, a fatality on Airport where we couldn't get out. Well, that was years ago when Lakeside -- or when Airport Road you could make a left-hand turn and go south by going directly out of Airport -- Lakeside you could make a left or right, no matter what. But the lady made a left-hand turn and a motorcycle was going north on Airport Road and hit her, turned her Buick Skylark over and he was in three pieces on the highway. But that was the only fatality we've had at the Lakeside. I like the development there, I've been there for 20 years, and I Page 119 August 6, 2009 like the quietness of it. And that's really -- I just don't want to have a precedent setting for future development in our area to be going rampant. So I just appreciate your concern. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question for Gary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Gary, just a quick question. Is Lakeside a controlled access development? Do you have a guardhouse, a gate? MR. ROSSIO: We have a gate that works less the time, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the second gate might not -- MR. ROSSIO: What happens is the gate is open a lot and then even in the mornings -- and the evening when they have the -- because of the traffic. We have 396 units or doors in our development. And what they do in the morning when people go to work, they open the gate coming in and going out. So until 9:00 in the morning when everything is -- most of the people that are going to work, they've already gone, then they close it up. Because they don't want -- the gate seems to break down on a regular basis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the answer is there is a semi-controlled access. MR. ROSSIO: Yes, there is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Diane Hatzis? (No response.) MR. BELLOWS: Helen Athan? (No response.) MR. BELLOWS: Peter -- MR. SCHMITT: Kalamaras. (No response.) MR. SCHMITT: They were with the church, yes. Helen was Page 120 August 6, 2009 with the church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that's the -- all the speakers have been called, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I know you probably want to have time for rebuttal. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Before we get to that, can I have transportation staff up again. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd like to also address the TCMA thing. COMMISSIONER CARON: We already figured out that's not an Issue. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just wait till you're on record, please. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CARON: When this section of Orange Blossom is four-laned, do you already have all the right-of-way you need? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point, no, we do not. One of the acquisitions that will be coming out of this zoning, if the zoning is approved, is an additional 40 feet along the frontage of the property for a negotiated price that's listed in the -- not to exceed price that's listed in the PUD. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is that the only piece of the puzzle you're missing? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, I believe there is another portion of it further to the east. I'm not positive, I'd have to look at the parcel map to find out. MR. YOVANOVICH: West. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The west? MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the corner of Pulling. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: In any case, it's all on the north side. Page 121 August 6, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're okay, trust me. COMMISSIONER CARON: So when we're looking at setbacks on this master plan, are they (sic) set back taken into account the right-of-way? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just to make sure that the discussion of what can be built on the property today under the compo plan is clear, the language that John read to you said that you don't remove density in the TCMA if you have affordable housing and the other policies as related to the fact that you're in the traffic congestion area in the first place and would lose the density. We're not in a traffic congestion area that would lose the density because we have access to Livingston Road. So the TCMA or EEA provision that says you lose density is not applicable because you have to lose density based on the traffic congestion zone provision that would take density away in the first place. So we would have a base density of four units per acre under the comprehensive plan. I just want that out there so nobody says, well, you can only have three. I just want to make sure that we're all clear that we can have a base density of four under the comprehensive plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your discussion, Richard, would you focus on your -- where you guys will be coming from in regards to the response to the concerns expressed by the members of the public and by the 15 letter holders who are -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we tried to focus our presentation on all of those concerns that were raised regarding height and intensity in our initial presentation. The discussion about floor area ratio is a discussion about Page 122 August 6, 2009 appropriate unit sizes and appropriate amenities in today's marketplace. You need to have a .6 to make it work. .45 will not work with the appropriate unit sizes and needed amenities. Then the question becomes is this site an appropriate site to put a CCRC at a .6 FAR. That's the discussion that we believe needs to be had. Now, we have spent a lot of time and a lot of effort putting together a site plan and a master plan in the PUD that we think addresses the compatibility concerns raised in the various letters, and the transportation concerns raised in the various letters. I think, you know, Mr. Treesh stated on the record and through an analysis of an existing CCRC in Collier County that our transportation impacts on Orange Blossom Road are not going to be a problem. The road can handle it. So from a transportation standpoint, we don't believe we're incompatible with any of our neighbors, especially since Lakeside doesn't even come under Orange Blossom. So concerns from Lakeside about traffic, I don't understand, but we have in our opinion made a very legitimate offer to the residents of Lakeside to address the concern that they did have many years ago, and I remember when that accident happened. You know, I remember that. And I remember them, you know, clamoring for a second means of getting in and out of their project. And we've provided that in our site plan, and we provided that on our land at our cost for the construction. 100 percent of the burden. I don't believe the comprehensive plan in any way indicates that they're supposed to come through our project, any more than I think you would want to read that comprehensive plan to say that they need to open up their project to us. Because if you want to have true interconnection, it means they come through us and we go through them. And I don't -- I didn't ask them the question, but I don't think that, you know, gated communities really want to establish that Page 123 August 6, 2009 relationship where people are going back and forth through their communities. So we proposed what we believe to be a reasonable alternative and addresses the concerns of our neighbors regarding Lakeside regarding their means of coming in and out. Regarding the height issue, I think we've shown you through our increased landscaping and where we have located our product types that we're not affecting the view of the people who live in the southern portion of Lakeside. Their front door faces our development. Their back end of their units face the lake. It's a very nice lake. I looked at -- when I first moved to town in 1990 I looked at Lakeside. I wanted to live on the lake, I couldn't afford those units, I might have been able to afford the other ones that didn't face the lake. But those people who are on there are facing the lake. Their view is oriented towards that lake. They're not looking at our proj ect. But our landscaping plan and the fact that we put three-story product next to their three-story product we believe addresses the compatibility issue with Lakeside. We believe we have addressed that as well with Bridgewater Bay. There's been discussion about flipping the property because there were some concerns about the service entrance traffic. We're amenable to doing that, to address -- if that's a concern of Bridgewater Bay. I think we've done a very good job in our plan. I didn't hear anybody from Walden Oaks here. Did I miss somebody who said they reside in Walden Oaks? They're the closest to the five-story buildings. Now, we're well -- I think the five-story portions of this building are at least a football field away from the southern residents of Lakeside. So I think we've taken that into consideration. Our traffic impacts are no worse than the single-family project we can do right now. So from a -- that intensity issue is I believe proven to be a non-issue. Page 124 August 6, 2009 We have shown that what we've requested as far as intensity for other similar projects, and they don't go the full gambit, our density is lower than anybody else. So I don't think we've been pigs, if you will, about unit types. We're going to do a high quality project. We've increased the open space. Minimum open space requirement would be 30 people. We're at 51 percent. That's the trade-off. Because we knew we could do -- we could do a three-story -- we said this early on, we can do a three-story project. It will look terrible and we won't build it and people won't want to live there. And it will take up more open space. So the trade-off was to stair-step back, have three-story next to three-story. Where we needed a little additional height we moved it closer to Orange Blossom and we provided what we believed to be appropriate buffers and setbacks to address the community's concerns. We are -- we think we've done a good job addressing the concerns. There are some people who still don't like the project, you know. It's going to happen. But there's -- considering the sheer number of residents around us and how easy it is to send an e-mail or do whatever it is to register a complaint, we haven't received a whole lot. We received 15 letters. And we think we've addressed those concerns. And we're requesting that the Planning Commission follow staffs recommendation of approval and transmit this to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. And again, like I said, if flip- flopping will address the concerns, we're prepared to do that. And then the benefit to Lakeside if we do that is now we will be using that road, and we may as well eat the cost of maintenance as well. So we'll build it and maintain it if we flip-flop the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions of the applicant from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Page 125 August 6, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, and it's on the FAR. What I did is I took the independent living, put two people in that, the rest of them are one person per unit. And it's coming out where you're claiming you need like 1,072 square feet per person. Isn't that a lot? I mean, you talk about getting a higher FAR to, you know, make a bigger unit. But I mean, that's -- you know, across the board the whole project. Remember, we're not counting parking, we're not counting the parking garage, we're not counting the parking buildings that -- you're giving each person 1,000 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Look, the only way I can -- and you know me, I've been doing this long enough. I said to my clients, you know, can you -- you know, at lunch, can you reduce the floor area ratio. They said it reduces unit size. We're no longer marketable to the marketplace. That's just not what the marketplace wants. They do not want -- they want these size units. That's what the marketplace wants, they've done the focus groups. The marketplace wants this size unit. And that translates into the floor area ratio we're asking for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how big are the units? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They range -- the average is 1,200 square feet -- oh, the average is 1,400 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're really big then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, people want to move -- they want to basically move from what they're used to to a similar size unit in a CCRC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: At lunch did you talk to the other concern -- the width of this thing that's on the visualizer now is 60 feet. You have a graphic scale; somebody could check me to see if I'm wrong, but that's going to be bigger than that. So in other words, the concern I had in the beginning is that you're not representing again a very long building at the fat size it is. I mean -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, but the setback is measured from the front of the building. So if it gets fatter, it's going to be the back Page 126 August 6, 2009 side internal to us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we have no setbacks set on this plan. You do in your -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's to scale. It's the master plan for the location of the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me ask Ray. If -- Ray, the question's come up with that they're not going to be able to exceed these setbacks. Are you going to scale the setbacks off of this plan or are you going to go by the ones that are in the chart? MR. MOSS: Yeah, and I've measured all the setbacks on the submitted conceptual plan, the 24 by 36 version of it, and they do meet what's proposed in the Exhibit B to the PUD document. One thing I wanted to clarify too for Commissioner Caron. A moment ago you asked if the setbacks were measured from the existing right-of-way or the proposed right-of-way. They're measured from -- they will be measured from the existing right-of-way, which they're allowed to do by the LDC. So not -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand. MR. MOSS: -- the new one. COMMISSIONER CARON: So that's going to make a difference -- MR. MOSS: So it's going to be reduced even further. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in this 1,200 feet of building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And John, let me -- when you said they meet the setbacks, does that mean that they are less than or equal to the setbacks? Because in other words, what we're showing here, it would be nice if they were exactly what was shown here. MR. MOSS: Well, if you look on the plans that are to scale, the setbacks that they're proposing from Orange Blossom, the point -- there are points on those buildings that abut Orange Blossom, or at least adjacent to Orange Blossom. They're running parallel to it. There's a point that juts out of each of them. Page 127 August 6, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. MOSS: That is the point, the narrowest point which they meet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that point is how far from MR. MOSS: If you look at the table in Exhibit B, it will tell you from what the requirement is from the southern property boundary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it is 100 feet. MR. MOSS: If it's 100 feet, that's exactly what it is. I've scaled them all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then Donna's point, it's going to be 40 feet less once the right-of-ways get-- MR. MOSS: That's right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But remember, every one of our exhibits that we showed you today and the master plan shows you where the landscape buffer is. And the landscape buffer is on the north side of the right-of-way. So all of the exhibits and all the enhanced landscaping is shown to you where it's going to actually be, not 40 feet south of really where it is. So all those exhibits are based on real world. So we have given up 40 feet of our project to Collier County for Orange Blossom Drive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Interconnection. The reason I think that's in the code is to interconnect the developments. Whether it's in this case with gated communities something that's used daily or it's just for emergency, instead of that road, would you have a problem just putting -- bringing the road down like you have it but just hooking it into their travel lane and putting emergency access gates? Because the only time it would be necessary is in emergency. And that can work both ways. They may need to have to get out if their front entrance goes down. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will tell you that I think -- in my Page 128 August 6, 2009 discussions with Nick, he didn't want this limited to just emergency. He wanted people to have another way out on a permanent basis for Lakeside. It was not just the intermittent emergency interconnect, he was looking for another -- so not everybody from Lakeside would have to go onto Airport Road to get out to go to work or wherever they wanted to go. So this was not -- that's the discussions we've had with Nick and that's why you have this bypass road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, could maybe transportation nod? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was a positive nod I saw. All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of anybody at this point before -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: If this plan gets flipped around and suddenly this road becomes a lot more important because you'll be using it as well -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: As the service entrance, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: So is the county going to be fine with the width of this road now that's been reduced from county standards now that it's a -- I mean -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let's remember, the county width of a right-of-way, they're all 24- foot wide pavement. It's to include utilities and other things. That's where that 60 feet is coming from. We don't need utilities in any of that, we just need the pavement. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, he's right about that. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Could you please restate the question? It was about the width of the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: The width of this road. If this plan gets flipped and they begin using this road and they'll be using it for Page 129 August 6, 2009 their service vehicles and everything, are you still happy? 24 feet is all you need, right? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, it will be satisfactory. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that will be -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That's all I wanted to confirm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? She's done, do you want to ask a question? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's not a question, it's just a comment on that flipping routine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you've got a question, then we ask it now. Otherwise we're going to have discussion -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I guess it would be of Rich. When I first looked at this, I noticed for one three open accesses to Orange Blossom which looked too many. And that's why I initially thought flipping it you'd end up with two which would be less, you know, severe, if you want to put it that way. Then also if you flipped it, it would take care of some parking issues. You could put more buffering along the northeast side. And you might even be able to slip a sidewalk in there and ease the -- allow that, the complaints about no sidewalk. Seems like flipping it would be just a no-brainer to me. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I will tell you, we've talked about that. We're willing to flip it. And I think we can get a six-foot sidewalk. But I don't think we could do that and a bike path on that road. I mean, it's everything that keeps getting added to this deal, you know. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think it could serve as both, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. I mean, we would hope that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need a private tram road, too. Page 130 August 6, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A question. If you flip it, Rich, that means that the people from the north Lakeside will have access to the roadway system of your project, then; is that right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, they'll have -- the road that's there -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you'll isolate that road and just put entrances off of that into your parking? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. What will happen is, is there'll be this road now, I guess with a six-foot sidewalk. This flips over. We'll be using it to get in and out of our service area. So I think one of the concerns from Bridgewater Bay was, you know, you're going to have a lot of traffic by us on that service road and employees and all that stuff. I think that issue goes away. The amount of traffic by them is reduced. There's no longer any employees, no more service deliveries. So we'll have a connection point on here at some point for, you know, wherever it needs to be appropriately. That one goes away so you'll have these two. So yes, we'll be connected to it. And that's why I said, you know, Commissioner Schiffer, since we're actually connecting to it and using it, you know, we'd accept the maintenance responsibilities as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Will the buildings on the shown eastern side now, will -- well, actually, it would be the buildings on the western side. But will they be closer to the Bridgewater or will they be the same as shown on this? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it would flip. And I would think you'd have to look at it as a worst case scenario, because I don't know the answer. But whatever this distance is right now, I am assuming it would be now on this side. But that's three-story product, and they're 45 feet zoned height in their own product, so it's certainly consistent with their zoning at that point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And keep in mind, they don't -- they end approximately here. The rest of it is associated with the First Baptist Page 131 August 6, 2009 Church property. So there's a -- they don't extend -- their project doesn't extend all the way down to Orange Blossom. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think flipping's good. The only downside is that pool area will now not have that western exposure, which would make it a nice place to be in the afternoon. But anyway, small point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other questions of -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Yovanovich, in your discussions over lunch, did you talk at all about Mr. Schiffer's concern about this great wall of Siena here that you're planning, about breaking it up in any fashion? And I don't mean by just stepping back a few feet but actually letting light and air through here by separating buildings. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what we did -- because remember, it goes down to a portion. Although they're physically connected, it goes down to a two-story portion called the commons, again. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, but that's also at the furthest setback area. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. But, you know, we attempted to break it down, but there's still got to be some functional utility of getting people to the commons inside. That's the way -- you know, they want to be in a climate controlled environment when they're walking from their unit to the commons area. And that's something we have to deal with. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Which happens on the first floor, not on the fifth floor. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, but we bring it down. The commons area comes down to two-story. So you have four stories and then it steps down to two and it goes back up to four as far as the height articulation goes. And then there's the in and outs. And maybe the architect needs to answer that, because sometimes I abuse the architectural language. Page 132 August 6, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me step in, Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me grab the floor a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said the architect. So they're referring to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe so. But the architectural standards are essentially designed to break up the mass of a building. That's their function. So let's try and see if they do it. One of the things they can't have is a large wall plane, they do have to break it up. Other things would be roof lines can't be continuous for certain lengths. So let's give our standards a shot at it. And I trust them, Donna. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I've had -- I beg to differ. I've seen things very recently where at the corner of Wiggins Pass Road where suddenly we had two walls where it's not allowed by our code, but suddenly we made all these exceptions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I thought you fixed that. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the -- and the code, your architectural standards didn't help. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or compliance was an issue. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, my choice was a trellis, so I think it's a real issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think there was some gray areas in interpretation on the corner of Wiggins Pass. Ray can vouch, whatever you think, Ray. I mean, I think you jumped in and the feet got a little closer to the fire once you arrived. COMMISSIONER CARON: We did the best we could. But I'm just saying, leaving it to the architectural standards isn't necessarily a great idea. Because I can see the number of feet that are going to be right there. I mean, you can measure them off. MR. DAVISSON: How about I just use this -- Page 133 August 6, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mic. MR. DAVISSON: This is Craig Davisson again. I'm just going to use this computer model. You know, obviously we have the book of architectural standards. And, you know, we'll certainly comply to it. But I would think that what you're seeing here is above and beyond that with regard to the architectural and the materials. What -- and Mr. Schiffer makes a good point. I mean, we are -- you're looking at a building that is three-story over parking that settles down to two-story and back to four-story over parking. We're going to be breaking these roofs up. And even if they're not broken up in floors, the roofs are going to be broken up. And again, it's also going to be broken up on the ground plane that you're seeing this. And I use that example. This portico, like if you were -- you can actually see through the building that's adjacent to the garage and the -- you know, so the building's not only going to be broken above, it's going to be broken below where you can walk through and underneath the building. COMMISSIONER CARON: Craig, what you're showing here is really a lovely look at the very center of your building, the furthest away. If you had taken this and gone further to either the left or the right, you would run into not this angled area, but this wall, two walls that are going to be on Orange Blossom at 70 feet. And they're not going to be 100 feet back, because you're going to take 40 of it for road right-of-way. The landscaping will be back, but I mean, it's just -- it's a whole different look. That's a lovely little look. I mean, I understand, we deal with this all the time. And you're supposed to put the best face forward, I understand that. But in reality what's going to be sitting there are these walls on Orange Blossom at 70 feet in height, 69 feet in height that is -- nobody else has anything close to that around this area. Page 134 August 6, 2009 MR. DAVISSON: Well, you know, again-- COMMISSIONER CARON: So I'm just trying to -- MR. DAVISSON: Okay, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- get things broken up so that it doesn't look so massive. MR. DAVISSON: And I'm not saying that our solution is the only solution and that's the way it's got to be done. I'm just -- the concept was that it was broken up on plane, that when you approach the site you've got these open arms that engage. And again, the option is it's when you're putting -- you know, you're putting something on a site, it's like pushing a balloon. If I put -- you want to go three-story along Orange Blossom Trail, we can do that. But we're not going to be able to pull the buildings back and create this entry scene. When you pull the buildings back, they have to get higher. I mean, you're dealing with a balloon. And yeah, you want three-story, we could take three-story and put them along the entire length right up to the setbacks, like most communities do in Naples. If that's -- that was not even an alternative to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing you're missing in your statement, sir. You want to do anything on this property, it's going to have to be zoned. MR. DAVISSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you come in for zoning, if you were to show a building like you just described, you wouldn't get approved. So let's stop the threats, because they aren't going to happen. That kind of -- that isn't going to work. MR. DAVISSON: It wasn't a threat, sir. All I was stating is we looked at that when we were kicking the tires on the site, and that was just something that we didn't want to go down that road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you couldn't. MR. DAVISSON: Yeah. Page 135 August 6, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Craig, your name is? I'm sorry . MR. DAVISSON: Davisson. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Could you flip back a couple more? Because you did have one slide in the beginning that was new information. MR. DAVISSON: Am I going back? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go back towards the beginning of your -- I think you're going the wrong way. MR. DAVISSON: Yeah, I'm going back to the beginning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, you know, never mind, I misinterpreted. See that small brown area? MR. DAVISSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that representing the lower roof area, or is that -- MR. DAVISSON : Yes, sir, the building steps down. Where it says clubhouse, that's an inaccuracy. That's actually the clubhouse. The commons area is actually in the lighter shade. What the brown represents is the four-story over parking, stepping down to three-story over parking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: See where it says independent living, see that brown spot? Is that a lower roof area there or is that just defining where independent living is? MR. DAVISSON: It was meant to show that that's where the building steps down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you put that step-down up on the Orange Blossom side? Take the same -- do you see what I'm saying? It's a leg of the -- you have like a trapezoid shape there. Just grab the leg up on Orange Blossom. That would make that corner peak look like a tower, which would look better. We actually encourage Page 136 August 6, 2009 towers in the standards. But make sure -- that may be just showing the brown where independent living is. But if it is a lower roof, I think it would help solve our problem if you put it in the southwest corner of the building instead of above the southwest corner. Just give us that. It's not on our plan here, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: What it shows on the plan is just that there would be no parking under that portion of the building. So it would be four stories, not four stories plus parking. That's what the master plan says. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So it steps down from five to four. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, from five to four. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, my point is that if that step was on the corner, just rotate it 90 degrees, and then maybe on the other end do something the same, just to break the roof up. But I do think the standards are going to give the roof a lot of play, so -- anyway. MR. DAVISSON: Again, like I said, I'm not saying that this is the only way we can approach this at this stage of design. And obviously every step forward we take, it's design development, it's making the proj ect better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions? I keep asking that question, but I'll ask it one more time. Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're finished with the public speakers. And Richard, you're done with your discussion? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I just wanted to make -- I think what Commissioner Caron was saying is -- and the concern about how close the five-story portions of the building will actually be to Orange Page 137 August 6, 2009 Blossom, once the 40 feet is provided, I'm hoping that -- you've got to keep in mind that the center portion of that is actually pushed back another 240 feet. There are two portions of the building that yes, are closer, but the vast majority of it is pushed back away from Orange Blossom in that design. And of course we're -- I think the architectural standards are going to make you do some articulation of the buildings anyway for the portions that do front closest to Orange Blossom. Again, I hope what we've done with -- I guess if the flip-flopping will work, like I said, with the sidewalk, we hope that that will address a lot of issues, or address the issues. And we think it's a good project, or else we wouldn't be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that we will close the public hearing and we'll have discussion before a motion. So with that in mind, does anybody want to lead off on a discussion? We're working towards a motion of some type here. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I've listened carefully. I haven't said a lot but I've listened carefully to what everyone says. And I will be in favor of approval with the exception of deviation five, basically following the staff recommendations. I think that even though there is five stories and there is a density complaint, that it's mitigated by just the good design of it and the way that it's tapered and the way -- the overall design, so I'll be in favor of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we move forward with approval, there are some conditions which I think we ought to consider as part of that process. One is the offer to flip-flop the project is probably a good one, because it takes the health center, the service area, the maintenance Page 138 August 6, 2009 facility and all that and moves it over to the opposite side of the site, further away from occupied PUDs that exist. That then allows for a better buffer on the other side. And moving the independent living facilities over there and up against Bridgewater, they would end up with a three-story instead of a five-story building, and they would end up with less activity that a service center and a health center currently would entail. So I think if there's a motion to approve, that ought to be part of it. Secondly, that they have agreed to adhere to the common architectural criteria in our LDC for all elements. I think that's important to be added to any kind of approval. Third, that they have agreed to be a lead silver level building design, and that ought to be added to the process. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're pursuing certification of lead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which -- well, I'm not going to be -- I wouldn't even suggest language like that then, because it means nothing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we're doing our best to get it. I mean, it's a goal. I mean, you may not get there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, that's a process where you obviously design a building, you obviously go through the checklist, you obviously think you are, but you don't know it till the building's built. So as a condition for zoning, that's kind of scary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. They volunteered it. I was only going with their -- I was making notes after what they said. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They can brag about it once they get it, but as a condition it's not a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, once I heard the pursuing language, I already was going to drop it. Because it doesn't -- you can't Page 139 August 6, 2009 put pursuing in it either. They're going to strike the opening paragraph of the PUD. I know Ms. Caron and I had discussion about that. And I think staff acknowledged that it probably wasn't needed, so we're going to take that out. The payment of impact fees have been tied in numerous occasions to the issuance of the final building -- or the -- how did they word it, to the issuance of a building permit? And the applicant said they needed to do that because at the stage of SDP they don't know if they have a viable project but they do know when they go in for a building permit. So why wouldn't we tie it to the application of a building permit? In a case of a two-year construction build-out that provides the impact fees much earlier in the process. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So all those relationships that refer to final building permit be moved to application of building permit. The same with the access easement and the road construction shall commence within 30 days of building permit application, not the issuance of the first building permit. They will move the PUD close-out language that's in the last part of the PUD out of the PUD because it didn't belong in this one, it should belong in one of the other ones. Division number two to expand the -- deviation number two will be accepted -- will be okay, but the sidewalk will be expanded to six feet. And I heard Mr. Midney's discussion about deviation number five where he said he'd like to see that stay in. But if they flip-flop the project, that will be impractical to have that -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You wouldn't need it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- stay in for both sides of the road. So I think that deviation ought to stay in for only one side of the road. Meaning they get a deviation from having it on two sides, but they've Page 140 August 6, 2009 got to have the sidewalk on one side that they volunteered to put in, which was a six-foot sidewalk. Does that seem -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to get all the deviations that we talked about -- I mean, all the discussion that we had. Does anybody else have any more contributing comments to that discussion? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm not in favor of the project. And not because I don't see a need for this type of project. However, I think that this one is totally out of scale with the neighborhood and the surrounding area, and it's out of scale with the road. I believe that the community and the neighborhood had a valid expectation that this area would remain residential. The north, south, east are all -- north, south and east are all developed or proposed to be developed with residential zoning at four units an acre or less. I will continue to dispute that 340 independent units has the same traffic as 116 units of residential housing. And now that we're adding in Lakeside, I don't even know -- obviously that wasn't taken into account in the TIS, so none of that traffic was part of the TIS. I still have a problem with this great wall. It's -- I've seen too many times the lovely and very narrowly focused pictures of what's going to happen, and then when it's on the ground it's a totally different animal. And I can't support the project. I really wish I could have. I think we need them and I'm just sorry that this is so out of scale with what should be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've got my statement to make. Page 141 August 6, 2009 I did supply the issues for the recommendation, if there's a recommendation to approve. And I did that because I expect that there probably will be. However, I will be voting no on a recommendation to approve. Not for the same reasons Ms. Caron is, although I do agree, we badly need such facilities. And I think the facility that they're recommending is excellent. I don't really have a problem with the facility. I just think it's in the wrong place based on its massiveness and its height. If those two things were adhered to, the FAR doesn't bother me as much. But because of that the PUD findings one, four and eight in my mind are not met, and the LDC Sections 10.03.05(1)(2), number one, two, 12, 14 and 15 are not met. So I would be voting no on this proj ect. And with that, I need to know if there's a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion to approve with the recommendations from staff and your recommendations in addition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, those are the stipulations that I read previously? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Exactly. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Midney. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. Page 142 August 6, 2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. So it looks like it's 6-2. Yeah, there's eight of us. Yeah, 6-2, motion carries. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you for your time and patience. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're not done yet. We have two more to discuss. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you think this one was easy, the other two are going to be real difficult. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hope you're kidding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to try to get through one or two of these before we take a break. And Cherie', we'll try to take a break in about 10 or 15 minutes. Item #9C PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, LCS-WESTMINSTER NAPLES, LLC CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next companion petition to this is PUDA-2008-AR-14091, the Oak Grove Planned Unit Development. This particular petition was one of those that needed five acres removed from it. Are there -- I don't think we need a presentation by the applicant or by staff, unless the Planning Commission has specific questions. So why don't we go into any questions the Planning Commission may have about the removal of five acres from that first Oak Grove Page 143 August 6, 2009 PUD. Does anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the question is -- and it's actually to Jeff. Jeff, how does this affect the existing owners in the PUD? More particularly the unit owners. I mean, are they looking forward to these units to help reduce their overhead operation? Or what is their status in this application? MR. KLATZKOW: I guess to be blunt, they don't have a vote. I mean, it's a consideration by the Planning Commission, but we often will -- I'll go back to Pebblebrook. That was originally supposed to be a predominantly residential. We took out a lot of the residential and made it commercial. And, you know, the residents didn't have much of a vote on that. It's not quite the same thing here, but it's similar in that you had a certain expectation when you bought in that it was going to be less. The homeowners fees will go up because of this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. That was my concern. Because the only thing that they would really wish out of this is helping the fees, I think. But they don't have a legal standing, they don't have a legal standing. MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of anybody regarding the Oak Grove Planned Unit Development in the removal of the five acres? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then with that, we'll close the Page 144 August 6, 2009 public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there amotion? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I move that we vote in favor of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Petition PUDA-2008-AR-14090, motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Item #9D PETITION: PUDA-2008-AR-14092, LCS-WESTMINSTER NAPLES, LLC CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's do the same thing with Petition Page 145 August 6, 2009 PUDA-2008-AR-14092. Richard, we don't need a presentation. Staff, we don't need a presentation. Are there any questions of anybody regarding that petition? And this is the removal of five acres from the PUD to the west, which is the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have a quick question. Isn't there a minimum requirement for 10 acres for a PUD? MR. KLATZKOW: I think what you have left over is a dead PUD, when you come right down to it. And I think ultimately when that property owner wants to develop a property, they'll have to come in and rezone it. But that former ten -- or present tense, it's going to be about to be a former -- that the existing PUD is dead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With that already and the fact that this is -- MR. KLA TZKOW: Once you bifurcate it like this, it's dead. It's like cutting a frog in half, it's dead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So both halves are noncompliant. One-half ran away with the other guy. MR. KLATZKOW: There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it depends. Would you cut it longitudinally or horizontally? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think it matters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So in that case, what is the zoning now on that piece of property? Does it revert back to ago or whatever it was? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think they can develop at this point in time. It's almost in limbo. COMMISSIONER CARON: Limbo, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It reverts back to half a frog. Page 146 August 6, 2009 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, it's a sunsetted PUD and we did put express language in the ordinance that would require them to come back for a rezone or a PUD, so they really can't do anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions? MR. SCHMITT: Let me have Ray address this, because again, I heard what the legal -- the County Attorney stated, but the zoning exists. And there are other options. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. The PUD is in fact sunsetted. This zoning action doesn't change the sunsetting status of this PUD. Before they can reactivate the zoning -- it's still in place, but before they can get a development order, they have to come back in and amend that PUD or rezone it to another zoning district. It could be a standard zoning district or they could amend the PUD and qualify for urban infill. That means they'd have to abut development on at least two sides, which I think they do in this case. So they could come in for a PUD less than 10 acres and qualify that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either way, they've got to come back in before they can do anything. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the bottom line. MR. BELLOWS: Bottom line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's what the County Attorney was trying to say. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of anybody at this time? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the -- are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll close the public hearing and Page 147 August 6, 2009 entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward, oh, my God, Petition PUDA-2008-AR-14092, that's enough, with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. We got through those in record time compared to the first one. We'll take a break for 15 minutes, we'll come back here at 20 minutes still 3:00 and try to wrap up. (Recess. ) (Mr. Wolfley is now absent.) Item #9E Page 148 August 6, 2009 PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-12773, GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from break. The next item on the agenda is a review of another PUD. It's PUDZ-2008-AR-12773. It's called the Good Turn Center MPUD. 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 Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I also spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich, and I received e-mail from Ted Beisler, the Naples Lakes manager, in approval of this. They claim in -- they said it was compatible with residential neighborhood and they're in agreement with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I spoke to Richard Yovanovich and Wayne Arnold as well. And whatever we talked about will be talked about here today. Okay , Wayne, it's all yours. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I'm Wayne Arnold and I'm with Grady Minor. And with me today is Ken O'Leary, who represents the property owner; Rich Y ovanovich is the land use lawyer on the project; and Ted Treesh is here to -- has prepared the Traffic Impact Statement for the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're giving Rich a break. He's up all morning and all afternoon, and so you -- MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. He has about a two-hour presentation, and I persuaded him to let me speak instead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You should have persuaded him the first one. Page 149 August 6, 2009 MR. ARNOLD: I asked to go first, trust me. Ray has up on the visualizer the location exhibit. This of course is the Good Turn mixed use planned development. It's about a nine-and-a-half acre project. It is located in activity number seven. You have commercial zoning to the north. You also have Sembler's commercial PUD to the south. One of the things you'll note from our master plan -- let me put it up on the visualizer. Maybe we can pull that down just a little, Ray. One of the things that was one of the discussion points throughout this project is the access to the site. And we have agreed and we'll be sharing access with the Sembler property to the south. We'll be sharing the bridge structure there and interconnecting with them. And you'll note, we're also proposing an interconnect to the north. But we have a bridge access agreement in place. We forwarded the actual recorded agreement to Heidi in the attorney's office. I'm not sure if it was yesterday or the day before, Mr. Strain, and I think you were provided a copy of that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had asked for a copy when we met, yes. MR. ARNOLD: Transportation staffhas seen that, and I guess we can provide a copy for the record, if necessary. But otherwise we have the recorded access easement with Sembler Companies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a recorded document, so -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes. One of the things that I wanted to point out, we are in the activity center. And this project is about nine-and-a-half acres. We've asked for a mix of uses, and this became a mixed use plan development when we asked for the independent and assisted living components of this. And you'll notice that on the master plan we still have an area that's C or CF. And that's set up essentially so that we can have two different districts, but we'll have the opportunity to make this a Page 150 August 6, 2009 commercial project or potentially to have this more of an assisted living project. Keep in mind, it is in close proximity to the new hospital. And we think that there's a certain synergy here related to the Edison College and some of the other things that are happening along this corridor that make it desirable to have the flexibility for those uses. We were originally a -- I think a commercial PUD, and staff and County Attorney's Office felt more appropriate that we were a mixed use project. And I know that Mr. Yovanovich had some of that discussion with you earlier about why we have those designations. But we're fine, we're covered under the mixed use with both commercial and the quasi residential uses of the assisted living. As was mentioned by Ms. Homiak, we had a neighborhood informational meeting a couple of months ago and we sat down with about a half a dozen people that attended that meeting. And most were residents of the Naples Lakes Countryclub. We started dialogue with them and we exchanged our PUD document with them. And they requested that certain uses would be eliminated from that, because they felt that they were potentially incompatible with their community and the direction it was headed. And we ultimately agreed with them. And the list that's in your PUD document and the materials before you reflects the agreed upon list. I know that Mr. Strain, we had a brief discussion and you questioned a couple of those uses, so whenever you want to get to that, I'd be happy to deal with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, last night though I found reason to question a whole bunch more. MR. ARNOLD: Okay, fine. But in this particular instance, I think we have a proposal that makes sense. I'm not going to belabor this with a long presentation. I'll be happy to respond to questions. Page 151 August 6, 2009 Staff has made a recommendation of approval. Again, we believe we've satisfied our most immediate neighbors and I open it up for questions, if you have any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions from the Planning Commission. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In your -- in Exhibit A, in the SIC group, it's under No. 22 and it's 5735, where it says recorded and prerecorded tape stores. Could you add in that, excluding adult oriented? Because it's retail sales of recorded video tapes and discs. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, we have no problem adding that language. We've used similar language on -- I think at King's Lake we also inserted similar language -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, and it's the same one-- MR. SCHMITT: It is redundant. If I could add, though, it is redundant. It's already expressly prohibited. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Expressly prohibited where? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, frankly sexually oriented businesses are prohibited, unless -- I'm going to ask Ray to -- MR. ARNOLD: I can elaborate on that, if you'd like, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The number 37 of the PUD document under permitted uses already specifically excludes adult oriented sales, but it is also prohibited through the Land Development Code. MR. SCHMITT: I mean, we could put it in there, just to make sure it's clarified. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, there's a number of others here -- MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, and I would be happy with that. I think that's consistent with how we've treated the list of uses to put that exclusion, so I think that's an easy add and something that we would Page 152 August 6, 2009 do. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And under the community facility track where you have health services in the 8051, it's in parenthesis. Does that mean that's the only uses that you're going to have -- MR. ARNOLD: Can I get my SIC Code -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- in that number? MR. ARNOLD: -- just to look at that number and just to make sure -- see all the uses? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: 8051 are skilled nursing facilities and it allows extended care. It also has nursing homes, skilled. It has convalescent homes with continuous nursing care. And it also says mental retardation hospitals in the category. There are those four -- yeah, four listed uses under 8051. That's a little bit different in the format that -- in the past we've kind of formatted these alphabetically. And we culled out assisted living, et cetera, et cetera. And then we had a whole host of medical related offices that are also permitted. But when we created this longer list of uses out of going to the four-digit code, that was the one that fit and it's culled out of skilled nurSIng. And I think it was our intent that under skilled nursing we're offering only those that we've specifically mentioned. But it includes assisted living, independent and -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. But could you put including only before assisted, or -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Maybe if we would delete the reference to groups 8051 and just say under health services we would have those skilled nursing facilities in the parenthetical stuff, and then you'd be limited to those uses? Which would be assisted, continuing care and nursing homes. So there wouldn't be any confusion with the reference Page 153 August 6, 2009 to that SIC code. Does that -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That sounds better. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- address your concern? MR. ARNOLD: So you would strike groups. If the County Attorney's okay with that, we'd be happy to do that. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The resolution was you're going to strike the word -- the reference to groups? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And just list those specific uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And then on 11 where it says it's religious organizations, 8661, that's all churches. Does that mean you could have a church there or is it just going to be store front churches? MR. ARNOLD: That could be -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Because it says you're asking for commercial and! or skilled -- MR. ARNOLD: It's listed in our grouping of the commercial uses. And religious organizations or churches and religious organizations. It also lists shrines, temples, convents and monasteries. But the intent there was to allow -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you can have a church or you're just having store front churches? MR. ARNOLD: We could have a church. I mean, you're saying store front. You mean as an in-line tenant -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: -- is that what you mean? I guess it could be either/or in that context. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, I'm done. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Page 154 August 6, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: In the neighborhood information meeting you said there'd be no outdoor activities. Yet under eating and drinking places it says outdoor entertainment on your list here. MR. ARNOLD: I think that -- yeah, I think that my recollection was -- Rich just reminded me, I think it's in the context of outdoor merchandise, some things of that nature. Because I know we've had that discussion about outdoor dining and outdoor entertainment in conjunction with the restaurant use, which is why the reference to the noise ordinance was also there. I don't think we -- I mean, this list has been presented to the most immediate neighbors that had that, so I don't think we -- I don't think it could be implied that we told them at the NIM that we weren't going to have that, I think it was in the context of outdoor sales. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. As long as that's their understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you ought to correct that. Because you presented it to the most immediate neighbors who are living there right now. There's a large project going to the east of this in which would be possibly residential, won't it? I mean, Richard was working on it before the economy went down the tubes. And if they go in there as residential and we have another outdoor entertainment band going on or something like Pebblebrook, how is that going to help us resolve issues at that late date with -- the noise ordinance is virtually useless, so -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that was the -- when we started this I think we were under the impression that that was going to be the language that would give us the protection. If there's some other mechanism -- we've done others where we've excluded -- or placed hours of restriction or things like that. Page 155 August 6, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a better way to word it. There's a better way to word it, just drop the word outdoor. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have in the past eliminated amplified or any music at all. No TVs, no music, blah, blah, blah. But if you want to have some tables outside and it's a nice evening, why would you not want to allow people to have an opportunity to have dinner in Florida in the winter outside? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just worried about Bruce Springsteen or somebody showing up with a guitar and waking up the neighborhood, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I'm saying, if you want to eliminate -- the way we've dealt with that on other occasions -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what's your suggestion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How about you pull out entertainment and just put dining? Outdoor dining is allowed but not outdoor entertainment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's saying he'd like to have piped in music or something like that; is that right? Just not amplified music. MR. ARNOLD: Right. I think amplified is how we've dealt with that in the past. And if we could exclude amplified music -- I mean, there was some other language we've used and I think it would work in this context too. And I assume we're coming back for your consent. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we've used in the past no amplified music and no TV s, televisions, were the two things that took care of it in the past. Does that work, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It works for me. Does it work for you, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You were heading somewhere. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all right, I'll wait for my next. You have -- Page 156 August 6, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a lot. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- tons of questions on the uses, so go for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, did you read the easement that Richard sent me? Or Richard, did you read the easement that you sent me? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you don't know anything about obnoxious uses, do you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I'm always willing to learn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Especially if you wrote it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't write this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The easement is also an agreement. The agreement's between Collier Rattlesnake and Sembler. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The agreement not to object to proposed uses. Sembler hereby agrees that Sembler shall not make any public objection to any proposed legal use of the Collier Rattlesnake property provided, however, that Sembler may object to the proposed use of the Collier Rattlesnake property for any of the obnoxious uses set forth in Exhibit E. And Collier Rattlesnake can object to Sembler's use of any of the obnoxious uses set in Item E. Well, Item E is two pages of obnoxious uses, many of which you have asked for. Now, I'm just wondering why you would sign an agreement with your neighbor agreeing these are obnoxious uses mutually between the both of you and you put them in as uses in your agreement in your PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: These are -- well, it looks to me that Page 157 August 6, 2009 these are issues that they can object to. They don't have to object to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. But why did you -- why was this even created in the first place? What is the point of an obnoxious -- what is the point of creating an agreement listing very specifically language and paying some attorney good money to do it for a bunch of things called obnoxious uses and then include neither party adhere to them and include them in their document? And what I'm concerned about is trying to avoid any trouble downstream, because you may need Sembler further down -- at another time and another date. And if you upset them at this stage, I'm wondering how you might get their cooperation. MR. O'LEARY: Hi. Ken O'Leary. That agreement was the result of a long and arduous negotiation. And this was a requirement that Sembler wanted to have in it. And we felt that, you know, it was just -- as we all know, with all negotiations you give and you don't give in certain areas. And this was the result of that. And we allowed that to stay in. Because it doesn't allow them, it just says that they could if they wanted to. And that's the reason why it's in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why you all came up with those -- or why they did or you agreed to it? I mean, I'm just curious as to what's so obnoxious about some of the issues? MR. O'LEARY: It was not in the -- when our attorney, which was not Rich, it was Patrick, another attorney drew it up. And it came back from them. And we tried to get rid of it. But like I say, you know, in negotiations you win some and you lose some, and those were the ones that just stayed in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because some of their obnoxious were my obnoxious as well. So Richard, I had brought it up to you guys before when we met. I'm not going to go through the objections that they have in their obnoxious uses, because some of those aren't as obnoxious to me as Page 158 August 6, 2009 they may have been to them. And I don't know what reason they put those in there. So I'll bypass those. I certainly agree with the outdoor entertainment clause, as you know. Under Section 28 you have three uses: 5983, 5984 and 5989 that not only are uses I can't see fitting into that area, especially with a hospital not too far away. But they're also parts of the list on listed obnoxious uses anyway. Do you need those three? MR. ARNOLD: After we spoke, I looked at those and I spoke with our client, and he agrees that we can delete those three, which are -- just for the record, I'll read them: Fume oil dealers, liquified petroleum gas, bottle gas dealers and fuel dealers not elsewhere classified. And I think that that again falls under those miscellaneous groupings, and we have no objection to specifically excluding those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: What about continuing down on the list to tobacco stores and stands? If we're trying for an association with a hospital, I'm not sure that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just didn't want the hospital blowing up, that's all. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I understand. MR. ARNOLD: If I might, Mr. Strain, one of the things that I had mentioned when you had requested for us to look more closely at those three that were related to fuel sales, and I thought maybe it's necessary, maybe it's not. But in some event certain stores, whether you end up with a hardware store or potentially gas station, they have the bottle exchanges for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is dealers, though. And I under-- remember we talked about that. And with the word dealers, I can't see -- you'd have to be selling just that, like Grille and Fill down on the East Trail, I would assume. That's -- Page 159 August 6, 2009 MR. ARNOLD: Because I was going to offer the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staffs agreeing as well, so -- MR. ARNOLD: Okay, fine. I just wanted to make sure we address that on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your Exhibit B, the development standards table, you have separate listings for Tract C and then Tract CF. Yet your master plan is all C/CF. So what you're saying is, if you -- for that part of the plan you use the C application, these are what you adhere to. For that part of the plan you used the CF, the other is what you adhere to. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, this one we had covered it originally by having only one development tract with standards. And I think probably it started with the County Attorney's Office questioning that if we're going to have a mixed use project, we really needed probably at least two land use designations specified on our table. So we broke out the CF, because we thought the assisted living type uses would probably, if that developed, would occupy most of the site in that development scenario. So we established different standards. You're probably going to question if they're blended uses. And I'm assuming that if I ended up with some medical office out front, I'm developing under the C tract standards, and then what gets developed as an assisted living or skilled nursing would get developed under the CF standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what counts towards the FAR of.6 that you're asking for here goes towards the standards of the ACLF or CCR. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if it's not under the CF designation, it wouldn't be applicable to the FAR, it would be applicable to the leasable 100,000 square feet. MR. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are you -- you apparently are Page 160 August 6, 2009 leasing out the FAR square footage? MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, CCRC's, they don't lease, I don't believe, do they? Well, look at your table. You have maximum gross leasable area. Then you have 100,000 square feet, and then you have FAR of .06. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think the answer -- if you're asking the question of whatever square footage we build in the CCRC, is that being removed from the calculation of the 100,000 square feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. That was not the intent that that was in addition to. And as we talked about that from a traffic standpoint, if you're going to go down there -- get to that at some point, I'm assuming, Mr. Strain, is that we would agree to a cap -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm going to get there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- of trips based on our traffic study. So when we do the analysis, the traffic analysis will govern the development on the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So no matter what happens, you're not going to exceed the traffic study that was provided, which I believe is a peak p.m. of 626. And before the meeting's over, John will be asked to verify that for us. Wayne, where's your utilities on this site? Where's the utility dep -- where's the water and sewer? Are you going to do septic? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. We're in the Collier County Water and Sewer Service district. We have a water main that's in the Collier Boulevard right-of-way and I believe the force main is at the intersection of Rattlesnake and Collier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how are you going to get them to your site? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think water's there. And the sewer connection is probably -- I believe it's on the other side -- Ken, you Page 161 August 6, 2009 may know -- but I believe the sewer connection's on the other side of Collier Boulevard at the shopping center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So water is already to your site? MR. ARNOLD: It's adjacent to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me on the site plan what adjacent means? Can you point to the adjacency. It's in the canal? MR. ARNOLD: There's a canal, but if you've driven that stretch of highway, you'd see that there are a whole bunch of Collier County public wells that have been constructed. We have water adjacent to our site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the water that you can tap into where your mains are for irrigation or freshwater, whatever is available, is on your side of the canal. And they're right alongside your property line in that regard. MR. ARNOLD: I believe it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's your sewer? MR. ARNOLD: I think the sewer is down at the intersection of Rattlesnake and Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would sewer get to your property? MR. ARNOLD: I think we were going to have to probably either bore under the road or you do a cut. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how are you going to get across the water? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know, I think -- if I'm not mistaken, I recall seeing some of the Sembler site plans that were going through. I think there is water and sewer proposed to go across the bridge structure where we share. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which would be most logical. But your easement that you provided me doesn't provide for you to use that for utilities. It only provides for ingress and egress. So do you know how -- that's why I'm asking, how are yout Page 162 August 6, 2009 going to get sewer to the property? MR. ARNOLD: I think we'll find a way. But I'm not exactly sure whether or not it's going to come through that easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I imagine you could negotiate that with Sembler, if you already don't have a reason to demand it. But should have probably been done. And you may want to be good neighbors, and that's why I brought your uses into play in the first place. There's no sense of making bad neighbors, you might not get everything you need. The TIS is only for the shopping center 820, which is 100,000 square feet. And you've said you'd been willing to cap your uses to the 626 total p.m. peak hour on that. So John, is that acceptable to the transportation department? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning. 626 is acceptable as total trips. But the net new trips, the trips that will actually hit the road after pass-by reductions, internal capture reductions, are limited to 478. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you call that one now? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That would be net new trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 478. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on the mixture of uses combined, can't come up above those two numbers. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, on Exhibit B in your maximum heights and stuff, could you just remove the reference to stories for actual height and just say not to exceed? I don't think stories makes sense on either of them. But if you -- Page 163 August 6, 2009 MR. ARNOLD: I don't have a problem with that at all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think at least take it out of the actual height. Because it has nothing to do with that. We could argue the -- MR. ARNOLD: I'll defer to the Planning Commission members. But if we're going to take it out of actual, we might as well take it out of zoned. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I see no reason to limit it at three stories. The height limits it, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem. Does anybody else on the panel? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so take it out of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the maximum height would be 45 and 55, and 45 and 55 for each. MR. ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, zoned would be 45. Yeah, for each, I know what you mean. Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything before we get staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Wayne. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just before you go on, it would be zoned over parking, right? To include parking, right? MR. ARNOLD: I think it's just going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, just 45 feet. MR. ARNOLD: -- the height. It is the height. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All right. MS. ZONE: Good afternoon. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. As mentioned by the applicant's agent, Wayne Arnold, this is in Page 164 , August 6, 2009 a mixed use activity center subdistrict, activity center number seven, which allows the mixture of commercial with the ALF and!or if wanted to residential. The subject site, we had it up on the visualizer, but just for the record I'd like to say that the subject site is on the east side of Collier Boulevard. And it's about approximately 660 feet north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road. The residents who attended the neighborhood information meeting afterwards had contacted me. They held a meeting with their group and it said that they had reviewed everything, and consistent with Commissioner Homiak, it said that they had supported the uses that were being presented today. If there's any questions that you would like to address, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, this will be your easiest meeting. Thank you. MS. ZONE: I appreciate it, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure -- there's no public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, short rebuttal? I'm sure you probably want to rebut something. You're comfortable? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sitting, I'm happy, I'm in a good place right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After what we put you through today, you deserve it. Anyway, go ahead. Wayne, anything else? MR. ARNOLD: I don't. I'll answer any other questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question. Page 165 August 6, 2009 On the needs analysis that was done for this proposal, it was extremely limited and didn't include lots of available both built and unbuilt space within two miles of this project. Can you tell me why you thought it was appropriate to exclude? MR. ARNOLD: Well, neither Rich nor I prepared this document. And the person who did is no longer on the proj ect team. But at the time we had that discussion, and it's our recollection that because of the size of the parcel and the square footage of the 100,000 square feet we're asking for that we were somewhere in that neighborhood, the community center type shopping center range in terms of how the ULI standards typically are applied. And in that context regional shopping opportunities such as the Super Wal-Marts of the world and Super Targets and K-Marts and larger box stores were excluded from that. That's what Rich and I seemed to remember. I think too, and I touched on it earlier, I think one of the distinguishing factors here is really our proximity to the hospital and the college. Because I think those really do set this up a little bit differently than some other sites. And I think too when you keep in mind the shape of things on the east side of Collier Boulevard, you don't really have many commercial opportunities that are in the ground yet as you travel all the way from Collier/U.S. 41 intersection north all the way to the interstate. Very, very few. COMMISSIONER CARON: But this isn't a project that's going to come out of the ground. This is a spec project. This isn't something that's going to come out of the ground tomorrow. MR. ARNOLD: Well, it isn't one that's coming out of the ground tomorrow, but I think there's a very realistic opportunity that you will see something here before you would see things occurring two miles away, because of the synergy of having the hospital in such close proximity. I think that does distinguish this project from a lot of others Page 166 August 6, 2009 that are in that two-mile radius. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so the record's clear, on this report, on this demand analysis that was provided, I read that, and the more I read, the angrier I got. And I realized this wasn't a bad project. And if the owner decides he wants to build something, that's fine, because he's got to deal with the market conditions and the government. He really doesn't need to be involved in regulating lease rates. So why are we in that program in the first place? But I don't believe that that report offers any basis to help you. In fact, if I had to rely on that report, I'd be asking you questions that may not end up giving you the best outcome. So I'm going to dismiss that report as not applicable from my reading of this and from my voting on this project, as I don't believe it is something we really need to go get into to approve this project. So that's where I am on that. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, no public speakers, so we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion -- oh, let's just go discussion first, I'm sorry. There was a series of stipulations discussed during this brief presentation. One was capping the total trips, p.m. peak hour to 626, and capping the new trips to 478. Under some of the changes that occurred within the document, we would strike all the references to groups under the SCI listings. Under No. 5812, we would exclude outdoor -- we'd take the word outdoor entertainment out -- or it would say outdoor entertainment, excluding amplified music, or some language to that effect that we've used in the past, and that will come back to us on consent. We'll delete items 5983, 5984, and 5989. And the height designations will read maximum zoned height 45s Page 167 August 6, 2009 feet, and maximum actual height of 55 feet. And I think there were some small changes to the SIC section that Karen was talking about. We'll check those on consent. But I believe that's everything. Does anybody have anything that was missed? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, maybe I misunderstood what you said. You made a reference to striking all the groups? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All the word groups. You guys said the word groups to clarify Karen's concern. You're just going to take the word groups out. All the uses stay there. MR. ARNOLD: That was only under the CF tract for the 8051 land use. It wasn't -- the way I heard it, it was for all of them, but I think it was only specific to the 8051. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that right? That's what we understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Does that work for you, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then under 8051, that will apply to that. I was just trying to match what Karen's concern was. Okay, everybody understand everything? Melissa, you squared off on everything we said? MS. ZONE: Yes, I am. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, is there a motion? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not going to make a motion, I'm going to make a comment. Because I probably will stand alone in this. But for me, if there's a motion to approve this, I will vote against it. Because I think we have -- because this is just a speculative rezone. When you consider the millions of square feet of built and unoccupied commercial space available in this county and you add to that the approved but unbuilt commercial, I don't see any need for this. Page 168 August 6, 2009 I think we should be thinking about taking care of what already exists here. I think we're going to run into a problem with blight in this county, and that further speculative zoning is just not to our benefit, to the community's benefit. I'm not saying they can't come up with a good project here, I'm sure they can, if they find a CCRC or they find a bank that wants to go there or a restaurant, whatever, I think that's the appropriate time for proj ects like this to come back. I think we need to see real proj ects and not spec projects, because I think speculation has gotten us into a lot of the problems that we have today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question with regard to that. Is that our role, to really question that, or are we allowed to do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I guess each of us can vote individually why we do or not. I don't follow that line of thinking. But then Ms. Caron, if she has stated her reasons, she has a right to, so she can vote the way she wants. She stated her reasons why she's voting no. And if the applicant wants to challenge that reason in front of the BCC, then it's up to him or her or whatever -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, the reason I made the comment is because what she said made a lot of sense to me. But I was just wondering if that was a legitimate reason, if they meet all the requirements of the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know of a reference in the LDC offhand. Does anybody else, that applies under such criteria? Because if they're zoned in the GMP with the ability to go forward and they're asking for the zoning consistent with the GMP, I don't know what grounds -- MR. SCHMITT: It's an evaluation made through the comprehensive plan. It's in the comprehensive plan, the future land use map noted as such for suitable development. That's when that Page 169 August 6, 2009 criteria is considered. But certainly it's your personal opinion and if you want it so noted, I'll just have to turn to the County Attorney whether that is something that can be legally defended. MR. KLATZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But again, that's what -- we're nine individuals today -- we're less than nine. But normally we are. And we have our own reasons. As long as we state them on the record, I think that's everybody's entitlement, so -- yes, sir? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I probably can't talk Commissioner Caron out of her thoughts on this issue, but I would keep in mind that when you look at the land use pattern as you travel north on Collier Boulevard, you do not have an abundance of commercial opportunities there. And you have this emerging market that's associated with the hospital and the need for many things: Retail, office, medical. And those are options for people. And keep in mind too, what the county does on its road program, access changes. And what were very functional sites one day in time, access changes, markets change, and you have to be able to respond to this. I mean, even this process which has been a fairly straightforward zoning request takes a year or so to react to that market change. And to have to spend a year of uncertainty to do that I don't think is fair to a property owner when they have land that's been designated activity center and does have the prospect for coming forward with a very legitimate development proposal. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. What I'm saying doesn't take away any of his rights as a developer or an owner of this piece of property . And frankly, you probably could have changed my mind if there had been a legitimate market analysis that showed what you're speculating now. And that's all I can consider it is that there isn't Page 170 August 6, 2009 anything -- that there's nothing on that side of the road that can accommodate what you're trying to put on this piece of property. I mean, that there's a dearth of opportunity out there. And again, you know, this is -- you've already got an opinion from the County Attorney that it is not defensible, so not for you to worry . I think we have a problem in this county. I think it's only going to get worse. And we're doing nothing as a community and as a planning organization, as staff, as county commission, to even attempt to address this. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, in one last ditch attempt to have you change your vote, because I really would love to be on the consent agenda, the market -- the free market system will work in this particular case. And if we haven't learned anything in the last year or two about financing, there's not going to be a bank out there who's going to loan money to build on this site unless you have a real viable buyer or real viable tenants. So you're going to -- we're not going to go -- you don't have to worry about our going and building a building and hoping it will come, because we'll never get that financed. So I think that the market system will take care of it and the financing system will take care of that. So there won't be exacerbating problems with more vacant buildings. So, I mean, I think we're -- we need to be in a position, as Wayne said, to respond when someone comes. If the bank comes and says I would like to be there and you've already told me you may not have a problem with a bank, I don't know if I can keep a bank around for a year to get through this process. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the other thing is that what you're really getting down to is a zoning moratorium. And we went through a moratorium. It was publicly vetted, it went to the board, ultimately the board decided not to go that direction. So I'm not sure -- I mean, unless the board wants to reconsider, given current economic Page 171 August 6, 2009 conditions just stopping all rezoning until what we have is built out, I'm not sure where we're going with this. I mean, we can do the same reason for pretty much any rezoning petition that comes here, both residential and commercial, and my answer's always going to be the same, no. And we'll just be moving things from the summary agenda to the regular agenda. That's all this is accomplishing. A recommendation to the board that they consider some sort of moratorium on new projects until we get through the backlog, that's a different issue. But from a policy stand -- your objection is more of a policy reason than a reason under the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that in mind, we need to vote on this. And maybe, Ms. Caron, if you can consider that the ultimate outcome is only to bring this onto the regular agenda, which will just kill more staff time, more BCC time, everybody else, I'm not sure that's the right thing to do. I'm just trying to suggest -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think it's going to demand more staff time, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they'll have to attend for that. And someone's going to have to pay for the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: They have to attend anyway. Somebody always has to be there. It could get pulled by somebody else for some other reason, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was trying to get us in uniform. With that in mind, is there a motion made? Ms. Homiak, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve PUDZ-2008-AR-12773. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are the motion and second maker Page 172 August 6, 2009 accepting the stipulations that were read out earlier? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 7-1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we lost Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where did he go? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He disappeared. Okay, thank you. Item #11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll move into the -- well, there's no old business, so we'll move into new business. And one item that -- the first one up would be the request by Bruce Anderson. MR. SCHMITT: You want to cover first the rescheduling of the meeting? Page 173 August 6, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just get Bruce up here. It will just take a little bit. MR. SCHMITT: Okay, get rid of Bruce first then, okay. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, hi. MR. ANDERSON: Commissioners. My name's Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress Law Firm. And I'm here today to practice preventive law, trying to prevent a problem from occurring. The hometown democracy constitutional amendment gets voted on in November, 2010. Under the current compo plan hearing schedule, the board is scheduled to hold their final adoption hearing on September 23rd. That leaves a time gap of only 40 days under the current hearing schedule before hometown democracy gets voted on. If it is approved it becomes affected immediately and no amendments to a comprehensive plan can be approved unless they -- adopted unless they have first gone through a referendum vote, a countywide vote. And the proponents of hometown democracy have on their website that the votes would only be held in conjunction with general elections. So it would be another two years beyond November, 2010 before these applicants who -- some who filed in 2007 ever got their day in court, so to speak. And what I'm here to ask you today is you all will have a transmittal hearing this fall, and then later in 2010 you will have your own adoption hearing. So you get to look at these amendments twice. And what I am asking you to do today is to give an indication, a vote that if the county commission decided to rearrange their hearing schedule to try to shorten the comprehensive plan amendment hearing schedule, that you would waive holding a consent agenda hearing on the first transmittal portion of the compo plan amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, you're asking for waiving Page 174 August 6, 2009 consent on transmittal or adoption? MR. ANDERSON: Transmittal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we still have consent on adoption then. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that help you? Why wouldn't MR. ANDERSON: Well, right now you're scheduled to hold your transmittal consent agenda hearing on December 3rd. And the board is scheduled to hold their first transmittal hearing January 19th. And if we could, we could move the hearings up so that the board could hold their hearing in November, as early as November, instead of having to wait till January. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is -- just out of curiosity, Mr. Schmitt, if we have our hearing on October 20th, the next regular hearing of the Planning Commission would be the first meeting in November. Why would we have a consent not until December? MR. SCHMITT: Those dates were based on availability of the board room and based around your schedule. I don't have the rest of your planning schedule in front of me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I -- okay. MR. SCHMITT: I understand. But the point is -- and I've already e-mailed each of the planning commissioners, and Ie-mailed Bruce as well. It's somewhat a moot point, because there's only one day in November that the board is available, and there's no days in December. So the intent was for Bruce wanting to move those BCC meetings into November or December and then therefore compress the entire schedule from there forward. It's just not doable. I don't have any dates for the board until the 19th. Now, normally the -- and you asked why the difference. It's Page 175 August 6, 2009 because in most cases you've got a two-day meeting and then we're bringing stuffback in consent. There's nine -- I think there's nine or 10 petitions in this cycle, which are pretty extensive. And we have to go back and clean those up and prepare the ordinances and bring them back for your review. But I don't have the schedule in front of me. And I know we've spent a lot of time putting this schedule together, based on availability of this room and availability around your calendar and the board's calendar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, rather than -- see, first of all, when I started on this task of trying to understand this, I always knew we have a transmittal and an adoption, so we get two bites at the apple. For some reason I thought the consent that you were trying to avoid was the one for adoption, which to me wasn't as critical as the one for transmittal. But let's back up here. Ifwe had our transmittal hearing and your issue was the 19th or the 20th of October and all we had to do was get yours prepared for consent as an assist to your concern by November 5th, which would be our meeting right after that, then we still could have our consent on your one item. And I don't know why we couldn't get comprehensive staff to do over a two-week -- it's almost two weeks to get one item done, instead of the whole transmittal. MR. SCHMITT: But his point here is he wants to move the BCC hearings, the January and February meetings into November and December. That's what Bruce wants to do. And then he wants to move the entire schedule forward from there. It's still a moot point, because even in July, even if I did your meetings in June, the board is not going to meet in July for comprehensive hearings. They have normally one meeting in July, board meeting, and then we do budget workshops in July, and the board doesn't meet in August. So I can't get there from here, regardless. And September -- in Page 176 August 6, 2009 fact the board, I'm not -- I would tell you the board is not going to be happy in September of 20 1 0 when they usually deal with two September meetings, two budget meetings and now two compo planning meetings. September is going to be hellacious for them to begin with. Unless they decide to meet in August of2010. So can we CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, what subject is -- I mean, what are you -- what kind of thing are you bringing in that's so -- that seems to be such a problem that we've got to move the entire schedule in the county to accommodate it? I mean, that's a big task. What is it you're doing, can you tell us? MR. ANDERSON: Well, yeah, I'm trying to avoid my clients getting delayed and everybody else in their projects not being able to go forward until it's voted on two years later. MR. SCHMITT: And I -- we haven't even seen the referendum language yet. I don't even know if it will impact anybody that's gone through transmittal. And I know Bruce says it goes in effect immediately. And I don't even know if that -- we've gotten any final decision on that or if it goes in the first of the year. MR. ANDERSON: I've got the language. The last sentence says this amendment shall become effective immediately upon approval by the electors of Florida. MR. SCHMITT: I think one would argue, if you're already in the process, you've already gone through transmittal, and we would go back to DCA and basically ask, well, how does that impact a petition that's already gone through transmittal and now is ready to go through adoption? And as Bruce noted, the last meeting for the board is September 23rd. And yes, it's four to five weeks prior to the vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, his biggest hurdle is going to be to get the board to move, right? Page 1 77 August 6, 2009 MR. SCHMITT: Right. MR. ANDERSON: And I'm just asking-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if the board moves, can you just come back and we'll figure out a way to get -- accommodate their new date if they decide to move? MR. SCHMITT: If the board directs to move the meetings, we'll look at the schedule and tell the board. Then you're going to -- if you're going to move these dates, here's what you're impacted by. Now, I have the December calendar in front of me for December, 2009. I don't have all the way out to 2010. But I can tell you, September -- August the board doesn't meet. And September are the two budget hearings, and two BCC hearings. Normally the first BCC hearing is a two-day hearing. So I don't -- and I do not think we'll be able to get the board scheduled for July hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, what -- Bruce isn't asking for us to waive consent for just his client. Now he's -- from what you said, you want all the transmittals to be waived for consent. MR. ANDERSON: Well, yeah. They have to all be transmitted together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that. But if we could get one read early just to -- now you're asking for the whole transmittal to be read. You know, if the BCC wants to go along with it, we'll have to figure out a way to accommodate it. But I -- what do you think, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think if you do it for Bruce, you have to do it for every other applicant. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: Well, let me throw this up, because it also impacts the next on that schedule. We're talking the Immokalee Area Master Plan which would have to be moved, which is another hearing. Because we don't bring those back to the board for adoption until in January, which again is a compo plan amendment. Page 178 August 6, 2009 And I'm dealing -- I've got two cycles going pretty much simultaneously. I've got the nine or 10 petitions, I've got the Immokalee Master Plan following that, and then I have the RLSA GMP amendments that are going to be following that. And if everybody wants to beat hometown democracy, I'd best better tell the board next summer we'll be meeting June, July and August. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what we might do? If this is such a concern, why don't you bring the subject up to the board, not as telling them to change their schedule, but finding out from them if they want all the schedules in the county changed on the concern over this, if it's a big enough concern to the five of them. Then if they do, then we're all going to have to rework everything. And staffs going to have to come back with proposals to everybody all over again. So the whole thing's going to change. So I don't know if we should be the right party to start that ball rolling, because it isn't going to be our call in the end. I don't -- if the BCC says we've got to hear stuff, we've got to hear stuff. And Bruce, I don't know what else to say. Anybody else got any ideas? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, my idea is, I mean, this is all predicated on the voters approving something and expressing their will that something be done. And so why should we be ahead of time saying that well, we're not going to like what the voters may do so we're going to try to get around it. I would just say leave things the way they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing I can tell you is we've got to follow the BCC direction, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, that too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's what I was going to say. Bruce, you're starting at the bottom working up. Start with the Page 1 79 August 6, 2009 commissioners, and if they tell us to have meetings, we'll have the meetings. MR. ANDERSON: I was requested to bring it to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you were? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. And we're requesting you bring it to the commission. MR. SCHMITT: I could tell you basically if the board directs for me to compress the schedule, your schedule will be adjusted. I mean, I back plan from when I can get them to meet. And the difficult part here is I've got -- certainly Bruce is interested in the private petitions. But the impact to the county is also the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the RLSA amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, does-- MR. SCHMITT: And in fact the EAR-based amendments. If you want to go down -- even 2011 we go into another EAR, evaluation and appraisal report, which then we have follow-on amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: One key difference, please. All the private applicants paid a fee to have their applications reviewed and acted on. None of these others did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, the people telling you to take it to us first, was it staff or was it the Board of County Commissioners? MR. ANDERSON: It was you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it was me. Thank you. I don't remember you asking the question. Okay, well, that's good. MR. SCHMITT: Bruce's original request was to move the consent agenda item, which would allow for everything else to move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, then yeah, if you asked me that, I would have told you to come here first. Because the BCC usually doesn't involve themselves with our consent agenda item. Page 180 August 6, 2009 Okay, I'm a little -- yeah, this is more involved than I think we probably spoke about. I don't know what to say. Does anybody else? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it is up to the Board of County Commission to see if we should hustle and try to beat, as Paul says, the will of the people. I mean, I'm not sure this is a good thing to even be doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Has there been, Mr. Klatzkow, any discussion about -- in the legal community about what will happen if the language says it's adopted immediately? What happens to things in the pipeline, do they just all die? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I mean, you know, the development community has a doom and gloom attitude towards this, that the whole State of Florida is going to go toes up because of it. I don't know if that's going to happen or not. But it's been a very negative reaction among the legal community. Mostly because, well, we make money at this, when you come right down to it, to be blunt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, this is -- I'm starting to try to remember what we talked about. And this is the issue where you were going to go to the commission and ask them if we could move up our consent agenda. And I suggested no, you come back and ask us if we can move up our consent agenda, that would be simpler. Okay, now I understand. But what I'm seeing in this presentation that Joe had here with the yellow highlights a few minutes ago, it's gone right now, that document, you're moving up not only us, but you're going to have to move up the BCC and everybody -- and all those particular meetings they have as well; is that right? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, that was the whole point of you all not having your consent agenda hearing on transmittal, that that would enable it to get to the board two months earlier, none otherwise Page 181 August 6, 2009 provided for in this schedule. MR. SCHMITT: And I will again tell the board, they have one day available. What did I say, one day in November and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if the board-- MR. SCHMITT: I think we found one day in November and no days in December for the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the board decides that they're going to want to move forward with this to do the avoidance that some people are concerned about, we've got nothing -- we can only follow what their direction is, Bruce. But -- and I think it is good you came to us first for the discussion. And that was what my intent was, so thank you. I completely forgot this was the same discussion on the same issue. It's bigger than what I had thought. This is -- I can't move the BCC agenda, only they can. MR. ANDERSON: No, right, right. MR. SCHMITT: And if the board directs they don't want to do it in September, they're not going to meet in August, or in July, they're going to have to agree to meet in July on dates that they normally do not meet in the summer. And that's -- we will just have to have direction from the board, and I will then back plan from there. MR. ANDERSON: How can I accurately and fairly represent what your feelings are to the board? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as I'm concerned, we serve at the will of the board, and whatever they direct to do, we'll do. That's my thoughts. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're the elected officials. They're the ones that should make the decision what's in the best interest of the voters in this county in regards to a political issue, which is what this Page 182 August 6, 2009 IS. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bruce. Appreciate you coming to us first, thank you. Even though I forgot all about it. Old age is really tough sometimes. Before we go to -- before we go to the mobility plan, the dates that you were asking me about earlier, Joe, this is for the floodplain management discussion that's going to be postponed from next-- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Wednesday. We'll have to make a motion to move that to whatever date, because we made a motion to move it to that date in the first place. So the dates were August 25th, which is probably a good date, because it's between our Planning Commission meetings. The other date was September 9th, and that is again between our Planning Commission meetings. And then the next three dates are all close to a planning -- well, no, they're again -- yeah, they're all between Planning Commission meetings. So we have the dates August 25th, September 9th, or September 21st, 22nd, or 25th. It would be 8:30 in the morning in this room. Probably be a lengthy meeting. What's the pleasure of the board? Let's start with the -- MR. SCHMITT: Let me -- I've got 21 September, but I note 21 September you're already booked for AUIR. So I have to question that date so -- I show you for A UIR on the 21 st. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I got that too. MR. SCHMITT: 21st and the 23rd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that week's out. So let's look at the 9th of September or August 25th. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't code enforcement on the 25th? MR. SCHMITT: 24th is the CEB. Page 183 August 6, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Code enforcement? MR. SCHMITT: 25th would be a Friday. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: August or -- MR. SCHMITT: September. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's-- MR. SCHMITT: August 25th is a Tuesday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, August 25th or September 9th. Those are the two dates right now. Does anybody have a preference? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: August 25th. COMMISSIONER CARON: August. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine with me. Anybody else? MR. SCHMITT: September 7th is Labor Day, if you're thinking about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's August 25th, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: -- fun in the sun. August 25th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's put it down as the 25th. So the 12th -- we'll need a motion to continue -- yeah, to further continue the meeting on August 12th to 8:30 in the morning on August 25th in this room. MR. KLATZKOW: And this will be all day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It'd be an all day most likely, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved by me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Schiffer. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. Page 184 August 6, 2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Okay, next item on the plan was your discussion, Brad, of the mobility plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I just was watching the commission meeting where Nick brought up the fact that they're going to be doing that study and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you read it in my column. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it looked interesting to me. Oh, and I must have read it in Mark's column. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I just wondered what involvement they have. I know that it ultimately comes back to us, but the concept of starting to study land use in terms of utility or in this case vehicle miles I think is a great idea, an excellent idea. So just -- Joe, just bring us up to speed. Are we involved in that? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. That will be in -- it's the master mobility plan and it will be an element of the evaluation and appraisal report. We will be coming to you to talk about the concept of the forthcoming or upcoming EAR, and that will be one element that we'll be addressing as far as mobility master plan and certainly addressing issues with development in eastern Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It says it does establish land use and stuff like that. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is this going to be done in a public forum? Is this a staff -- Page 185 August 6, 2009 MR. SCHMITT: Well, the EAR process is a public process, both public participation and it goes through all the vetting through the various public hearings, through the Planning Commission and the board. Then it has subsequent and follow-on GMP amendments, if they're so approved by the board and so directed by the board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is planning staff involved in this process too? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Mike DeRuntz, and -- I'm sorry, Mike DeRuntz. Poor Mike. I was just thinking about him because we need him back. Mike Bosi is -- will be working on that, along with the -- as we finalize the -- VanBuskirk's project. What am I thinking of? The -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: His data base? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Anyways, I just lost it, the name of the proj ect. But yes, it will be Mike Bosi working with Nick primarily on this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess if you could, just make us aware of meetings that they're having, public meetings -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- where we would be able to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Better yet, when Nick gets this plan together, could he just come and give us a quick briefing? MR. SCHMITT: I think Nick needs to come and, yeah, give you a concept brief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I know he doesn't like to come here anymore, but maybe we could drag him in. MR. SCHMITT: Well, we'll just drag him here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. Thanks. COMMISSIONER CARON: I do feel shunted by him. Page 186 August 6, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Today -- he was supposed to be here this morning and he called on the way and said he's not going to come. He said he was embarrassed all the questions we were going to ask him, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: More important people on hold, huh? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, you wanted to discuss the resolution format? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. Over the past month the issue came up between County Attorney's Office and zoning staff on whether to place resolutions of denial before the CCPC. And as a result of that, the zoning staff and the County Attorney's Office reevaluated the process. And after speaking with the chairman, we are proposing that for all matters where you make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, that we place a draft resolution on your consent agenda rather than placing it on your regular agenda. So you'll see it for the first time on your consent agenda. However, all the backup will be provided in the regular presentation, all the exhibits that would go with that. The other proposed change is on -- and this was recommended by the zoning staff, is to eliminate your executing the findings of fact for conditional uses and a few other items where you have paperwork that you have to process. And in lieu of that, staff is going to provide a report as to the findings that you made during your meetings. So those are two we perceive as big changes, and we are presenting it to you for your consideration and hopefully approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To sum up, the resolutions that you normally put in our package, because they basically are resolutions based for approval. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That which can certainly taint in its Page 187 August 6, 2009 opinion of maybe some people of the outcome of the meeting. Instead we're going to have a resolution produced based on the outcome of the meeting by the consent agenda be part of the consent process. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's number one. And the findings of fact sheets that we fill out and sign our names to that are rather vague and leave us no opportunity to utilize in a manner that we can be more descriptive, we're going to use a findings report by staff in lieu of that based on the actions that we take at our meeting; is that -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they'll both be presented at consent agendas for our confirmation that they do reflect the meeting. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The findings of fact? MR. BELLOWS: No, the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do we know then if staff -- MR. BELLOWS: -- conditional use findings are going to be similar to the rezone findings, the way you normally do. If you have a problem with one of the findings as noted in the staff report that you receive, you put it on the record and we carry that forward in the executive summary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that work for everybody? Anybody have -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- any concerns? It's more cleanup for the system, and that's great. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I think you got the consensus that you need. With that, that's the last thing we have, except there's no public for comment. And so we're looking for a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. Page 188 ""..._,_.....,~-'"".."._"""'--~.-,.. ~. . -....-......,,-,,---. ,-, August 6, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by Mr. Midney. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, we're out of here. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:47 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 189